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

Thanks anyway; Anon's always going to be an idiot and there's a limit. You're doing good work with the entry while I'm giving up; for no better reason than having to pluck my eyes out. MartinSFSA (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen your comment in the history [1] . I would comment that I had already blocked the editor, since in removing the tag they also removed the comment not to do so. I am also slightly suspicious of any new account that knows about notability but claims ignorance of AfD procedure. However, you commented on good faith edits - so I am willing to immediately unblock if you think it appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the magic of autoblock seems to have solved 3 problem editors at once. :) --barneca (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some idiot on a dynamic IP was trolling. i set it to indef, so you can decide when to unprotect. if you don't want me screwing with your talk page, then sorry. --barneca (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. It's some immature kiddy I've annoyed, that's all. --Rodhullandemu 08:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that the Wired blog was that bad a source, but I'll have a look around. It's gotten pretty wide coverage in the UK media, so it shouldn't be too hard to find something better. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around to see if a reliable third-party source mentioned all the actors and characters, but all I could find was this from the Liverpool Echo and this from a blog on the Wall Street Journal's site, neither which is really much better than Wired. So I used the credits from "The Stolen Earth" from the BBC's website. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for you to remove the semi protection on my user page. Its been up since september and im not sure there is a need for it anymore. Thnkyou Rod. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind changing the move protection on my userpage(and talk too if it doesnt violate policy) from move:autoconfirmed to move:sysop please? Thanks! I won't be moving these pages so...--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Both done. --Rodhullandemu 23:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! I'd give you a barnstar but...;)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly "above and beyond the call of duty", but thanks for the sentiment. --Rodhullandemu 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..is one of my new favorite words. That ANI thread was top notch. A much needed laugh for me today. SJ sure knows how to hit the funny bone. (or should I say funie obne)....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, do you remember an exchange with this anon?[2] A different IP, evidently controlled by the same user, has been blocked for disruption. I'd be interested in your opinion at User talk:86.44.16.82‎? Thanks, --Elonka 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked my IP for no reason. Unless you give me a good reason, i will report you.(Butters x (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't normally respond to uncivil demands, particular those accompanied by threats, but if I have made a mistake I will try to sort it out. Since you have an account, I have no way of telling what your IP address is, and looking at your contributions gives me no clue as to why I might have blocked your IP. But if I have, it would be within policy and for a very good reason. --Rodhullandemu 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason was a block evasion, even though my account OR IP was not blocked. Please explain, and i was not "threatening you" by saying i was going to report you. Don't make it sound dramatic (Butters x (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well sorry, but without a reference to the block, I have no way of knowing what's happened. Perhaps you could supply a WP:DIFF? And the type of language you used above is not considered helpful here.--Rodhullandemu 13:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have blocked my IP for VANDALISM? What vandalism? What the hell is your problem?(Butters x (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I am unable to do anything without the relevant information, such as, er, which IP? And clearly it is not blocked now. --Rodhullandemu 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

