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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 22:09, 4 June 2022

User adding nationalistic statements against npov[edit]

Please watch User:DJ Sturm. His contributions are nothing but nationalistic and against npov. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Have luck at watching me. DJ Sturm (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem needing admin intervention here, it's a straightforward dispute about sourcing, which should be on the article's Talk page to enable other editors to contribute. There's always WP:RSN for external input as to reliability of sources. Please also bear in mind WP:BURDEN- he who seeks to use a source must justify it. Rodhull andemu 22:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File deletion[edit]

Hello Rod:

You marked my file "speedy deletion" I think. The file is:

Rvancoppacmotor12910.tif

I am the Manager of the company for this product and have legal rights to this picture in full as a representative of the company.

That said I am new at this and I fear that I am not doing something correct. I am so sorry for the problem I have caused and hope that you could possibly guide and help me a little with the issue

Thank you in advance.

Ruedi Van Coppenolle

Demag Cranes & Components Corp. Cleveland Ohio, 44129 <!- redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvancopp (talk • contribs) 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to explicitly release a copyright-free version of this image; instructions on how to contact us are here. If you make it clear that the image version has been deleted, you do not need to send us a new copy, and the file will be undeleted on receipt of your email. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 16:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

black and white fine foods[edit]

I dont understand why you deleted black and white fine foods — Preceding unsigned comment added by James403 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are my reasons somehow unclear? Please feel free to point out how. Rodhull andemu 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Ponssard[edit]

You surprise me. I thought the article asserted importance very clearly. Of course, it didn't do so credibly (there was no sourcing), and arguably the importance was inadequate for Wikipedia, which of course has other priorities. Still, the claimed importance was sufficient for DGG to remove a PROD warning rather earlier. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the removed PROD, and saw the article as it was now. Since earlier this year (June?), BLPs require at least a modicum of sourced notability, since an assertion is no longer enough. Accordingly, notability now requires credible sourcing. However, since the original article fell under the old rules, and should not have been CSD'd under the new provisions, I will restore it. Others may still PROD or AfD it but it's clear that speedy doesn't apply. Thanks for pointing that out. Rodhull andemu 01:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. And enough of the mealy-mouthing on this: I think that you and I can both agree that it's a crappy article! -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, can you please undelete the talk page too, and you can't PROD it a second time, you can only AfD it... although I think you could CSD it... but A7 of course needs no claimed notability, which isn't a high bar to pass, and is completely unrelated to WP:BLPPROD or referencing. As for the unreferenced BLPs, we are getting around to it.The-Pope (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From yesterday- fees voting in MPs pages[edit]

Hi, I answered last night, but don't know whether you get notified about answers to that talk page, and I nearly lost it, so thought I'd copy the thread onto here:

Hi, the addition I made read "Duncan Hames recently voted in favour of increasing student tuition fees, breaking a Lib Dem manifesto pledge, and angering many.[1]" Could you please be more specific about any additional citations you feel this needs?86.174.130.197 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The source you cited did not mention either the manifesto pledge or "angering many", which I think would probably be incapable of proof. Meanwhile, I've reverted all your edits. In addition, "recently" is insufficiently precise for an encyclopedia as it dates too quickly and any case, your edits, targeting only LibDem MPS, would appear to demonstrate a lack of the neutrality essential here. Please review our major policies before making similar edits. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your advice, you make some good points. The manifesto pledge is easily cited using this [2], and I agree this needs to be included. I agree "recently" is imprecise, and I could instead state the date on which the vote took place, as backed up by the original reference. The 'angering many' is hard to refute given the huge public response and displays of anger. But I agree it is difficult to find specific references for this, and that simple news reports on the protests and petitions would not really be specific enough to the MP concerned. Therefore, I will accept this bit be removed, and only the voting record given until specific sources for this can be found. I am not trying to be partisan in any way, but merely following the recent events of yesterday's vote. My plan was to include this useful information not just in pages of the LibDems who voted for tuition fee rises, but in the pages of all the relevant and involved MPs. I was working my way down the list provided in the original citation. This includes 28 LibDems who voted for the tuition fee changes (which is what you saw me changing) but I was then going to do a similar short sentence for the 21 who voted against, and then also for the 6 Conservative MPs who rebelled and voted against. This is not representing my own views at all, but these are the only MPs whose votes were of interest (either by going against the original manifesto, or going against the majority of their party). Please let me know your thoughts, so we can resolve this.81.151.200.14 (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, got a bit sidetracked while thinking about this. I don't think you can cite the pledge and then the vote using different sources, because that would be synthesis of those sources to reach a conclusion, which we are not permitted to do. What would be acceptable is a single source for each MP that does this for us, and I'm sure some UK paper will have done that work for you by compiling a list. Other editors may well consider, however, that mentioning one vote in an MP's long career may well be giving it undue weight, and disagree with your edits. I have no current view on that. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 15:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC (and the guardian, but it's just an identical list) is the only decent citation I have managed to find which lists the ways each relevant MP voted and comes from an impartial source (sites like LibDemvoice do the same, but add nothing to the BBC list, and do not include the conservative rebels.) ie, there is no site I can find which both lists the MPs votes and restates the pledge. However, I must say, having read the page on synthesis, I disagree that my sentence, with the two seperate citations, amounts to synthesis at all. In fact it parallels exactly the one example given which is deemed OK. I do not form a conclusion C from the two seperately cited statements, therefore there is no synthesis. eg. "MP x voted against the government's proposals (*cite BBC). This was in keeping with the LibDem pledge made in the 2010 manifesto (*cite manifesto)." There is no conclusion to be drawn from this whatsoever, in fact there is little more that could possibly be said (if you disagree, please let me know what conclusion you think these statements in combination are implying).

