User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/42: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:31, 29 January 2010

Click here to leave me a new message. If you start a new thread here, I'll reply here. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with ~~~~ If this page is currently protected due to excessive nonsense, please post here

Archives

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Tip of the moment...

Centralizing project discussion

When a project includes multiple operational pages, it is generally best to redirect their discussion pages to the main discussion page for the project. That way, participants remain aware of what is going on with the project without having to search out every nook and cranny where discussions may be taking place.

The exception to this strategy is when a task is delegated that would generate a great deal of discussion, and centralizing it with the project's other discussions would create a discussion page of unmanageable size.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

thanks

ok, thank you--Fine-estate7 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help again

I removed the false infomration after calling the Wikipedia office, and thank you for your help also, but some other user by the name of Delicious carbuncle placed it back[[1]], and I removed it again. The other user even threatened me on wikipedia.

As you or anyone else can see the information is not only false, not about Marilyn Monroe, but only an attack on me and others. Please help...--Fine-estate7 (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your block review comment on User:The cows want their milk back

"Initially, I felt the allegation of sockpuppetry to be thin, but deeper investigation shows it more than likely that it has been substantiated, as shown by the comments of multiple other editors."

Can you elaborate on this comment, as I made the initial charge of sockpuppetry? What you saw as thin, I saw as quacking. In fact I de-requested a checkuser due to what I saw as a no-brainer socking case. Also, what comments from other users substantiated the case in your mind? The only thing I saw on his talk page that substantiated the case IMO was the editor's claim he knew the other alleged sock had a different IP. If my judgment is really that bad, please tell enlighten me. Auntie E. (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not blaming you, but one editor stopping editing a certain set of articles and another starting up is suspicious, but not necessarily conclusive. However, all that followed seemed to confirm that initial suspicion, and I concluded that it was a WP:DUCK situation. A checkuser might have been more informative, but I'm happy with the outcome. Rodhull andemu 21:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that was all I went on, yah, I agree, that would be thin. Maybe it wasn't clear, but my evidence was actually the fact that the old user came back from a month break only after the new user was blocked with the first edit being to AN/I to complain about the block of the newbie. That was the tipoff. I don't see a reasonable reason why FootballPhil would come out of inaction and make their very first post in wikispace defending someone they have no record of interacting with here. Quack, thy name is duck. Not sure what you mean by "all that followed." Auntie E. (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that bit about the old user complaining, hence, a perfectly valid WP:PLAXICO. "All that followed" were the various protestations and refactoring of talk page comments. I am even more certain that User should stay blocked. Rodhull andemu 22:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's cool. I figured as much. Now, could I request you to block the sockpuppeteer or should I just wait for the process at SPI? Auntie E. (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Taken care of by muZemike Auntie E. (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Kristen's Wikipedia's picture.

That would be awesome if you or someone could change the old picture to new picture of Kristen. Thanks. Mmsnapplez (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmsnapplez (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. Please see comments at File:Sundance Festival 2010.jpg. Rodhull andemu 01:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found this on Bono

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bono-Name-Love-Mick-Wall/dp/0233001778 Gives the Rotunda which makes sense as it is a maternity hospital whereas Glasnevin is a suburb and as such made no sense. 12:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.110.186 (talk)

Hope this has helped in ending confusion. I would not make the change myself as I believe it would have violating no original research --86.43.110.186 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other note. It seems you need two -- before the four tildes to sign. Hence why sinebot had to sign first post. If this is so could you tell the change to others? --86.43.110.186 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source seems reliable enough, and I'll put it in using {{cite book}}. As for the sig, ~~~~ should be enough to insert one. Rodhull andemu 17:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to an orignal wikipedia problem edit wars. Wall calls Glasnevin Ballymun in his book. Christy Dignam of Aslan took a music journalist out to the house that Bono grew up in and it is definetly in Glasnevin. T'Internet might provide a reliable source of this. There was a link once at the end of the article which took you to google maps and you could see this so it might be in the wikipedia history 86.43.110.186 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Looking at Cedarwood Road in Google Earth suggests that it is closer to Finglas than anywhere, and not really close to Glasnevin. It's probably easier just to omit a suburb, use the road, and insert a {{coords}} to pin it down- readers can the make up their own minds. Is that OK? Rodhull andemu 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another wikipedian has solved this problem by using the Mick Wall and another book as references. 86.43.110.186 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Hislop's status

Hi, Rodhullandemu

Just read your message regarding Ian Hislop. I understand about your comment made on the edition; however, during his 20 years on Have I Got News for You, I'd say that he has worked on the show as a comedian as well as a satirist as he frequently makes funny comments on the show. Just want clarification as to why you have made the comment.