88.111.128.0/17-And i apologise for my attitude as well. (Butters x (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ah. At last. Thanks. That was a rangeblock I imposed to prevent a long-term sockpuppeteer from continuing to vandalise in defiance of his effective ban. Although I took steps to minimise collateral damage, it is impossible beforehand to know if there will be any. If this happens again (although the vandal seems to have gone quiet as a result), you can just put {{unblock}} on your talkpage (with the reason "caught in rangeblock") and you will be unblocked shortly. Apologies for the inconvenience, but sometimes it's necessary to do this. --Rodhullandemu 15:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add your accountname to the "collateral damage" for this range and make sure if it is blocked again, you will still be able to edit. --Rodhullandemu 15:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (Butters x (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In the last reference cited in the section on Exteriorization is where Hubbard writes about Astral Bodies and exteriorization(Scientology 8-8008, p. 205). Now Hubbard is the expert in exteriorization as it is used in Scientology but the experts on the Astral body and its projection are Muldoon and Carrington as is evident in their book on the Projection of the Astral Body. Hubbard uses the projecion of the astral body in a negative sense to emphasize what Scientology exteriorization is not. They all use the same word exteriorization each with a different meaning. For the Egyptians and Tibetans, you have to be dead. For Muldoon and Carrington, you have to be out in the astral body and for L. Ron Hubbard, you have to be out of your head but not necessarily out of your mind. JDPhD (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably interesting, and I so very nearly care. --Rodhullandemu 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[this page] thanks Enigma ^message 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be gone already. This is a weirdo of some sort. --Rodhullandemu 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the blocking admin caught it. A pleasant surprise for once. Enigma ^message 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up; he's early tonight. --Rodhullandemu 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I didn't notice the pattern until you pointed it out. Maybe the asylum allows 10 minutes of Internet access to the inhabitants at that time of night. Enigma ^message 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I'm pretty boned headed at time but even I have some understanding of the human condition. I checked out his page and I agree, his words about his husband were heart-breaking. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I travel often, and I sometimes use public computers to edit Wikipedia. I don't want to use my normal account (Kodster) in these areas, so if I wanted to make another account, do I have to get some sort of permission? Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the reflist on The Lost Opera with this edit. Out of curiosity, was the only thing stopping it working the missing angle bracket? Thanks, Rurp (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I was just wondering whether you can add Dot Branning's birthday only what it is I was looking in the history file of Dot and it turns out her birthday is 16 February 1936 I was just wondering please could you add this into the infobox cheers and thanks again --82.37.33.228 (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not without a reliable source, O blatant sockpuppet of User:WJH1992. --Rodhullandemu 16:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Where have you encountered this person before?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 22:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea; I don't think I've ever blocked in this range, but you know, some people show no signs of growing up. --Rodhullandemu 22:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's true.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what happened on wp:ani??? Smith Jones (talk)`~

You didn't close the "nowiki /nowiki" so I fixed it for you. Since it was my edit, your ~~~~ got my signature, not yours, so I pasted your name there. HTH. --Rodhullandemu 00:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thans fr that. /I coudl have sworn i closed that tag. Smith Jones (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<is it completely wrong of me to be laughing hysterically right now? 40 lashes for Keeper...>Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider trout slapping me if I go out of line on the MJ talk page. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your input on the speculative fiction discussion. I agree that it is not the most major terminology debate for the much-debated Scientology article, but I brought up the issue because I am worried that "speculative fiction" writer may be the preferred description for Scientology advocates. Scientology literature calls him a "speculative fiction" writer, and at least one major, reputable source (Encyclopedia Britannica) calls him a "science fiction" writer. If we can find a number of other reputable sources that call him a "science fiction" writer, then I argue that the "speculative fiction" claim would carry less weight.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proponents of "speculative fiction" argue that his writings were more wide-ranging than just sci-fi; however, I tend to think that all fiction is speculative to some extent and that it's largely a meaningless term. What might get over this is to describe him as a sci-fi writer with appropriate sourcing (Brittanica) and a footnote explaining that he also wrote in other genres. How acceptable that might be is difficult to tell. Worth a try, however. --Rodhullandemu 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up you weirdow, i know that they are right so don't try and make out that you've done it because i spent ages doing it!! HOW DARE YOU!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.249.234 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We aim to please; but we also aim to get the encyclopedia RIGHT by using reliable sources. --Rodhullandemu 21:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please help out. One user who you have intervened with before is refusing to discuss major changes to the Fascism article while a number of editors representing a variety of political viewpoints are in the middle of an attempt to seek a compromise wording and consensus. See here. Hope you can intervene. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, there appears to be a steep learning curve. I did post the proposed new lead on the discussion page and ask for comments, but that was ignored before the prompt revert. Sigh...--Cberlet (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please immediately unblock Betacommand. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block of a long-time contributor for a dispute in which you are involved is wildly inappropriate. Please unblock Betacommand. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I've taken it to WP:ANI, but as a compromise I will reduce it to 24 hours. --Rodhullandemu 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a compromise. There is no compromise position here. Please revert your block of Betacommand. HiDrNick! 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You apparently have not properly considered the linked discussion. So far consensus seems to be against unblocking, and I see nothing in Betacommand's subsequent behaviour to justify an unblock. And it's noteworthy that no other admin has seen fit to undo that block however egregious it may be. Given his subsequent behaviour, I am declining to undo my block. I'll admit indef might have been OTT but we frequently do that for editors who "don't get it". He wasn't in my opinion, "getting it". He is not the be-all and end-all of WP:NFCC, and two ArbCom decisions have implicitly stated that. Take it where you like. --Rodhullandemu 00:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not give a flying flip what people come tumbling out of the ANI clown cars in support of any given block of Betacommand. The plain fact is that you were inarguably in the middle of a content dispute with BC, and blocking him is very clearly on the wrong side of a very bright line. It is conduct unbecoming an administrator; when people said at RFA that they "trust Rodhullandemu with the tools", this is exactly the sort of thing they were trusting you not to do. Please reconsider. HiDrNick! 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you say. As an admin, I see my (unpaid) job as to protect the encyclopedia from unwarranted destruction, wherever it comes from. That's why I spend at least twelve hours a day here, much of it taken up with the of the mill vandalism; occasionally I manage to write some articles myself and even, but rarely, taking them to GA status. I live, eat and breathe my limited remaining time on this earth for the general benefit of this encyclopedia. In particular, I have set out detailed, and, I believe, cogent, arguments for the retention of images in that particular article. Although an interested party, even if I had not been, I think I would have been equally justified in blocking Betacommand for breaches of WP:CIVIL, disruptive editing, and considering the application of the NFCC policy is decidedly moot in this case, WP:3RR. Again, if you really think he deserves to be unblocked, YOU unblock him. I have a medical coming up on Tuesday and more important things to worry about. --Rodhullandemu 01:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt and informative answer. :) Regards, Captain Alaric (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirected page to The Secret Garden. --Rodhullandemu 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted {{db-author}} --Rodhullandemu 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you move "Dumpweed (Live version)" to "Dumpweed"? The correct name is only "Dumpweed" and in the article we speak that is a live version. I'm from pt.wiki and I don't know how to do this.