The undue weight consideration is one which is difficult to argue on both sides on little other than personal opinion, and I am grateful you are not pushing into that argument, which is bound to end eventually in a moot point. Just to put forward why I thought this particular vote was of importance enough to devote a short sentence to it:- it has been the first major vote to split the coalition (and in particular the LibDems) to such a strong degree, and to cause such uncertainty about the ways each individual MP would vote (with each LibDem being forced either to rebel against the government, or go against their manifesto pledge: both very noteworthy actions). Cheers86.145.170.169 (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, any responses to my answer? I wouldn't want to annoy people by going ahead and adding the sentence back in while it was still under discussion, but would like to get a decision... cheers109.152.88.14 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that if there are no objections, you can be bold and add it, with proper sourcing. Rodhull andemu 20:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removal of my contributions[edit]

I was just wondering why you keep on removing my contributions to 'Birkenhead' 'Notable people'? (Jamessmithe (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Notable people are generally those who already have articles here, or are likely to qualify. If they don't already have one, a source is usually required to indicate why they may be notable. In the case of your additions, there was no such indication, bearing in mind also that "notable" doesn't mean "notable only in Birkenhead". Rodhull andemu 15:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to raise the drawbridge[edit]

I'm assuming you haven't semi-protected your page yet because you want to be open to all inquiries etc., but I doubt anyone would have an issue given the crap being posted lately. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 00:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but intelligence I've received outside of Wikipedia tells me that this is a very small group of idiots, most of whom are now blocked for lengthy periods, and they are unlikely to attract much additional support. If it happens, I will batten down the hatches and they can talk to themselves. But thanks for the concern; I had about four months of that about a year ago, and although it was irritating, it didn't stop me. Also, a belated thanks for your recent email of support; sorry for not replying, but there were just too many to manage. I appreciate the support I do get here, but being an Admin is not designed to make one any friends. Thanks again. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 00:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on the no-reply, the message was genuine and required no response. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I have to say that your message, and a couple of others, gave more to me than many others, and perhaps tipped the balance in favour of me staying here, wherever "here" is. Meanwhile, thanks for reverting the trolls on my talk page. It's much appreciated. Regards, Rodhull andemu 02:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DZOK[edit]

Rod
DZOK appears to be a joke - but has a long standing history of removals and reinstatements of the same "humorous" material. I'm not even sure if the radio station exists - the link to the Official Website gives a 404 error.
Do I just trim it again? or should it be considered for Speedy/Prod/AFD?
Arjayay (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to exist, according to Google, so I've removed the vandalism & protected for a while. I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 16:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arjayay (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Julissa&&Abby[edit]

Rod: In this edit you recommended taking a user page to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Neither of those applies to user pages; they should be taken to WP:MFD instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Too many late nights. Rodhull andemu 19:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help![edit]

Hi Rod, I recently noticed that you deleted Category:Portal:Kingdom of France. That's fine, my mistake. Here's my problem, I created the Portal:New Spain. However, when I tried to create the portal tab to place with an article related to the New Spain portal, the New Spain flag does not appear. I don't know what I have done wrong. I just can't figure it out. Have a look and you will see it does not appear, Category:New Spain portal. Yet I did create it with Template:New Spain, and with Template:Portal/Images/New Spain. Please help me, I cannot figure this one out. I will be very appreciative if you can solve this one for me! Thank you!--Chnou (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused; it looks OK to me, the flag seems to appear in the Welcome box? Rodhull andemu 23:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the image doesn't show up in the portal box at Category:New Spain portal. I'll take a look into it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be

Done with a move to lowercase. Hopefully haven't caused any other problems. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rodhull andemu 23:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! You guys are great! Thanks Kingpin!--Chnou (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Regarding [1], does this sort of comment and behavior seem appropriate for positive collaboration and constructive discussion at ANI? -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean his comment rather than mine, so "no". If you mean mine, the alternative is a warning at least for incivility, and as a former admin, Ryulong should know better. Rather than go through the draaaaamah that would ensue, I've reclosed with a more neutral summary, and it should be let lie, I think. Rodhull andemu 00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be appropriate for you to leave a warning at the user's talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to fan the flames. Rodhull andemu 00:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Jones[edit]

I'm sorry that I perceived errors in the ways that he handles himself on WP:ANI, but I honestly cannot see any sort of change in his behavior from two years ago. It seems the majority of people don't agree with me, but William S. Saturn calling me incompetent because of what I have observed over the past two years was a bit much. I'm not retaliating over his comments concerning my block, but they're certainly a factor as to why I felt the need to raise the issue, as it was done twice in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see him as a harmless, good-natured, if a tad eccentric editor who has broken no policies or guidelines that matter. If you don't like his style, he can be ignored. But there seems to be little support for any sanction. I might not put it as strongly as Saturn, but then I'm me, not him. Rodhull andemu 00:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian McKieth (song)[edit]

You are absolutely right, you don't have the authority to decline a speedy delete prior to discussion when it clearly meets the SD criteria. You are abusing your privilege. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ)

I think I do. Speedy deletion is not a discussion. If you don't like it, PROD it. But charting singles by artists with articles are regarded as notable, or always have been in the three years (nearly) I've been an admin. So it's my decision, and I've pointed you in the right direction. I suggest you go there, and the best of luck. Rodhull andemu 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu: I wish you good luck trying to have a civil discussion with him. Blue Danube (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Christopher T. York"[edit]

The page titled "Christopher T. York" was deleted a few minutes ago, however, all the information is valid (the sources are below) and it should be accounted for that a member of the American World Mountain Running team should be considered notable, especially to those interested in the world distance running scene.

http://www.usmrt.com/article-on-junior-team-member-chris-york http://www.usmrt.com/u-s-mountain-running-team-wins-silver-at-world-championships

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Tarahumara13 (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because his sporting prowess was unsourced. If you recreate the article, with reliable sources, it will stand a better chance of staying around. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 03:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarahumara13 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

Certain pictures don't show up in the Human penis and Erection articles despite being in the edit box. Can you fix that? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also this revision may help you know what images he is talking about on this article. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some seem to have been renamed from "Image:" to "File:"; this may take some time to sort out, but I'm on it. Rodhull andemu 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppets and Block request[edit]

Hi, I saw you're the admin who deleted the Brighton High School Students article by User talk:Tennisking5000. That article was ‎created with the same vandalism/attack content of the same name by a different user User talk:AaronAppelle. Also it looks like both accounts are continuing to vandalize articles. Thanks Bhockey10 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both as vandal-only accounts. That way, we don't need to waste time on a sockpuppetry investigation. Rodhull andemu 22:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fast response to that issue! Keep up the good work! Bhockey10 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of University of Birmingham Debating Society for deletion[edit]

The article University of Birmingham Debating Society is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Birmingham Debating Society until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. andy (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation[edit]

Need to know a little more specifically how my Bill Barbini article was infringing. Classical musician bio's are often available in nearly identical form in many places around the Internet (via publicists, etc.). Here's the original article which the BOT tagged as infringing.

