User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/22

Delivered by

Thanks for saying my revision was done in "good faith." A lot of editors automaticaly assume vandalism. I really didn't think a source was necessary, because I have first-hand knowledge of this. I remember the song being played on the radio, and I have a promo copy of the single with the edited version of the song (Apple P-1873). In some ways, I am as much of a primary source to this as Joseph Plumb Martin's 19th-century recollections are a primary source to the American Revolution. Nonetheless, I recognize that you and other Wikipedia readers have no way of knowing that I am 50 years-old and remember the song when it came out. Nor do you (or most modern readers, I presume) remember when this record was first release. So your call for a source is legitimate. I included a reference from Wiener. Is that okay? I could have just as easily included a reference from Cox & Linsay's price guide. (Perry Cox & Joe Lindsay, Official Price Guide to The Beatles Records and Memorabilia first edition (New York: House of Collectables, 1995), 218.) Thanks.

Best wishes, MCB in Boulder (8/21/2009)67.177.195.177 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's just that we cannot rely on first-hand knowledge because there's no way it can be

verified. I'm older than 50, I do remember when the record came out, and your source looks fine to me. Rodhullandemu 18:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I just noticed on your bio that you're British. I just changed my revision to state that the shorter version of the song was played on the radio "in America" in 1974. I shouldn't have been so ethno-centric. I don't know what version of the song was played in the UK or elsewhere. Perhaps you always got the full-length version. All I know is that the first time I listened to the album with my friends (we were all in high school at the time it came out) the extra verse took us by surprise. We were so used to the edited version, which got full saturation airplay here in the States.

It's weird that, unlike "With a Little Luck" (in which the short version has been released on one or two of McCartney's compilation albums), the short version of "Band on the Run" has not been digitally released on CD. (Perhaps it is available on download; I don't know. Maybe I'm just too old, but downloads feel like cheating to me. If I can't hold it in my hand, I don't consider it a part of my record collection.) MCB in Boulder 198.11.27.101 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were moved to the discussion page where they should have been added originally. You were commenting on the virtue of the investigation, not contributing to it in any way. If you wish to contribute to the investigation, you are free to do so. Commentary on the investigation itself, or on whether you edit count is higher than mine, belong on the discussion page, if anywhere. Please refrain from reverting edits without reason, particularly when the edit in question clearly explains its validity in its edit summary. Edits like this hinder the investigation. Thank you. --DanielDeibler (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hinder the investigation? What investigation? So far, as

fair to me? I think you have much to learn. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just because I quoted John Cleese?? You're very welcome --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that, but that you gave a rational argument. The comment in question was to a student from Leeds who, given the timing of his edit, had recently returned from the pub on a Friday or Saturday night. Given that I am from that area myself, we tend to call a spade a spade rather than obfuscating; it saves time, and also given his subsequent edits to my comments to him, made me believe that he was not a serious editor here.

The assumption of good faith, in my experience, can be displaced in one edit, which is why I talked to him in language he would grasp, and rapidly. Americans may not understand that "twat" isn't necessarily that offensive on the UK. Rodhullandemu 00:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I voted "Keep" on the MfD, not to give you a hard time but per item (10) in

WP:UP#NOT. Regardless, I think the RfC will be a blow-out. Cheers, --Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I find that hard to follow, but I will look at your contribution there. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being from Bradford myself, I did feel I had to point out that Nurse! The Screens! wasn't necessarily the only response one could make to the word. And if I tell you that I used to work in a local government complaints office.....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford. I love it, and used to drive over from York just to get a decent curry in The Kash. Somewhat worrying that it was right next to the city mortuary, perhaps. I also remember the Italia Cafe, close by, and given the opportunity and the money, would move back to Yorkshire in a shot. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kash is still there next to the morgue (about which it occasionally used to complain. Downdraught table - don't ask!)and still excellent. Mamma and Poppa at the Italia sold up a few years ago though.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get off wiki as you are no good at it. You show no impartiality or even common sense. You constantly to suppress legitimate views and superior contributions. You are clearly a part of a clique. Wiki is about knowledge, which needs to be clearly put across. You appear not to identify knowledge or how it is put across in simple English. Please leave and take your clique with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.17.61 (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Rod! Bow down to Waterspaces' superiority - or else! He his clearly a genius so no sources will be required here, it is The Truth. As the man said: You constantly to suppress legitimate views. It doesn't get clearer than that. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 11:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it. I'm no good. This is why I've started over 50 new articles, got five to