Thanks. OffsBlink (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been  Done already. --Rodhullandemu 12:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "series finale" perplexes me. It's a mixture between "season finale", an American term, and "series final", the equivalent UK term. What's your reason for reverting me? _TalkIslander 23:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... in case you're unaware, I am in fact in the UK. In my experience, final is not reserved for sporting matches, and is in fact usually used to describe the end of a series (as opposed to finale, which, for some reason, seems to have been creeping in over the past few months). _TalkIslander 23:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure either of those sound great, but I'm sure we can think of something. Probably won't get this beforehand, but good luck tomorrow ;). _TalkIslander 23:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is a shared computer my son has mad very rude comment about this person, i personaly apologize and will consider making an account, thank you for your time 72.80.165.133 (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have recently been making some constructive editing and adding more data to the 'crown prosecution service' article. Subsequently, it has continuously been reverted back by you. You said that i needed to cite the sorce of information, yet i did the second corrosponding time. You again persisted to revert my constructive, true, neutral and filled with integrity data. I am writing this message to praise you for you hard work on wikipedia, but please could you refrain from reverting. Thank You.

Onewillfind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onewillfind (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onewillfind (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will stop reverting you when your edits comply with our policies, specifically providing reliable sources that are verifiable and not overstating importance by giving this material too much prominence. --Rodhullandemu 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia so i am detached from the valitity side, plaese state how i go about doing this so the article is not reverted again. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onewillfind (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read, above all else, this page. --Rodhullandemu 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the link to my noncommercial Island Records research wiki from the Island Records article? I thought "for further research" types of links were encouraged on Wikipedia. —mjb (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat bizarrely, other wikis are not regarded here as reliable sources but I'll take a look at it. --Rodhullandemu 15:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

