User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/33

Thanks for keeping all the requests here under control :). Just a FYI, since you've been removing old requests, I've got User:KingpinBot up and running, and have just added AWB/CP to it, so it should handle the archiving from now on (have to hope it works! :D). I've not yet added the AWB-bot requests to it, although I may add this to the bot shortly, they are so rare that it shouldn't matter that much - feel free to contact me and I can archive any AWB-bot requests manually. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still some discussion about your block for Qamsar (talk · contribs). I think you completely overreacted and were to harsh in your block. I would appreciate you discussing it and ignoring the trolling by the IP. AniMate 10:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the block has been corrected, although I would have made it 31 hours. However, when I spend 10-12 hours here daily, most of which is spent fighting vandalism, one bad block out of nearly 3000 might slip through. I am unfortunately somewhat human and not infallible. I don't appreciate my efforts here being met by months, yes months, of harrassment from one IP-hopper with an axe to grind. Thanks for your support. Rodhullandemu 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reguarding the edit you just made at ozzy, in the "diff" it shows my name, making it look like I made the edits you corrected ?

I think that's the way UNDO works, since the previous version was your undoing of vandalism & still contained the overlinked names. Shouldn't be a problem. Rodhullandemu 17:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but it makes it look like i'm the Idiot, Thanks

MESSAGE 17:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chace Watson —Kww(talk) 16:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rodhullandemu, this other editor Pyrrhus16 keeps dleted changes nade to an article even when ive added valid sources to confirm. I admit thatin the past i have added without sources ( like others) and it was protested and i havent been doing. Another editor even suggested that i uses the term "cultural icon" instaead of "global icon" but i feel its just gonna be deleted without even being discussed on the talk page which i have been doing when ever i want to make an edit. Other editor have complained about the actions of this editor.

Thank youBuffaloxoldiar (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other editors;

extreme claims require excellent sources, and I suggest you thrash this out on the Talk page with other editors. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 19:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please reprotect. --Verbal chat 21:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than blocking for breaking your conditions, perhaps DharmaDreamer and Yorksharian should simply be topic banned. Then they are still free to contribute elsewhere. Verbal chat 21:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the wider community should look at this, since I am pretty tired at present and not really geared up to thinking straight. I'll warn them first, but if this continues I'll put it on

WP:ANI. Rodhullandemu 21:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

While on AIV, could you also take a look at 75.170.161.149, please? This user is fresh off a block and back to his ol' tricks. Needs to go back to block-o-land. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to decline this because he hasn't vandalised after last warning and isn't vandalising now, but I've protected the page since can shift IP address, looking at the page history. Hopefully that will be enough. Rodhullandemu 00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, any thoughts here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodhullandemu:

Just catching up with your most recent note concerning your deletion of a link – http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-jfk-photo-fiasco.html – that I had added within the External Link section of Wikipedia’s Lee Harvey Oswald entry. In your brief message to me, while reminding me that "everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia," you then proceeded to let me know that “one or more of the external links you added to the page Lee Harvey Oswald do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed.” You then further go on to remind that “Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project.”

After having reviewed all of the information that you have provided in regard to your recent deletion of the above cited link, I can assure you that there was never any intent to use the above cited link “as a platform for advertising and promotion.” Further, I find it very difficult to justify the deletion of the above cited link based upon any of the items listed in the "Wikipedia is not a collection of links" article, as the link which you chose to delete is not just another arbitrary link rendering the Oswald External Links section a “[m]ere collection of external links or Internet directories.”

Rather, the deleted link does in fact provide “useful content-relevant links to an article,” which, according to guidelines for external links, “there is nothing wrong with adding.” Specifically, the deleted link to the article, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco," co-authored by two reputable experts within the JFK research community, Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs, provides a much merited factual counterpoint to the opinion promoted by the Wikipedia Oswald article within the section:"4 Backyard photos," when the article quotes Dartmouth Prof. Hany Farid’s conclusion that "the photo almost certainly was not altered." Further, aside from being a much merited counterpoint to Prof. Farid’s opinionated conclusion, the Fetzer/Marrs article also contains numerous specific citations concerning fallacies in Dr. Farid’s research and methods that serve to seriously undermine Dr. Farid’s much publicized conclusion regarding the Oswald “backyard photographs.”

Surely, based upon on these merits, the Fetzer/Marrs article bears mention within any reputable encyclopedia that desires its readers to be well-informed, no matter how controversial the topic of discussion may be.