QUOTE Following his graduation from the Juilliard School, William Barbini became a member of the New York Philharmonic. While in New York, he performed frequently in chamber music ensembles. He was first violinist with the Gramercy String Quartet, the resident ensemble at Lehman College, Fordham University in the Bronx. The Quartet played a series of pre concert performances at Avery Fisher Hall and appeared jointly with Pierre Boulez and the New York Philharmonic. Other chamber music credits include performances with the Balihry Piano Trio, the Philharmonia String Quartet, and violin duos with Kineko Okumura. He has performed solo recitals and concertos with orchestras in this country and Europe. Some of these ensembles include: the New York Philharmonic, Tonkünstler Orchestre, San Francisco Ballet Orchestra, Lancaster Symphony, Niagara Falls Philharmonic, Sacramento Symphony and the Sacramento Chamber Orchestra. Mr. Barbini came to Sacramento in 1983 to serve as concertmaster of the Sacramento Symphony. A year later he joined the faculty of California State University at Sacramento as a member of the Music Department. He is currently the Music Director of the Chamber Music Society of Sacramento and serves as Concertmaster for the Classical Philharmonic, the Pro Art Symphony, Chico Symphony and the Monterey Symphony. Recently Mr. Barbini was invited to join the faculty at the San Francisco Conservatory. UNQUOTE

And here is the biographical portion of my article, which you deleted as a copyright infringement.

QUOTE After graduating from Juilliard (1970), Mr. Barbini joined the string section of the New York Philharmonic. During his tenure with the NY Phil, he frequently performed in chamber music ensembles, including principle violinist of the Gramercy String Quartet. Mr. Barbini appeared frequently with Pierre Boulez and the New York Philharmonic and served as concertmaster for the Joffrey Ballet. Mr. Barbini has performed numerous recitals and concerti with orchestras in Europe and USA. In 1983, Mr. Barbini was appointed concertmaster of the Sacramento Symphony, and in 1984 joined the Sacramento State Music Department. Mr. Barbini also serves on the faculty of the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, as the Music Director of the Chamber Music Society of Sacramento, and as Concertmaster of the Ariel Ensemble. UNQUOTE

I think we can both agree that facts are not subject to copyright. And there are only so many ways one can list a temporal sequence of biographical highlights in a person's life. So, please, tell me how you think this article should be written to avoid "copyright infringement." Thanks. Driz7 (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it on balance better to err on the side of caution. Taking one source, as I see it, and rewording it is, if not a copyvio, then plagiarism, although opinions are divided here as to precise dividing lines. My approach, when writing biographies, is to identify a number of reliable sources and then construct a bare article according to the layout in WP:MOSBIO, and I generally write the bio in a chronological format. That way, disparate sources can be used to flesh out the story whilst not infringing copyright policies. I take your point that there are only so many ways of offering the same information and basic facts, of necessity, are usually presented in very similar ways. One course you could take (which I usually recommend) is to start the article as a subpage of your userpage, e.g. here and then work on it until you have taken it beyond a bare recasting of one source. I'll be happy to check it out for you in due course. Rodhull andemu 00:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll start fresh with all the different bio's I can collect around the Internet, but unfortunately they all list Mr. Barbini's accomplishments in the same general chronology. I'm not sure there's much more I can do, and encylopedic writing leaves little room for author creativity. Facts be facts. Driz7 (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010[edit]

News and notes: Wikipedia articles expert-reviewed by Encyclopedia of Life, and more

In the news: Confusion about Wikileaks continues, Wikipedia vs. Britannica in India, and more

Rencontres Wikimédia: Wikimedia and the cultural sector: two days of talks in Paris.

WikiProject report: WikiProject Algae

Features and admins: The best of the week

Election report: The community has spoken

Arbitration report: Requested amendment re Pseudoscience case

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Boneyard press deletion[edit]

Can you explain why the Boneyard Press Wiki entry's site was deleted? It is a completely legitimate Wiki entry that was sanctioned by the company's creator, Hart D. Fisher. The company is a publishing house that produced many influential works over a span of several years and there is no reason why the article would've been inappropriate for Wikipedia. I work for Hart and we are trying to figure out why the page was taken down. Please contact me and let me know what we need to alter to get the page back up and operational. Thanks. Sopseudogoth (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the article to indicate that any of its published works were influential. What is required to establish notability for our purposes are reliable third party sources; this rarely includes citations to YouTube as these tend to be copyright violations. In particular, self-published sources are not accepted, as notability has to be established, e.g. by properly-written review magazines or sites (generally not including blogs). Hope that help. Rodhull andemu 01:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary noted[edit]

Kind Sir, whack me with a Minnow if I mistake another User page for an article (be gentle). This lousy t-shirt (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rodhullandemu, This lousy t-shirt has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey, not a problem. At least if it's tagged, it gets looked at. Rodhull andemu 00:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jody L Millard[edit]

Rod, the person may exist, but the claim that he played in the NFL is a hoax. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that "blatant hoax" means "completely false". He has an entry on IMDB FWIW, although it's painfully thin. But someone has opened an AfD, which I take to preclude both speedy and PROD as bypassing those procedures. It's a pain, but it gives a chance for deeper scrutiny of the article. Rodhull andemu 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll let it go. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

I'm in the middle of a dispute with a brick wall and I don't know how to proceed. Selma Simpson has been editing articles using IMDB as a source for all types of personal biographical personal information (vital stats, religion, relationships) despite being requested ad nauseum by multiple editors not to do so in edit summaries and on her talk page. She created the article Joan Perry based solely on information culled from IMDB - when I stubbed it down to the basics she restored all of the info and sourced it to NNDB.com (also not a RS), all the while insisting the IMDB is a "very reputable database". Bottom line, she absolutely refuses to read WP:RS and WP:V and continues to edit without regard to policy. She has chosen not to listen to any of the advice myself and others have provided and just keeps editing away and reverting with vague edit summaries. Is this ANI worthy? Note that I have a niggling suspicion that this may be a return of a banned user as I've had this exact conversation before with another editor, but will follow that aspect up with an SPI if necessary. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She claims to have left WP, but I've left a warning and directed her to WP:RSN. By all means file an SPI if you think it's a sock, but if she continues, she could have escalating BLP warnings. Rodhull andemu 19:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they are gone for good, but have left them some advice in case they decides to stay. The majority of the contentious edits are to biographies of deceased actresses, which makes clear action more difficult as traditional DR venues such as BLPN don't apply. As always, thanks for the help. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South park butters role[edit]