Good Article status and had 15 DYKs on the Main Page, whereas Waterspaces... oh, on second thoughts, scrub that. Rodhullandemu 11:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, well, you can prove anything with facts! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked a Checkuser to look into this and will be filing an

investigation. My previous attempts to get Tiscali to do anything about their users haven't been that successful, but it may be a rangeblock can be worked out to prevent further abuse. Rodhullandemu 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying he is not a

encyclopedic. Rodhullandemu 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Rodhullandemu. You have new messages at KyleJustinD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It seem you have dealt previously with User:Xtian1313 and part of my issue has to do with things said on your talk page.

Just had a look at the history of

The same site was used as a reference in Christina Milian, and when I went to check it out, it was substantially the same, and I suspect CorenBot wasn't running when the article was created. Rodhullandemu 17:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not really sad about Bea Arthurs Death, i mean such a famous icon. Why do people have to die! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.141.224 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is always sad when people die, but not always unexpected. She lasted longer than most of my family, and was very successful; her relatives and friends should be thankful for that. However, for the purposes of her article, I maintain a

neutral point of view. Rodhullandemu 22:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

She's one of the few people I always thought death couldn't touch. Stupid reaper. She was a grand ol dame! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They say only two things are certain; death and taxes. The Golden Girls was shown over here, but didn't seem to have the same impact it seems to have done in the US. Our own version, "Brighton Belles", flopped and so poor old Bea doesn't have the same regard in the United States of K. Still sad, tho. Rodhullandemu 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a situation at Lady Gaga. User keeps reverting the main image to one that is a copyright violation. Also has been a disruption to other Gaga related articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. User has been blocked. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rod, I saw you revert Simone Jackson on the T25 article. I'm having real problems with this editor again, particularly with genres and lack of citations on numerous Jackson articles. I drew him to your attention before. Not sure if a block is warranted at this stage but just letting you know that I am still seeing significant issues with this editor. — R² 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article for "The Girl is Mine" describes it as "pop-rap", whatever that is; accordingly, it must be distinct from "hip-hop" to those who care; I may be able to spare some time to look into it, but I am very very tired right now. Rodhullandemu 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Is everything OK? My email is always open. — R² 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much pressure. The knobheads seem to be crawling out of the woodwork tonight and there's only one of me. I've seen some st00pid editors here, but there are some who just don't get it, never will, and that's wearing to the soul. They are beyond education. However, as they say, "that which does not kill me makes me stronger", although it's fucking close at present. Tomorrow I shall be stronger. Rodhullandemu 00:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get your own way, so lock the page down! As you wrote in your message to me - now deleted of course, by you - you agreed with the edits I made. But since I wouldn't rise to your bait, you had to find another way to win out. Very mature. Very adult. Very responsible. Doubtless this message will be branded as "uncivil" or some such and I will now be banned again. But you'll never win. Enjoy your interim victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends whether one has a professional attitude to writing articles here. I'll let my track record be the indicator of that. Rodhullandemu 06:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would let your track record speak for yourself indeed. It speaks volumes about you. For example, in the past week, you have not added to, created or edited one single page without it being a delete of something unsourced. You have at the same time got into several disputes with editors, making several blocks and undoing their work. You have never once actually bothered to go and source something to improve an article. You simply delete.

What you did yesterday is petty, childish and exceptionally unprofessional. By deleting my talk page, you cleverly removed your spiteful and petulant comments to me, also removing them from history so that no other administrator could read them. Having done that, you then reversed the edits I had made, having previously agreed with them. Then you locked your precious page.