Finally, as you may probably surmise from my chosen Wikipedia user name – Monticello1826 – I thoroughly appreciate the quote you have chosen to highlight so prominently within your Wikipedia profile:

“That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe for the moral and mutual instruction of man and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature when she made them like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.” (Thomas Jefferson, 1813)

With the spirit of the above quote in mind, then, could you please let me know: 1)specifically, why the link to the Fetzer/Marrs article was deleted? 2)- what measures can be taken to restore the link to the Fetzer/Marrs article within Wikipedia’s entry for Lee Harvey Oswald?

- Monticello1826

First, we do not normally consider blogs as

WP:FRINGE, as I see this issue is mentioned only in passing in the article. By all means, though, feel free to raise the issue on the Talk page where more knowledgeable editors than I can evaluate your link. Rodhullandemu 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Within that response you state: "In this case, the Lee Harvey Oswald is not to my mind an appropriate venue for such detailed analysis of whether the photographs were faked ..."

And yet, the Wikipedia LHO article itself contains an entire section entitled, "Backyard photos," in which Dr. Farid's conclusions are allowed to stand -- seemingly -- as factual, when in point of fact Dr. Farid's conclusions represent nothing more than his own point of view, albeit based upon his own flawed research methods:

"Farid has violated a basic canon of scientific research, which is that all the available evidence that makes a difference to a conclusion must be taken into account." ( -from the article which link you have deleted entitled, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco," found at: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-jfk-photo-fiasco.html)

It would seem that your objection to including the link in question within the Wiki LHO entry, then, would be based upon what you see a the lack of a "reliable third party commentary" in support of the Fetzer/Marr article's arguments and conclusions. If this is in fact your only objection, then I'm quite sure that such third party sources/commentary are readily available for citing.

- Monticello1826

I'm sorry, I missed that section. My opinion is that the whole section is

of undue weight in the article, focussing as it does on one facet as against other material that readers might find more relevant. Accordingly, I do not want to get into a content-based argument with you and invite you to replace the link, and see what other editors make of it. I am not a gatekeeper for this, or any other article, and am not qualified to measure competing claims here. Rodhullandemu 22:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Per your invitation, then, I'll update the Wiki LHO External Links section with a link to the Fetzer/Marrs article, this time found at the third party source: http://www.opednews.com/ - Monticello1826

Rodhullandemu,

Viewing the Wikipedia LHO today (03/15/2010), after reinserting the external link to the Fetzer/Marrs article per my note to you yesterday (see above), and find that that external link has once again been deleted.

I'm a new Wikipedia user, so perhaps I've missed something in regard to a message as to why the link has once again been deleted. Can you help me out in this regard? - Or is there someone else that can? If so, please provide instructions for communicating with such a person. -Thanks, Monticello1826

Looking at the edit, no reason was given, but you might want to ask the editor who removed it here. In general, if you click on the "History" tab of an article, you can see recent edits at the top of the list. Rodhullandemu 19:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Full support, if I had a button I would have done it, I support the long term protection of articles that attract excessive vandalism from unconfirmed edits good work, thanks
  Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Cheers. I see nonsense there on an almost daily basis. Rodhullandemu 19:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past, oh, month or so I have chosen to watch your talk page (I hope you don't mind). The reason being there has been a fairly amusing anon user who write poems and the like on your wall. I'll cut to the chase; I've been keeping a collection of his musings and odes, ah they make me laugh so much. I was wondering if this fellow has struck lately? He is quiet good you must admit. If you to Reply to me here, please place a talkback notification of my talk page. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm not in a rush. So don't worry about quickly getting back to me, I understand. Outback the koala (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also long been watching this page, recently because of a certain anon who is indifferent (at best) to the sensibilities of Rodhullandemu in his posting of verse upon these pages. Rhae may not be inclined to respond to your request, and in that case I would suggest that you do not pursue the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm. If that is the case, I guess it is for the best. But still, I'll give it a few days. You never know. Outback the koala (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this page? I suggest it goes by {{

db-attack}}. Rodhullandemu 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What page are you talking about?? Outback the koala (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I've been keeping a collection of his musings and odes". On-wiki? Inadvisable. Rodhullandemu 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhhhh, no no it's an off-wiki collection. Outback the koala (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely bizarre that anyone would want to maintain a record of a harrasser's persistent and distressing hounding of me, but if you want poor poetry, I recommend "The Stuffed Owl", edited by D.B. Wyndham Lewis. If you wish to show respect to a fellow-contributor here, that is a matter for you and your conscience. 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Rodhullandemu 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I somehow offended you. I will not post on your wall again. Once more, I apologize. Good Day to you. Outback the koala (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three newly created accounts,
Uclad1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
Merku4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
Rey1212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
have all reverted to the "...in the beginning..." bit at George Harrison; this same edit incorrectly changes Harrison's standing in Rolling Stone magazine's list of "The 100 Best Guitarists of All Time" from 21 to one.