I respect your authorata, and I'm only trying to improve Wikipedia I know for a fact that Butters Stotch is a main character, on the official south park wikipedia they say he is the fifth character, I'm so super seriously, you guy. I even gave a reference on the SP website, he is listed 5th and they do names in alphabetical order except for main characters(they are put in role order) Sometimes he is seen with them instead of Kenny (Britany's New Look South Park, sometimes he's seen with all 5 (Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants) (Imagination Land Trilogy) (Chinpokomon), and sometimes Just with Cartman or by himself. (countless episodes) his role was considered to Prominent to be recurring Please Change it back. I also provided a reference which was removed immediately. (Dont say another word (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As long as I've been aware of South Park, I have never seen Stotch referred to as a main character, which is why you have to provide a source for it. Your own opinions aren't relevant here, it's what the writers and producers of the show say about him. But I think your word "sometimes" above might be a clue here. Rodhull andemu 01:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Master Data Management[edit]

Rod, from what I gather reading the links, everything points back to a single vendor. That vendor even trademarked Virtual Master Data Manager(tm). This is an area that I work in and believe that this article is self serving and promotes Quiplix products. Searches for VMDM do not return any hits other than those associated with this firm. It is merely their approach to Master Data Management. That was the basis for my claim that the article was a COI. Where is my reasoning flawed? Regards, TScabbard (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't follow all the links, but as written, it did seem to be a technology rather than a product and not overly promotional in tone. That, I think, takes it out of the "blatant advertising" bracket, and you may wish to PROD the article instead. Rodhull andemu 02:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Rod. I took your advice and PROD the article. Your help following this one would be appreciated. The following justification was given for the deletion. This article promotes a technology that is only used by a single vendor therefore it constitutes a product or service. When searching all major search engines, the term Virtual Master Data Management only occurs in search results with regard to a single company. That company has trademarked the term Virtual Master Data Manager(tm). The in-line reference to virtual harmonization connects to the website of that company. Based upon these facts, it appears this subject meets the criteria of Conflict of Interest for Wikipedia articles. Cheers, TScabbard (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, and thanks for the detail, but conflict of interest isn't of itself a speediable criterion, and I didn't thin the tone overly promotional. However, PROD may have a better chance of success. Rodhull andemu 03:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just poured a pint to toast you. Cheers,TScabbard (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated; the end of my bottle is now in sight, and sleep calls. Tomorrow, however, I will need a decent curry to mark the end of the week, and I will dedicate it to your tolerance. Rodhull andemu 03:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So for my own understanding how do these articles fit in? Queplix Virtual Data Manager and Queplix. Are they considered self promotion?TScabbard (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is well-written; both have faults that might be overcome with some diligent application of our rules; conversely, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a greatly convincing argument when we have >3.5 million articles- it's perfectly possible to select examples to support any point of view you wish to put forward. Better, perhaps, to deal with articles of interest to you without regard to others; they will eventually stand or fall on their own merits. Rodhull andemu 01:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Law[edit]

When the term of copyright protection has expired, the work falls into the public domain. This means that the work has effectively become public property and may be used freely. Perhaps you could explain your rationale for the deletion of two graphics – one of which is a photograph taken over a hundred years ago, the other a much publicised and distributed image, from the article Thomas Ryder and Son.Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright subsists from the date of first publication of copyrightable material and expires (in this case) 70 years after the death of the photographer. The image of Ryder did not have a date, and there was no article in which it was used to be able to estimate a date of the photograph. The image of the machine also was undated. In these circumstances we cannot make assumptions and it is up to you to prove epiry of copyright. Meanwhile, if they are free of copyright why not upload them to Commons? Hope that helps. Rodhull andemu 17:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly helps me to comprehend the mentality of this place. Jobsworth or what?.Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Natural Philosophy Alliance[edit]

Dear Mr. Rodhullandemu, You recently deleted a talk page that I created to get 2 questions answered that I needed for editing a wikipage. Why was the page deleted?
22:15, 16 December 2010 Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Natural Philosophy Alliance" ‎ (G8: Talk page of a deleted or non-existent page) D c weber (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself was deleted some time ago and there was very little chance of getting your questions answered on its Talk page. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is the appropriate venue for such questions. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll post the questions there.D c weber (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of new article Artur Balder[edit]

Hi.

My request is about the abrupt deletion of the new article about Artur Balder. There are enough and consistent references to keep it in the wikipedia. The references were below.

Id like to discuss this question, because I think the article should remain where it was.

Thanks

L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolox76 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel the references adequate to support any of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE, our guideline for filmmakers. The article was also no better than a previous version deleted via a deletion discussion. By all means feel free to raise a deletion review. Rodhull andemu 19:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is about how do you feel about something... Personally, I dont think this is the criteria basis of an expanding Wikipedia. It is, or it is not: WP:CREATIVE sustains that there is "(c) has won significant critical attention". Your commentment: "Artur Balder animal, person, thing, and so on" is insulting, and it shows that your are not acting right. A simple Google search would proof evidence of his work as a well known writer, and the article at the english wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Spain recelntly appeared sustains enormous critical attention evoked by the documentary that discovers a district of Manhattan. Your deletion is not professional, and it's not based on the Wikipedia rules. In addition to that, articles about Artur Balder are in other 7 branches of Wikipedia, included the german one. Lolox76 (talk • contribs)

And now let me know why do I have to edit again the article just because you deleted it without any further investigations... Thats very nice of you, very professional by the way. I added the tag deletions review, by I cannot find the text nor the references.Lolox76 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You need to contest the deletion set up by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curdy, which included your author. You need to stop getting pissy with Rod. All of your accusations of unprofessional behaviour are hardly constructive. As for the deletion review, you have not followed the instructions at deletion review and until you do, nothing new will happen. Bottom line is that consensus went against your author. Your kveching is nothing more than that, and is duly discounted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of an abundance of Christmas spirit, I've put together the deletion review for you, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#23_December_2010. You might want to provide evidence that this person is indeed notable at the deletion review page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Maclean[edit]

You have removed a page about Iain Maclean - did you read it first?

Please explain exactly why you did this as the article is about someone who fulfills the requirement for a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifmaclean (talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. It was unsourced, contrary to requirements, and did not even assert notability, as well as being written in a promotional tone. Please see notability policy for requirements. Other than those fatal faults, it was fine. You should also review this guideline. Thanks.Rodhull andemu 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not unsourced, and promotional is a subjective term - in my view it was not at all promotional. My father, as should be clear from the references, is a world authority on commercial applications of constraint logic programming, and he should not be forgotten simply because the industry is now standing on the shoulders of people like him.