may i ask you for a link to a website which might contain the events of the lawsuits, i want to see them to show him the repercussions of the incidents and to scare him out of doing this again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.165.133 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Bono has not yet sued anybody for defamation. However, there is no need to give him a reason to do so. That's why we have this policy. --Rodhullandemu 15:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] I still see it though. Been reading about medicals and such, hope everything goes the least stressful way. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Rodhullandemu, I've ended up seriously semi-involved in a deletion conflict which seems destined to end in deletion, despite last-minute efforts by several editors to get the article in question - Honorific titles in popular music - wikified. I'd greatly appreciate some external advice on this 'cos I'm way out of my depth. Thanks in advance for taking the time to check it out, even if nothing comes of it. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the deletion debate and am in two minds. reliable sources for some of these accolades seems to be a problem. OTOH, is this be an article we should have? My initial thinking is that nobody is going to search on the article title; they're more likely to enter "Godfather of Soul" and I'd expect them to go to James Brown. When a title has been applied to more than one artist, however, there's a problem. Do we take them to this page, to a DAB page or to the best known artist of that title, with a DAB hatnote to any others? I'll try to think it through a bit more. HTH. --Rodhullandemu 22:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rodhullandemu. I'm glad that I'm not the only one in two minds - that's why I needed a neutral approach from someone not directly involved in the deletion debate. Thanks again for your time. --Technopat (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a refusal by one editor to engage in discussion while making 50 edits and substantial changes to the page Fascism. Please intervene again. Sorry.--Cberlet (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's clearly not listening and has ownership issues. Perhaps a 48 hour WP:BLOCK for disruption will concentrate his mind. --Rodhullandemu 22:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good lord. Do we need a CU? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that! (yeah, right) Nice meeting you, though. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on Liz Hurley's school! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thought it must be out there somewhere. --Rodhullandemu 16:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the way you communicated in your latest message at User talk:167.206.79.227. Nice message. I hope it works. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.

The documents are in Wikileak and the information is there so it seemed alright to direct anybody there by providing the address but if there is some copyright restriction involved then it's alright not to.

To go to a discussion at WP: AN. How is that done?

Thanks again! JDPhD (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JDPhD (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to be active in talk page discussions, and I have already given the user notice on his user talk page. The majority of the content-editing issues that I see are additions of material to articles with presumed citations to certain sources - where the info added does not gel with the sources cited - and also a heavy amount of WP:OR, and generally addition of info sourced to primary sources and the like, you can probably see some of my issues raised with regard to articles Scientology, Reactive mind, Dianetics, and others related to this user's edits. I agree with your assessment that a topic ban would not be a bad idea, you could log that action at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Log of blocks and bans, which would be in-line with Wikipedia:General sanctions#Imposed by the Committee. I'll respect whatever you go with. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to confer with Stan En (talk · contribs) about JDPhD (talk · contribs), for example see his comment here. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this ANI section. Do you have anything to say, being an administrator? Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 22:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. It's a mess. So much so that I am too tired to even try to get my head round it at the moment. If it's still running tomorrow, I'll see if I have any view. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 22:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Could I please be sent a copy of the recently-deleted Omar Williams article. I appreciate there have been problems (I saw the thread on WP:AN) with the subject of the article writing it and then vandalising, but I do think it could be saved. From memory, I've seen documentaries about the subject, including mentions of his minor work in EastEnders, so think sources should be available. Thanks in advance George The Dragon (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placed here for you. Good luck. --Rodhullandemu 00:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated - probably not going to be able to salvage it, but worth a go, I guess! George The Dragon (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a steep learning curve. A shame, since if the editor would work collaboratively the entry would likely improve. Sigh...--Cberlet (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was away for a couple of days that was the reason why I did not get a chance to ask for an unblocking. However I don't think you're looking at things objectively. Cberlet is claiming a false consensus. He is also doing the exact same thing to articles User:R-41 is working on. He is trying to censor Wikipedia, including the removal of WP:CITEd information amongst other things. He is actively attempting to stop the progress of the article moving forward, hense why he keeps wholesale reverting all of the heavily cited information. He seems to think he is God. I started a long talkpage post on the article talkpage about Berlet's propagandist abuse of the article and attempts to hold back its progress. I welcome you to come over and see the evidence for yourself. Thanks.