Smells like socks. And bollocks. MPFC1969 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have quietened down, but if this recurs, I'll sort it out. Rodhullandemu 17:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has recurred, with Dmerkurev3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I've blocked the lot for abuse of multiple accounts and semi'd the page for a few days to get the message across. Rodhullandemu 22:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been researching “Need Your Love So Bad” (Fleetwood Mac et al). The song writing credit has me going round in circles. Some sources cite Little Willie John, some his brother (?) Mertis John Jr., and yet others name both of them. This might not be a reliable source but … [2]. I am asking a few Wikipedians, but have you any thoughts, before I go completely insane. No comments on that latter point please ! Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic, for once, is not as reliable as one would hope on this one. I tried a quick look through my "Record Collector"s, but couldn't find anything. Sorry. Rodhullandemu 22:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks anyway. You are right, Allmusic seems to not know "what's going on".[3] Anyhow, User:Ghmyrtle has provided me with a few leads, so watch this space - "Now, when the night begins, whoa, I'm at an end". I'm giving up wine gums for Lent, honest.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[4] I thought it was funny for some reason... --Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read it might be a good idea to open a bot account after getting AWB. I understand why, not sure how to go about doing it. Thanx

You don't need a bot account unless you intend to do multiple repetitive edits that are too voluminous to be sensibly done with AWB. I'd suggest you look at WP:Bots to see the criteria and procedures. Rodhullandemu 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI of sorts, you may wish to see this thread. –xeno^talk 14:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for geocoding the now-defunct railway stations in Northern Ireland. -- The Anome (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Some of them were "intelligent guesswork" but for those in doubt, I left the scale large enough to be sure (to be sure) of covering the actual location. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ariel Pink

He actually did do an album with a band called "Holy Shit" - the lead singer was Matt Fishbeck. Although the band name sounds fake, it's a real band. http://www.veryholyshit.com/

I might have known that if you'd cited a source at the time. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 15:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 03:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Didn't notice that, but thanks for pointing it 0ut. Rodhullandemu 15:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for approving me for AWB I appreciate it! :-) Evenios (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rodhullandemu, this is an automated message from

Appears to not want talk page priviliges either. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revoked. Rodhullandemu 17:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's back. Time to start issuing some blocks, methinks. Woogee (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

83.9.218.218 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Woogee (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and it's probably about time you had your Admin bit back. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would pass an RfA at this point. Thanks. Besides, everybody would want to know who I was in my past life, and I'm not really interested in revealing that to the general public. Woogee (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't need to know unless you wish to email me, but unless you left under a cloud, or there's some personal harassment or distress involved, I don't see why you shouldn't regain your previous victimhood position of absolute power, ha ha haaarr! responsibilities here. Rodhullandemu 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I've left a reply regarding the "Ballyhagan Petition" here.
Feel free to remove this message once read.

It looks like Julie Peasgood is going to be a continuing pain in the rear unless you semi-protect it until the flap either produces reliable sources or blows over. Your call, of course. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on it, but it seems slow at present. Rodhullandemu 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I would like to ask your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania with an important Hungarian population

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.".

My opinion is that according to wiki rules Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name)

We just want to respect the standard naming policy

User:Rokarudi, instead of focusing on the discussion, falsely accuses the editors who don't support his POV that are sockpuppets of User:Bonaparte

Can you please express your opinion here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hungarian_names_of_Romanian_places

Thanks in advance for your answer and sorry if it wasn't a good idea to post this message here (Umumu (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not an expert in this area, and don't have a ready solution to offer. In general, my preference would be to use the "official" name as defined by a country's constitution, but equally I'm aware of nationalistic interests who would

dispute resolution. Sorry if that doesn't help. Rodhullandemu 16:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Before committing yourself to answering, you might wish to review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umumu. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks anyway (Umumu (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, LHvU, my opinion is just that, and would have been the same whoever asked for it. This is better sorted out elsewhere, in my view. Rodhullandemu 17:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on here, but Umumu left the same message on several people's talk page. Enigma^msg 20:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw and removed this a minute ago... I'd say someone has a nice little grudge against you... (Though you seem to be on the lighter end of the spectrum... I on the other hand get attacked sporadically by Grawp and 4chan...)