If that is so, there should be ample evidence of this in reliable sources, but I didn't see it supported in the article. Rodhull andemu 22:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PC Social[edit]

Rod,

You have deleted The PC Social Article. Please let me know what I should include to prevent this from being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.vargas52983 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs multiple reliable sources to show its notability as a website. Since it's a new venture, those might not be available just yet, but the same could have been said about MySpace and Facebook at the time. Rodhull andemu 22:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. very much understood. Can you reinstate the Article just so that I can see it and I can work on changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.vargas52983 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it here for you. Probably worth reviewing WP:N and WP:COI. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 23:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Sections need to be sourced for the article to be accepted? --Chris.vargas52983 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Maclean deletion[edit]

Then I suggest you read the article again - there were links to at least three publications which discussed achievements by Iain Maclean. And as an example, if you put Iain Maclean, Ilog and Nissan into a google search box you should receive many hits. I am very annoyed that the page was deleted within 5 minutes of it being published without any attempt by you to ask questions first, and I cannot believe this is wikipedia's normal policy. Please re-instate the article immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifmaclean (talk • contribs) 22:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only supposed to evaluate whether the article meets our initial requirements, and I determined that it did not. I have restored the article to your userspace here so you can bring it up to standards, and I suggest you look at other biographies to get a feel for how they are written. I will happily review the article once you think it's ready, but meanhwile, you should prepare for your userpage to be nominated for deletion as promotional only, as Wikipedia isn't MySpace. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 22:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information, I made some suggestions concerning the creation of this article at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Create a page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that, and your advice was sound. Rodhull andemu 23:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Maclean deletion[edit]

The user page was my first attempt at writing the biography as I did not understand your structure, it is a partial copy of the page you have deleted.

I think your beef is down to you thinking that I am the Iain Maclean in question, but I am his son, and I think what he has achieved has been remarkable - he has three world firsts in software development to his credit. I do not believe what I have written about him to be promotional, and if what is bothering you is the link to his current 'project' then I will happily remove it.

I have read a lot of biographies in wikipedia, and I do not regard what I have written so far to be terribly different, it just needs to be added to.

Thank you for restoring the page, however I am still concerned that such drastic action is available to a single individual, it is reminiscent of a failed communist state. Who can I refer my concern to within the organisation? Please understand that my complaint is not personal, it is about the infrastructure and process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifmaclean (talk • contribs) 09:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly drastic. We are an encyclopedia, not a firing squad, and any action, as you have seen, is reversible. I suggest you read through our various deletion procedures (WP:CSD, WP:PROD and WP:AFD) to see how and why they apply to articles. Rodhull andemu 16:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion Jeffrey Allen McHone[edit]

I received notice that you had tagged the article Jeffrey Allen McHone for deletion - based upon it being advertising.

While the article does "sound" in the field of advertising this is because the biography is about a highly notable person in the history of advertising - specifically infomercials.

The article is not self promoting - nor suggestive of promoting any products - but as with anyone in advertising - their biography is going to show achievements in promotions - hence the need to show audience response and acclaim.

The article is also important because in gives insight and understanding into infomercial advertising - explaining and showing in real life context the terminology and workings of the media of infomercials.

Wiki contains very little information of this real life and technical nature of infomercials.

When Jeffrey McHone did his first infomercial – there was not even the term infomercial. It was a half hour program. Other than his advertising budgets – the entire industry maybe spent about $250,000. With McHone’s success and his weekly half million budgets – the stations sought after this business and others followed. Soon the half hour commercial – then named infomercial – became a 4 Billion dollar business – and one of if not the most important sources for cash flow revenue to television. What Facebook and Twitter are to social media Infomericals are to advertising.

Surely the person who was an industry pioneer and one of the most successful infomercial producers and stars is worthy of note for Wiki.

He is also highly respected member of the Tampa Florida community - as attested to by the information about his 60th Birthday.

If your concern is not with the topic or the person - but have some suggestions as to how to improve the article - please send me your input for my consideration.

Otherwise I would ask you to reconsider your position on this article and un tag for deletion

Thanks Mark mediawiz7 Mediawiz7 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the tone of the article, whose language was irredeemably conversational and promotional rather than encyclopedic, the other reason for deletion was lack of notability. This can be established by multiple, reliable sources, independent of the subject of the article; your sources I found largely trivial (The Drifters?), self-published or promotional, but also unverifiable. Notability in Tampa does not imply any general notability, but I note that you have a userspace copy of the article, which I will gladly review when you've brought it up to scratch. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 17:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this?[edit]

File:Dobson and Barlow Factory TM84.png

File:DB-logo-02.gif

Must be candidates for deletion!

And what about all the graphics on L. Gardner and Sons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiterbewegung (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weiterbewegung (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first is on Commons and seems to have been accepted there, although PD-Unknown might be the correct tag for it. Please nominate for deletion there if you think it should not exist. The second has no date of creation, is undoubtedly copyrighted in the absence of proof of explicit waiver, and should be deleted from here in the absence of a Fair-use rationale. I'll leave you to deal with these as I am busy right now. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look at L. Gardner and Sons; one I have tagged for deletion as it has no evidence of being public domain. For the rest, I will leave to others to evaluate, and merely refer you to this guideline. Rodhull andemu 22:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Miliband edits[edit]

Hi there. I have edits the Ed Miliband page and you have Reverted them. I wanted to improve the article to include his Politics Views and separate Religious Views from his Personal life section to enrich the article, make it more readable and more organized. but I guess I have failed. if you can do that yourself, it would be great or maybe you can help do it. thanks -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

User talk:Hinatajr232[edit]

Hello, (been a while since we last communicated) User talk:Hinatajr232 seems to be making unconstructive edits on a daily basis to both Honorific nicknames in popular music and Britney Spears. I no longer work on Spears' article but I gave some leeway on the Honorific article by adding more credible sources that fit with the article guidelines, but Hinatajr232 seems hellbent on adding any source they can find regardless. This also seems to be their only reason for editing wikipedia. User has been issued several warnings by various editors by fails to respond in any way. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is unhelpful, and I've blocked indef per WP:COMPETENCE rather than any malice. It's up to that editor to seek out advice. Rodhull andemu 01:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fin Cheo Pin Hao Ni[edit]

Thank you for taking care of that. I didn't care about the insults posted in the edit summaries, as it's funny stuff and reflects on the poster. But I think he took shots at other editors too, as well as Buddha, which maybe should be zapped also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genius[edit]

Hi Rod&c I have to say that "Arguably the same sort of thing." here is one of the wittiest things I have seen here in many a long year. It made my morning and I am still chortling into my coffee as I type. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:93.41.8.193[edit]

hello,

could you block this user? He is vandalizing the this article and in the edit summary he write mostly in capitals. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

k, now he is just vandalizing, i think. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a final warning on his Talk page; bear in mind his grasp of English may not be that great. Rodhull andemu 17:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Right (band)[edit]

I am 99.99% certain this article is a hoax. The fact that it has survived here for three months short of four years, does not do our credibility any good ! Anyhow, as this is the first case that I have come across in my five years here, I am not too sure what the procedure is for an article like this. Over to you. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked by NawlinWiki, but {{db-hoax}} is the usual way forward. Rodhull andemu 19:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Now I know what to do, I'll probably never come across another ! Cheers - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question on blacklist addition[edit]

There's some question on a blacklisting that you did. Can you take a look at the discussion at WT:WPSPAM#fluoridealert.org - blacklisting problem? and add any comments you feel appropriate? The action wasn't logged, and we're not able to locate a blacklisting discussion, so hoping you can provide some information on the reasons for the blacklisting. --- Barek (talk) - 21:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010[edit]

News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief

In the news: Faulty story urges for advertising on Wikipedia; brief news

Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland

Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?