Note that good old Chip, is still wholesale reverting information, as I continue to attempt to expand the article with numerous sources. It even has an "underconstruction" talk at the top of the page to notify of this. All I can see him doing is blantantly violating our policy on WP:TROLL. - Gennarous (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not here to arbitrate over content, but it is good that you have posted on the talk page. However, if you can't come to some agreement, I'd suggest dispute resolution of some sort. --Rodhullandemu 11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you delete this archive page? It's outdated, and all the material has been moved to a new page to keep consistency with my other archives. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done No problem. --Rodhullandemu 23:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just let them go, but this is getting out of hand. Can you at least look into this matter again? Thanks. Sorry for the extra work.--Cberlet (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's just not playing ball. As he was warned less than 24 hours ago for WP:NPA I've blocked for a week. --Rodhullandemu 02:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just received Berlet's message and looked at the discussion in Talk:European fascist ideologies. The block seems to be a good decision to me. Warnings seem to be ineffective, and his contributions show several cases of incivility. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... is back - 88.111.236.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 88.111.128.0/17 soft blocked for two weeks. Let's see if we can get the message across. --Rodhullandemu 16:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've reverted some of the latest vandalism, but got bored after a bit so haven't reverted it all... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 82.37.33.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - another one that "slipped through the net"... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one he's used before, and only he seems to use it, so also blocked two weeks. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for dealing with that one. Just so you are aware, I've developed a PHP script that makes use of the WP API and checks "suspected" WJH1992 socks for activity. As a result of this, I've "proven" marked all his usernames so that they aren't in the suspected category. Unfortunately, my script is on my own personal server so I don't want to make the URL public, but I'm going to use it to keep an eye on his tagged IPs for activity. It might help us spot IP socks that become active quicker. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's brilliant! I was wondering how we might trap these edits earlier but short of watchlisting every page he edits (of which there must be well over 100 by now), couldn't come up with anything. Does your script deal with ranges, though, since his IPs are dynamic? Since he and I are in the same timezone, I am usually around when he edits so can react quickly. At the moment, however, he has a very limited range of IPs to choose from. Thanks for your help with this. --Rodhullandemu 18:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, well I'm in the same timezone too (go GB! :D) so should be able to find his edits fairly easily, although these two IPs show that he could actually edit for two days without us noticing!! I was developing a script to check all ranges he edited from, but considering there would be well over 100,000 pages to check, it might be a very long job to check and WM might not be too happy either! I've mainly focused on checking existing tagged IPs for re-activated accounts for the time being. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd forgotten where you are. Have one in The Frog & Parrot for me! --Rodhullandemu 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd walked past that pub before but didn't realise it was called The Frog & Parrot! Never been in, but might have to now :).

I've just improved my script so it now checks the block logs and lets me know if the user is currently blocked or not. I've also got a nice little colour scheme going on too... Just wondering (and not sure if you'll know or not) but do you think I'd be eligible to sign up for a Toolserver account to host this? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why not, your script doesn't need Admin privileges and is unlikely to thrash the server (even though it's slug-slow at the moment). It would probably be a useful tool for managing IP sockpuppets anyway, so give it a go. --Rodhullandemu 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see our (range blocked) friend has been active again today (both on a username and on an existing blocked IP). I still haven't heard anything back about my Toolserver account though... :( ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I blocked User:Demonheadmaster indef earlier, he'd been around for a couple of days. Problem is I don't want to block account creation in a two-week rangeblock, but I have watchlisted a few more of his most recent articles. The IP can only edit his talkpage, so he can't really cause any damage. I don't know how long toolserver takes to react, you could ask User:LaraLove as she's recently got herself an account. Meanwhile, I'm keeping an eye on out friend. --Rodhullandemu 20:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped Lara a message so I'll see what she says. I think my next job will be to create a script to "monitor" the IP ranges associated with our friend, and see if any of them have been editing recently. However, aside from "brute force" checking of each IP individually, I can't see a better way of doing it with the given API... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, apparently Lara doesn't have a Toolserver account... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that must be my faulty memory. I was sure that she had one. As for monitoring the IP range, that'll be a heavy load on the server since it's 32K of addresses and I doubt it would make you any friends done as a batch, say hourly. I don't know if a salami-slicing technique might work by doing a query looping through the range, but you'd have to do nine each second to get through 32k in an hour, and I think the hit would still be noticed. However, I haven't take a look at the API so don't know what it can do. --Rodhullandemu 22:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she said she had Betacommand put some stuff for her on the Toolserver, but I don't think she actually had one herself. However, SQL said they recently had one approved, so it shouldn't take too long :).