KAWyton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.29.24 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead of an article, we set out the principal reasons why the subject is notable. In Hislop's case, making funny comments is something he does more as a satirist than as a comedian (in the sense, for example, that Lenny Henry is a comedian but not a satirist). I don't see anyone else describing him as such, which would be helpful. That's why I think it's an inappropriate description, but you are welcome to solicit further opinion on the Talk page. Rodhull andemu 23:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For taking care of this bit of blanking. I'm guessing it's a waste of time attempting to determine that user's motivation. Can't say I'm not curious, though. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunt

Cunt, you reverted my edit. Is urban dictionary a good enough source to say that men are often called dicks? (more in some cultures than others) Or can arsehole be used? Just seems bias to not compare the word cunt, and those quotes, to other words. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urban dictionary, like ourselves, is self-contributed and for that reason, we don't regard it as a reliable source since anyone could (I'm not saying they do) make up any old nonsense. As for making comparisons, that is out of our remit, and we would again require a reliable source to do it for us. Rodhull andemu 15:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Could you have a look at User talk:86.9.20.203 recent edits and comments on his talk page. I do not feel further input from me at this time is appropriate. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look. I'm not sure non-charting singles are worth mentioning in any case, but he has had a last warning, so can be blocked if he changes it again. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 15:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gone for 31 hours. Let's hope that will concentrate his mind on the need for sources. Rodhull andemu 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing/need for assistance

This editor[2] continues to changed "Entente victory" to Serb-xxxx- victory[3][4]. This article's[5] result portion of the template was discussed and agreed upon by Gligan and myself. Serbia123 was invited twice[6][7] to discussion which was ignored. Serbia123 has a history of changing edits to Serb this or that(including edit-warring), blantantly ignoring the factual evidence concerning these battles. Can you help? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can do is to direct him to the Talk page, on pain of blocking, since locking the article does not currently seem to be an option. I've watchlisted the article. Rodhull andemu 21:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in the UK

Your thoughts, if you can spare the time. We have the problem of scope, in that history of the legal system, laws, or punishments might be better covered in articles under those main ideas. Saying that, obviously the scope of the article wasn't sufficient to justify its existence then, but I hope it is now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unsure what this article is trying to achieve; scope is the major issue. Criminal law in Great Britain might be a plausible topic, but it would have to rely strongly upon common law, and would have to deal with feudal law, Roman law, and myriad other topics to present a coherent picture to the reader. As it is, I don't think a recent snapshot of crimstats adequately reflects the title, because crimstats are a very recent addition (less than 100 years, IIRC). If this article was Criminal statistics in the United Kingdom, it really should be a description of how crimes have been recorded since their inception, including a reference to the British Crime Survey, and also various criticisms of the reporting and analytical methods used. A recitation of the statistics of recorded crimes over the years maybe belongs somewhere, with appropriate commentary, but I'm currently short of ideas as to how this could be achieved. Suffice it to say that sorting all this out to produce an intellectually valid collection of interrelated articles is currently something I am neither willing nor physically able to contend with. Sorry about that, but maybe I'll take a look at it later. Meanwhile, more specific points, I could help with. Rodhull andemu 02:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I might move the statistics and BCS summary sections to Crime statistics in the United Kingdom, and augment with collection details, for example, on the basis that there's no deadline. A summary could then be on the Crime... page, and we'll look forward from that as to scope. (Only one other significant, and not completely statistical article exists for another country, Crime in Russia.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work, because there is plenty of critical literature in criminology on the adequacy or otherwise of the crimstats. It would leave the current article a bit thin, but it could be stubbified, and it occurs to me that this article would be strongly linked to a History of criminal law in the United Kingdom. I'm not really up to dealing with large projects at present, but I'll dig out my books in preparation! Rodhull andemu 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error

Sorry for doing this, what happens is that I thought I was on wikipedia in Spanish (I am translating from this wiki). Forgiveness and greetings. --Beat 768 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rodhull andemu 02:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?