WikiProject report: Majestic Titans

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dani Harmer discography for deletion[edit]

The article Dani Harmer discography is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Harmer discography until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem IP[edit]

Hello R. Last August you blocked [2] 96.54.202.194 for three months due to the fact that their only edits are to add incorrect information (mostly birth, death etc dates) to numerous biographies. The IP returned today [3] and hit ten more articles. Several of these did not get reverted for more than an hour until I stumbled on them. Now they haven't edited beyond my final warning but I am wondering if a preventive block might not be in order. Especially in light of the fact that there have been no constructive edits from the IP that I can find. If not no worries I'll try to keep an eye on things. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given previous history & single-minded nature of the edits, I'll anonblock for six months. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 22:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this editor for a while, and I've seen the same kind of date-changes among their edits, eg [4], [5], [6]. Note how the two sets of editing dates fit in - the one I've been watching was editing while the IP was away for that 3 month block. Coincidence? I haven't reported this one, as it's been fairly low-level and easy to follow, and I thought it perhaps safer to keep them where they could be watched - what do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the articles edited I don't think it's the same editor, unless s/he is being deliberately subtle. I'd keep an eye on this account, however, since it has had a last warning, and report to WP:AIV if it doesn't stop. Rodhull andemu 22:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks - my eye is firmly on this one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to get back here and say thanks for taking the time to look into this. On another note I know that this has been an up and down year for you here at wikiP. I can't say thank you enough for your efforts to help build and protect this encyclopedia - and on that note see below. MarnetteD | Talk 20:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's much appreciated, and the same to you. I can't see how next year would be as bad as this, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed! Rodhull andemu 20:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my thanks and appreciation too - and my admiration for the cool and calm way you've handled things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Greetings of the season to you and yours![edit]

Happy Holidays, Rodhullandemu/Archive!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a very Merry Christmas and happy editing in the year ahead! MarnetteD | Talk 20:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Brograve Baronets[edit]

Hi Rodhullandemu

I had originally started the article of Brograve Baronets as a separate page, but some bright spark decided to combine it all together the way it is now and I didn't have the time to reinstate it. But feel free. As to the Firebrace thing, I will have a look at it, see if I can clarify anything. Merry Xmas to you too! Cheers Brograve (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Card[edit]

Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

Merry, merry[edit]

Bzuk (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas, I wish you well and good health in 2011 :) — R ² 21:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eve foundation[edit]

Hi, Can you please help me with starting a webpage name EVE foundation. It is an NGO that i support and wish for the world to know about.

You can use these links to know more: http://evelightalife.org/www.evelightalife.org/Welcome.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uVPG7TEkmE&feature=player_embedded

I've had a quick look at this, but it's not something I have time for right now. You'd be better writing a draft in your userspace (i.e. on a subpage of your Talkpage) and then getting someone to check it before moving it into mainspace. It would be a good idea to read WP:My first article to understand the requirements. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 21:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who[edit]

Why did you revert my correction on Dr. Who? Stephen Spielberg made a comment, but was not the director. All I did was make a correction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.77.26 (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he is not the director of Doctor Who; but he is a film director, and as such, his opinion might be considered worthy of attention. In the grand scheme of things, however, anyone who does not know who Spielberg is can find out that from his own article; by the same token, anyone who has even a basic knowledge of Dr Who will be aware that he isn't, and never has been, its director. However stupid Americans may seem to others, we should not patronise them by assuming that they are illiterate. Rodhull andemu 04:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Then it should be reworded to make it more clear. Maybe remove the definite article. Maybe just say "Director Stephen Spielberg . . ."

2. Is Wikipedia only intended for those who have a prior "basic knowledge" of the topic?

3. I don't think Americans are stupid as I am an American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.77.26 (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit may have been correct, but perhaps for the wrong reason, as in it you implied that Spielberg directed Doctor Who, which he has not (yet) done. Wikipedia should not assume prior knowledge, but then anyone who comes to an article will have done so for some reason- but any lacking prior knowledge is the function of Wikilinks to flesh out the picture. As for Americans being stupid, I didn't say that, I said "seem to be stupid to others". As far as I am aware, there are one or two dozen Americans who have made major contributions to, say, philosophy and literature. Rodhull andemu 04:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB CheckPage[edit]

Please see User:Rodhullandemu/Archive/33#Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser.2FCheckPage, same again. Hope you had a good Christmas. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Yeah, not too bad. Rodhull andemu 00:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Ravy69lol talkpage revoked[edit]

Grrr! I hate it when I get edit conflicted by just about word for word the edit I was making myself ☺ Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 00:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh! Great minds think alike. Rodhull andemu 01:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010[edit]

Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting

News and notes: Director of Technical Operations hired; South Korean mayor sues; brief news

In the news: Designing Wikipedia and the origin of page histories; brief news

WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)

Features and admins: The best of the week

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael[edit]

Hi Rod, please read my last edit on this, and might you keep a look out! Thanks, your friend, --Discographer (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seen it. No problem with me. Rodhull andemu 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discographer: Not everyone logs onto Wikipedia on a daily basis. I would wait a few more days before declaring concensus. RfCs, for example, run for 30 days if I'm not mistaken. Also, WP:VANDALISM is the insertion of obscenities, nonsense or the blanking of articles. Good faith edits should never be called vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hogmanay greetings[edit]

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is good to receive good wishes. Meanwhile, I have just recovered my PC (hopefully) from a deadly and insidious virus attack, and have in parallel had to deal with a ludicrously stupid co-tenant whom I have now reported to the police for harrassment, and to be honest, I am proud of still being able to contribute here, when others would perhaps have given up long ago. However, I am from Yorkshire, are we are used to dealing with dickheads. That's arguably why I have little patience for vandalism. Rodhull andemu 06:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy, happy[edit]