I think, if I was going to check the 32K of addresses you have identified, it would probably be run as a daily job, with the load split into around 1.5K per go. Given I've just run the WJH1992 script, which processed 109 entries in 36 seconds (so around 3 entries a second), it would take around 26 hours to complete all 32K. I'm not sure WM would be too happy about me hammering their server for 26 hours... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed with some incredulity your edit here, and your rather snarky edit summary "Rv, better discussed on talk page; Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman and Jack the Ripper all have similar sections." That an experienced editor would restore the dreck about Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps and Viz to a serious article about a mass murderer took me aback. That you would use an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument to justify it took me aback further. Then you mention raising it on the talk page, but then don't actually raise it on the talk page. I'm sure you realize that the onus is now on you to provide encyclopedic reasons for retaining any part of the section I deleted or integrated, and you restored. --John (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. However, I think there is some value (up to a point) in retaining material like this and I have an essay in mind to explain why; it will be written very shortly. I wasn't intending to refer to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS per se, merely to point out that it appears that consensus exists elsewhere to include "In Popular Culture" sections even in the most serious articles. I realise that WP:DEL#REASON#6 is vague and subjective, giving licence for almost anything, but also WP:NOTPAPER gives us some leeway in the opposite direction, with appropriate caveats.

We have a whole article on Adolf Hitler in popular culture and although it's a shed, it reflects attitudes to him at the time and since; you will be aware that the psychological and political reasons for the existence of such material are complex, and I will be addressing those in my essay. Meanwhile, I had the same problem when tackling "cunt"; a lot of material was deleted as unsourced trivia- however, with a lot of research effort, I've turned that into a defensible article. I wasn't intending to be snarky, but it is easier to address the material while it's still in the article, and deleting it removes it from consciousness. If there were 28 of me, this encyclopedia would be a lot better but as it is, my time is limited. Please bear with me until I get this essay up and running. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and my reasons are nothing to do with censorship but merely an application of WP:V; if we are including these snippets, we are implicitly arguing that they are of verifiable significance to the understanding of the article subject. I do not believe this to be the case. I've made a longer post at the article talk page and I may post to a centralized discussion to try to elicit wider input. --John (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember mentioning censorship, nor would I. Meanwhile, I'll come back after I've had something to eat. It's been a while. --Rodhullandemu 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was thinking of the cunt comparison; sometimes people (like myself) who take quite a conservative view on the inclusion of this type of trivia in serious articles have our views misinterpreted as being a kind of censorship and/or cultural bias. I read this into what you said, and I'm sorry if it was not warranted. I believe all that is really needed is a good interpretation of WP:V; let's see what others think. Bon appetit! --John (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see an administrator chime in here. BGC and I have reverted each other's edits on this in the past, and he did not reply last time I left him a message about it (in fact, he just deleted my message). What do you do when an editor refuses to engage in discussion? —Zeagler (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC) :I'm keen to hear his reasoning, but if he won't discuss it, we have to look at sanctions for disruptive editing. I believe I've set out policy as plainly as I can, but if he's going to ignore policy, there's only one place it can go. I'll give him time to collect his thoughts and will look at it again tomorrow since it is very late here. Meanwhile, beware of WP:3RR and edit-warring. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I see it's fixed. No worries. --Rodhullandemu 02:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have probably noticed that we are currently debating on the Gordon Ramsay talk page what type of chef Gordon should be refered to . We are debating between Scottish Chef and Fine dining Chef or just chef, we need an admin to give an opinion. Can you please visit the Gordon Ramsay talk page (under nationality) and offer some wisdom as we are basiclly in a edit/revert war over this topic. Please note that the title of the section (nationality) is not what the argument is about there is no doubt his nationality is Scottish we just want to know if he should be refered to as a Scottish Chef, a Fine dining Chef or just Chef.--Theoneintraining (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have blocked a whole IP range because of one user which means you've essentailly banned a whole ISP. The IPs on this ISP are dynamic but they're used by different people. I'm asking you to lift this block and solve your problem with this user some other way. This has happened before and it shouldn't have happened again.