Sorry to bother you again, but this guy wrote more lies about me and they blocked my other user ID because I tried to defend myself and claim I am sombody else. I have done nothing wrong, and this is getting out of hand. If you can't help here, I will be forced to hire a lawyer because of this guy. Thank you

Here is the fake user again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aslpt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheared58783 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI and FWIW, see Sockpuppet investigation, 2009-01-21. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Murray

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Andy Murray, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. King of Mercia (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silly, considering that this is almost entirely what you do. Please read WP:DTTR and make sure your next edit is not your last here. Rodhull andemu 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the semiblock on Andy Murray. Highly necessary and much appreciated! Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For protecting my talk page while I was busy Educating the Youth. One vandalism edit is funny; that many is just irritating. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I know you've a particularly strong constitution, but I am just not going to accept crap like that here. Rodhull andemu 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RV/V issue on Leonardo DiCaprio

I'm trying to revert all the vandalism and removed content on this article by the various IP editors, back to the last good version of 12:50, 27 January 2010 EST by Nymf. I think I keep getting edit conflicts, as none of my four tries to restore the old version have worked. Please take a crack at it. Thanks, --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to go out, but locked it before doing so. I'll now look at some blocks... Rodhull andemu 18:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping, duplicated redirects

Hi, I saw you were online and was looking for an admin who would sort a little duplication out for me, on this page AFD at the top it looks like there have been 5 previous but two are duplicates, could you get rid of the duplicated two for me, I was going to nominate them for speedy then I though I might make the wheels drop off, thanks. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sexuality_of_Robert_Baden-Powell Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fixed now, I just went to Betacommand's tool & refreshed it. Shouldn't recur. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 21:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that, Avraham had a look too, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Lee (entertainer)

Hi Rodhullandemu - from its history, this article seems to be on your watchlist. It still seems to be rife with unsourced remarks; I've reverted the most recent (others remain, I think) and sent the editor BNP2 a note - his first. Previous similar contributions seem to have a strong anti-gay theme. Not too sure what to do here; I've my own watchlist but not a long one and lack experience in the more complex vandal-related issues. The username might be ominous. I thought you might wish to take a look? Regards Haploidavey (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's gone, more on the BLP violations than the name, but even so, I doubt many people are actually that stupid. Rodhull andemu 02:16, 29

January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I doubt he'll off to build a better world. Haploidavey (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain Yourself

Could you tell me why you reverted this edit on Liam Ridgewell? It isn't personal opinion, it isn't even popular consensus; it's a FACT. You clearly know sod all about football so instead of stomping all over my edits with your size 12 jackboots, keep your pecker out of topics you aren't familiar with. King of Mercia (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read about neutrality, and in relation to "superlative", this. Rodhull andemu 15:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Murray again

I'd be grateful if you could take a look at the Andy Murray page. With all the interest in the Tennis GS final, editing on the page has gone ballistic in the past few days with vandalism, reverts, different claims as to birthplace, nationality etc. now happening all the time. My own view is that it might require some degree of protection just for the short term. Thanks, as always. David T Tokyo (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected until after the Final. Rodhull andemu 15:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David T Tokyo (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism on David Carradine article

Hi, the person who has been vandalizing the the David Carradine and the "Airbender' articles has changed user names and continues to hamper the Carradine article. This person clearly has an agenda. I reworded a sentence that this person obviously objected to as written, and he/she continues to edit it. I'm trying to get the article upgraded and this person seems determined to, at least, make the wording ridiculous. If it is within your ability, can you take some action against this person, or lock down the article? Thanks--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look at it. Rodhull andemu 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my edits were not vandalism.

Block of Tavin623

Should the block not be indefinite for a vandal-only account? Please excuse me if I haven been mistaken. Connormah (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 168: / Line 168: @@
 Hi, the person who has been vandalizing the the David Carradine and the "Airbender' articles has changed user names and continues to hamper the Carradine article.  This person clearly has an agenda.  I reworded a sentence that this person obviously objected to as written, and he/she continues to edit it.  I'm trying to get the article upgraded and this person seems determined to, at least, make the wording ridiculous. If it is within your ability, can you take some action against this person, or lock down the article? Thanks--[[User:Dorothybrousseau|DorothyBrousseau]] ([[User talk:Dorothybrousseau|talk]]) 23:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 :Will take a look at it. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
+Hi, my edits were not vandalism.
 == Block of Tavin623 ==