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, But the News Sources are Very Reliable And Do Comply with Wikipedia Standards[edit]

Wikipedia is also not a fan page, as you'll see here: Wikipedia:Fancruft. The sources I used about Oprah and Philip Crosby came from MSNBC and the San Francisco Gate. You asked why it was important to type these disputes about Oprah's claims and I'll answer. Oprah's own family disputed the claims and it needs to be typed in her article that they did so.75.72.35.253 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

take that[edit]

Hi there, sorry about that last edit i understand a youtube link cant be used however User:Sarahrocha, who is new to editing wikipedia has reverted their sales to 30 million on more than one occasion with no proof that they have sold under 40 million records. What do you recommend that i do? baring in mind they have sold 40 million records and although the youtube cannot be used it clearly states this fact Kind Regards Yids2010 (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's on YouTube, it's clearly likely to be sourceable elsewhere, e.g. RIAA. This belongs on the article's Talk page to which User:Sarahrocha should be directed. It's any editor's responsibility to justify addition or changing of content, with reliable sources. HTH. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa![edit]

Eh...? :) Drmies (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem? My comments breached no policy or guideline, nor essay. Malleus seems to me to think that contributing good, even featured content, absolves him from sanctions for abuse of behavioural guidelines. I disagree. You need both to continue to be allowed to continue editing here. I am extremely careful not to attack MF here, but it's clear to me that he does bait other editors, to the point of being patronising, and that cannot be allowed to continue. Our joint history means that I cannot block him except for gross policy violations, but the reality is that some other uninvolved admin is sooner or later going to say "enough". Rodhull andemu 02:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rod--I was merely pointing out that when you posted your remark you (accidentally) deleted mine...click on the diff, and scroll down. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod[edit]

So you reversed my amendment! Where is your evidence for Tony Banks being 2nd engineer? JK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.161.134 (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about Abbey Road. I was more concerned that you added John Kurlander, and have yet to see a reliable source for this, even though apparently listed by Pollack and Lewisohn. I don't have those books, so will ask for expert assistance on the Talk page. I didn't add Tony Banks myself, some other editor did. If you know of an authoritative source for engineering personnel, please feel free to cite it. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 16:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism not by me.[edit]

Is it possible that someone is using my IP or such? I do remember visiting the pages mentioned as being vandalized, however I can assure you that I did not vandalize them. If you could please tell me what the edits in question are, I might be able to figure out what is going on. Thanks ahead of time for your cooperation. 24.250.41.41 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about edits made nearly a year ago. If you didn't make them, you shouldn't worry, because your IP address may well have been used by somebody else then. You may view the edits by clicking on your IP address above. Rodhull andemu 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually.... I didn't even own this computer until.. eh.. September 2010-ish, before that it was in a box, brand new. 24.250.41.41 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends not on the computer, but on your ISP, and if you were using a different PC, you might still have the same IP address. However Cox do tend to rotate their IP addresses from time to time, as do many ISPs. I wouldn't say you have anything to worry about, but you could avoid any future confusion by creating an account for yourself. Rodhull andemu 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

Hi Rod, Happy New Year. I hope you are feeling easier about the editing community and the December storm has passed. Glad you're still with us. Thanks for all the fish. Span (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you, and thanks for the good wishes. Feel free to get in touch if you need any help. Rodhull andemu 21:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011[edit]

2010 in review: Review of the year

News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Brazil FAC is now open![edit]

Empire of Brazil is now a Featured Article candidate. Your opinion (either as support or oppose) is welcome. Here is the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Recently replied to the Genre topic on Talk:Paramore. While the genre of an article is not all that important, I'm detecting some bias perhaps from User:F-22 Raptored (could be wrong) and submitted as much as I could to support the inclusion of Emo. Shouldn't be a big issue but given his reply to User:Gantiganti, this could become something more than it should be? (though that could be just me) Thought I would be safe and ask if you could watch the page just incase. Thanks HrZ (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I don't want to get involved in a content dispute, I think it's right that you are discussing sources. If there is still dissent, you could ask an uninvolved editor for a third opinion. If admin intervention is necessary, I'll step in. Rodhull andemu 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thank you. One more thing, in the case that he does not reply, do I make the changes, wait for a reply or can I ask an editor for a third opinion for that also? HrZ (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since emo is already sourced in the article, I don't see any problem with adding it to the infobox. If an editor disagrees, there seems little point in doing so if the only reason for this is his or her own experience, but on the other hand perhaps sources that say that the band isn't emo would be hard to find! We can only go with the sources, obviously, but if the dispute persists, some form of dispute resolution would be required, however unnecessary it may seem. Rodhull andemu 21:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for your help! HrZ (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:thecurran/Archive 2010#Signature[edit]

The links aren't broken. I intentionally use permalinks so that if You choose to review the comment You made via your contribution history link, i save You from having to sift through irrelevant archives that often break at arbitrary dates to find the exact section or subsection. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 09:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Holness[edit]

I saw Bob Holness in concert with Gerry Rafferty. Ergo, not an urban myth. Petermacgee (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT. Holness has denied it. Stuart Maconie has confessed to inventing it. The sax solo is credited to Raphael Ravenscroft, who is Scottish, rather than South African. Your move. Rodhull andemu 02:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prawn 3 to Bish 2 Petermacgee (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're already in check. Rodhull andemu 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No no, the Bob Holness piece can move in a zig-zagging pattern. Petermacgee (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing him with Jess Yates (as the Bishop) or Laurence Olivier ( as the Knight). Either way, this topic is a dead duck, and I am trying to wind down to get some sleep. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 02:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try espresso Petermacgee (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Zopiclone at this time of the day. I see little daylight as it is, and irrelevant incursions into my lifestyle are, let's say unwelcome. Try again in normal daylight hours, but not before lunchtime UTC, please. Rodhull andemu 02:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use acetaminophen-codeine, myself, but I don't think you can get that in the States without a prescription. HalfShadow 04:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Ravenscroft has ever met Maconie? I think he must have been quite tempted to deck him ... I would've been, I fear. DBaK (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem - Anthem[edit]

Fair enough. I've just run the words "Jerusalem anthem Parry" through Google and it is described alot as a hymn, although mostly on YouTube cuts and individual websites. However, I see that although Naxos call it an anthem, Times Online uses both words.