--Shookvitals (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not quite sure why this is happening because I usually block anonymous users only, which shouldn't affect you. My apologies, and I will look into this. --Rodhullandemu 11:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to make sure I'm going about this correctly, basically any user with over 500 mainspace edits, a relatively clean block log, and no evidence of disruption on their talk page should get the flag, right? –xeno (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those are the criteria I use. In borderline cases I'll review the talk page & recent edits and usually go with gut feeling, so far there don't seem to have been any problems. You get the hang of it. --Rodhullandemu 16:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, –xeno (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again Rodhullandemu, Please have a look at what's going on here Darwin-Wallace Medal. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much scope for admin intervention, it's just the usual AfD brawl, but I've looked at it and concluded that it's notable enough to keep, maybe with better sourcing. Hope that helps. --Rodhullandemu 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I was subtly hinting at what's already been not-so-subtly hinted at on the AfD page itself... --Technopat (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Strong Keep! --Technopat (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah sure to Camkids. I'm afraid I guard my family's privacy jealously: you may have noticed I tidied some of the career details as well (not your efforts) because they were wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.58.253 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just saw your comment saying you know where I live on the discussion page: you don't I'm afraid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.58.253 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your answer on Lass Lara's page about reference. So basically, the first time I used the reference, I just add a name to the first ref tag. Next time I use it, I use the second tag you provide, which is just the name and a forward slash. Where do I get the name from? Craig Montgomery (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craig, You make the name up yourself; usually, if it's a book I use the name of the author as in <ref name = Smith> or if it's a newspaper, <ref name = NYPost>. It doesn't matter, as long as it's unique. One thing I usually get wrong is the slash at the end of the second citation; it can wipe out an entire article if you get it wrong! Good luck. --Rodhullandemu 22:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will give this a go. Thanks. I will do my best to prevent said wipeouttery of an entire article. Craig Montgomery (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did break the article I was working on. What a shock. I don't think I would have caught the mistake, but all of a sudden the article was much shorter. It was that '/'. I fixed it. I really could have messed things up. Thank you for the heads up, man. Craig Montgomery (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You get to know the hang of things that go wrong and how to fix them. --Rodhullandemu 10:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the next few hours I will be working with User:WesleyDodds (the guy that went crazy on The Beatles article not so long ago) on the Michael Jackson article. He will be removing large quantities of content and putting them into my sandbox. The article is currently at FA review (I'm not sure if you know that) and Wesley is of the impression that the article is too long. I have given him free rails to remove what he feels necessary but have also made it crystal clear that I am monitoring closely. I will reinsert any material removed that I feel damages the readers understanding of Jackson or jeopardizes the articles neutrality. I am letting you know in case you go reverting thinking it is vandalism or ownership or not agreed to etc etc. If others revert him I would advise reverting back to his version. Cheers. — Realist² (Speak) 01:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm off to bed anyway. I know he has his own ideas about how articles should be written, but he does know about FA's too. Just try and reach a sensible compromise is my advice. --Rodhullandemu 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words, I don't think there will be any compromising really, I think he fully intends to remove approximately 25,000 bytes lol. He knows how BOLD works that's for sure. Night. — Realist² (Speak) 01:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers man, it's a shame Wesley insisted on removed the picture of the hand, which I thought did the job perfectly without having to embarrass the subject of the article. — Realist² (Speak) 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, I thought that would be better off in the vitiligo article anyway, and as you said "It's only a link away". I think the cropped version is much better without the side people and I've fixed it on Commons. --Rodhullandemu 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you approved my bot, AmeliorationBot to use AWB, however on the checkpage you listed the name as "Ameliorationbot" (with a lowercase "B") and AWB is refusing my bot account access. I've left a comment on the requests for registration page, but if someone else hasn't already would you mind fixing it? Sorry about the hassle. Cheers, ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 04:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 04:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the Arabic Wikipedia article. Санта Клаус (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]