If you consider it "professional" to behave that way; to leave comments in articles that are unsourced, unreferenced and unreliable, then that proves that you have no regard for the wiki project at all, just a petty vendetta against editors and a determination to get your own way at all costs, regardless of accuracy. You claim that the unsourced, unreferenced, unreliable comments I removed are "easily" sourced. But instead of sourcing them yourself, you demand that I do it. I suggest you do it yourself since it's so easily done.

This is the final edit I shall be making to any wikipedia page. I have tried to improve articles, but clearly, you do not understand the concept of wiki or the spirit in which it is meant to operate. You are simply a sad, lonely geek who must get their own way at all costs. I feel pity for you. Good luck with your obsession. It will ultimately be a very hollow and lonely life for you. I hope the joys of the administrator's club is worth it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote

WP:V to the letter, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." - i.e. you. It is not up to Rodhullandemu to find a source for information added by others, and he is well within policy to challenge and remove unsourced content without himself citing a source - that's the job of the original contributor. Now, unless you wish to be blocked, I suggest you stop trolling and continue to contribute constructively to this encyclopaedia. Or just leave. Your choice. _TalkIslander 11:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I appologise - there is clearly a lot more to this than is immediately obvious. Note that I'm not condoning your behaviour, but nor am I reprimanding it either: I'm merely taking a step back and disassociating myself with this matter. _TalkIslander 15:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from

WP:V

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."

"Reasonable"- good word, that. Rodhullandemu 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Awarded to Rodhullandemu for his tireless and dedicated work as an administrator in many different fields. BencherliteTalk 22:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

Much obliged to you. It makes a pleasant change to get some appreciation for the work I do here, and is humbly accepted. Rodhullandemu 22:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping I can call on your help again. I've reverted an edit twice that says (in effect) that Henry VIII "could" have written Greensleeves. The reason I've reverted the edits is because there has been no supporting reference to validate them and repudiate the existing reference (which states that Henry did not). In both cases I've followed it up with explanations on the discussion page but I'm not making any headway - the user involved does not believe he requires any supporting references. This issue of Henry and Greensleeves flares up periodically; normally it's settled but in this particular case I believe the user will continue to make the edit. I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on this. Many thanks David T Tokyo (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a popular theory; but without sources, all we can cite is the attribution. I'll take a look at it. Rodhullandemu 21:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just noticed that it's already been changed. I can't revert it again, it'll take me past the three edit rule. David T Tokyo (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shame, I've just expressed an opinion on the Talk page, so I can't protect it- I'll flag it at

WP:RFPP. Rodhullandemu 21:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks again. David T Tokyo (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, I'm sorry to see you questioning yourself quite so much on this issue. For what it's worth I came to you because I knew it would get sorted, I would have accepted whatever you proposed and I genuinely can't fault your actions at any stage of this issue. I'm not part of the Admin staff (obviously!) but I have managed more people than I ever care to think about. My best advice to you, if you are feeling unsure, is find an example of the admin style you'd like to aim for and keep that close to your heart. None of us ever stops learning. Isn't that why Wiki exists? One day I'll work out how to award the appropriate Barnstar - until then, Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I missed this post of yours; it's been a very busy evening. But thanks for your concern, it is appreciated. All I strive for is an encyclopedia that can be trusted by its users for accuracy, completeness and relevance. that is our duty here. Too many people, particularly vandals and POV-pushers, take it as a game, but it isn't. Those who wrote the
  hieroglyphics inside the pyramids didn't see it like that, and neither do I; maybe they didn't foresee that their writings would be pored over some 5000 years later. However, we have a unique opportunity here to document the past as we interpret it and the present as we experience it. Our lives are short, and the best we can do is to leave something of value for the future. That's why I am here. Rodhullandemu 00:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think we should just lcose it off entriely, considering he somehow threatend ot find out where i live (not that hard since i say so on my userpage...) and the fact ALL he really did was vandalize.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locked, bolted, done and dusted. I thought maybe he'd just gone off on one, but his last post was indefensible. He's now, as we say, "toast". Rodhullandemu 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]