As a former professional musician, my impression was that it is an anthem rather than a hymn for the reason I gave on my edit summary. In that sense, I'd compare it to "I Was Glad", or "Rule Britannia!" - in that it does not perform an act of worship to God or even revere Him as for example "Eternal Father," "Lord of All Hopefulness," "Lead Kindly Light," or any other. Notwithstanding that, I'm well aware that it is included in hymnals and sung in church settings. However, it was written as an anthem, though people occasionally speak of it as a "national hymn." But there are drives to make it an "English national anthem."

The big sports song that IS a hymn, is of course "Abide With Me." Now there, the words enter into a direct relationship with God. (But just to play devil's - ha, ha! - advocate, so do the words of "God Save The Queen," which is never described as a hymn . . .)

But "Jerusalem" really speaks about God and his perception of his role. I would have thought a pre-requisite of a hymn is the HUMAN, not the divine, perspective.

Those are my reasons, as well as the musical structure, which is to me anthemic, with its taglines at beginning and end, and in its melody, which in its climactic rise at the end, ("till we have BUILT," etc) also seems more anthemic.

However, if you wish to call it a hymn, fine. I can't offer more discussion than this, as I'm not an expert on hymns or Blake, so just giving my subjective reasons backed up by a few decades of performing and teaching experience. Thanks for calling mine "good faith" edits, and apologies for messing with the Blake title. (ignorance)FClef (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for taking it well, but I think "anthem" has a specific role in the Christian liturgy which is not fulfilled by Parry's setting, since it is more often than not misplaced with respect to its expected location. Outside the liturgy, however, it obviously has "anthemic" properties which are now closer to a more popular than a strictly religious definition. My own experience of this is a tad antique, but as a former chorister of York Minster, you did pick some things up. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 01:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great experience as a chorister! :-O I accompanied choirs for the Verdi Requiem, was a repetiteur and MD for operas and musicals, plus as piano entertainer, etc. But didn't Parry compose it specifically as an anthem for the suffragettes? Isn't the the public's familiarity with it is based more on its non-liturgical use, as a national anthem? (Last Night of the Proms, sports events, etc.) I am not sure that most people would immediately think of Jerusalem as a hymn, even though it has been used in hymnlike contexts. But we probably won't agree on this one. I would overwhelmingly call it an anthem, in its composition, style, intent, usage, and general acceptance.FClef (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hymns and anthems (again, sorry, but "thought is free")[edit]

Dear rodhull, re my last message and my expression "general acceptance," just a further thought or two. Firstly, the word hymn comes from the Gk hymnos, meaning "song of praise" - but let that go, as many hymns express worship in other ways. Perhaps Jerusalem may have been adopted by the Church as a hymn and subsequently claimed as such. But that is putting the cart before the horse. Or reasoning "after the fact." Or as the lawyers put it, post hoc, propter hoc. ("After this, because of this.")

Meanwhile, as you undoubtedly will have sung many of these as well, what about "The Long and Winding Road" (Paul McCartney), "Morning Has Broken" (Cat Stevens), and, especially "You Raise Me Up." These all started life as songs but have gained a sacramental sort of significance. Would you call them hymns? And how about "You'll Never Walk Alone," which started life in "Carousel," and has become a devotional exercise in itself? Personally I would class all of these "anthems" (one or two are "songs"), but that doesn't lessen their spiritual force. Generically, "Jerusalem" is not a hymn.

Could you perhaps permit some references to it as an anthem in the article rather than do a blanket Undo of my edit? I have been editing on Wikipedia for some time and it is a long time since I had an edit completely reversed. On what authority did you do that, or is it just your feeling? As you see, I didn't materially alter the content or organisation of the article. Perhaps there is scope for both viewpoints?

I didn't reverse the Undo because I don't get into edit wars, but then again I try not to nullify other people's contributions. It is only the second time that I have encountered such a quick anniliation of my work - and thought - within minutes of completing it.

I'd be interested to hear your views, but ultimately will walk away (flight not flight) as it is better to be kind than right. I Again, can you cite or reference your viewpoint - or give comparables?

You can reply here or to my talk page. By the way, I love York. Lucky you!FClef (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:193.255.108.20 & ANI[edit]

Greetings.

Regarding the general issue with this user at ANI I wanted to let you know that I've backtracked through some of the user's edits and am tidying up some unusual things like formatting, ELs, etc.. S/He does have a lot of seemingly constructive edits and I'm uncertain why they would have "un-Wikified" some of their own edits in such unusual ways. Ironically, I reverted some things that the user had reverted other editors for doing the same thing on other articles. For any concerns feel free to look at my edit history around this timestamp. Here's my summary.

Cheers! ♪ Tstorm (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Unhalfbricking/GA2[edit]

Hi. I see you left a note before I had completed my assessment. I have now made some comments on the article in relation to the GA criteria so I hope it will be clearer to you why I feel it needs attention. I am not making a comment on the previous review nor what has been done since then (I haven't analysed the history for development, only to check on stability) - I am just making an observation on the article as it appears today. I read it as a general reader looking for some information on the album, and I felt it wasn't giving me the sort of detail I would expect of a Good Article. I think it could, if some work were done on it. That, for me, is the main aim of GA reviews - to improve articles. SilkTork *^YES! 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to improving articles, and WP:GAR is one way of achieving that. However, when I took it to GA, it took me ages and ages, and I doubt that much new material has surfaced in the last two years. If it had, I might have been made aware of it. As for detail, I wonder how much more is available now that wasn't then. As the saying goes, "When she played a piano, it stayed played". Feel free to suggest improvements, however. Rodhull andemu 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can see this is difficult for you. Some editors can feel possessive about articles they have spent a lot of time and effort on, especially when they are almost the only contributor, so it's good to see that you understand that improvements can be made, and will welcome editing. SilkTork *^YES! 11:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unhalfbricking[edit]

I'm not clear what's going on here. Either you are reviewing it independently and dispassionately with respect to WP:GA criteria, or [you are editing it]. I regard those two roles are being somewhat inconsistent. Please help me out here. Rodhull andemu 00:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. You are thinking of the incompatibility of someone who is a significant contributor to an article doing a review. However, reviewers are encouraged to fix problems - see Wikipedia:Good article nominations - point 4 of How to review an article. I try to help out as much as possible. My main aim is to improve the article, though I am very much aware of the motivating aspect of the GA project, and so will praise and support contributors where appropriate, and enter into discussions, and give advice, pointing to relevant guidelines. Even if an article doesn't meet GA criteria, I feel the review process improves articles and everyone involved learns a little something. It's all good. SilkTork *^YES! 11:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011[edit]

News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news

In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project

WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways

Features and admins: Featured topic of the year

Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Frompastarchives.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frompastarchives.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image should not have been orphaned; it is no longer. Rodhull andemu 04:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]