User talk:Rodhullandemu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
01 (to 20070925) 02 (to 20071022) 03 (to 20071123) 04 (to 20071220) 05 (to 20080122) 06 (to 20080214) 07 (to 20080318) 08 (to 20080405) 09 (to 20080504) 10 (to 20080602)

Another Tip of the moment...

Please read department instructions

Some pages are active departments with their own set of instructions. It may be tempting to skip reading them and go straight to making edits or leaving messages. But this just clutters those pages and creates unnecessary steps for the volunteers of those departments. This happens a lot at the Help desk, the Wikipedia:Reference desk, and at Articles for creation. For example, many users ask general knowledge questions at the Help Desk rather than at the Reference Desk, because they didn't read the instructions at the top of the page. If you visit those pages, please take the time and read the instructions before making use of those helpful departments.

[edit] TMZ

Is TMZ a reliable source, this was in the madonna article which is currently on GA reassessment. Personally I think its a little tacky to say the least, they dont have the best rep. Reply at your talk page if you like, im watching. ;-) --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't give it too much cred, it seems to be just a celeb gossip-mill of the tabloid style. They may not exactly lie, but the may make up the truth, if you see what I mean. I'd look for a better source for a GA nomination. --Rodhullandemu 18:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers ;-) --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But hes insulting you. ;-( --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rod, you need to keep an eye on the Beatles article if you want to see it get to FA. Im not going to get into an edit war with uber beatles fans but snopes is not reliable and I dont like being reverted when im trying to keep an article I have zero interest in above water. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your call if you dont have the time, but Kodster is actualy trying to sort the article out, other editers are blindly getting in the way. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It wont get through FA, I had snopes removed like 7 times on the MJ article at the last review. Still if it takes a failed FA for them to get that no problem. But failing a FA is a brutal, misreable process trust me. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a draining task, Im only going to try and get MJ and "Thriller (album)" to FA and then thats it lol. Im getting stressed about the MJ article, I promised myself id run again soon but im to scared. I dont like my work put under that strong a microscope. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles

The lead section for this article is quite inadequate both for an article of its length and in conveying basic facts. It still doesn't even mention that the band broke up. I just had to add the members of the band, which is very essential information. Check out FA lead sections in The Smashing Pumpkins, R.E.M., or Metallica for the sort of information that needs to be covered in the introduction to a band article. I'm of the opinion that that lead could use a drastic overhaul. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. It took about three days just to reach consensus for "The Beatles were a rock and pop group from Liverpool, England", so it's a difficult process. Now, what't your source for 1960 as the year of formation fo the band? --Rodhullandemu 00:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I went with the one listed in the infobox, because I figured that had been hashed out as a result of consensus. We could always cite Allmusic if need be. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess they're as reliable a source as any, but with The Beatles, someone will always come along and try to argue the toss. --Rodhullandemu 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WOW, what happened to discussion? --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, night night, understand completely. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea is I'm operating under WP:BOLD. The article needs definite cleanup and even some rewriting, so even if some of my changes are undone, hopefully it will start some discussion that will improve the article. Don't worry, I have a degree in English and have written three FA band articles (The Smashing Pumpkins, Joy Division, and R.E.M.), so i have a general sense of what I'm doing. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Talking about blocking an editor for attempting to boldly improve an article is wholly against Wikipedia's ideals. We're here to encourage contribution (from one of the finest music editors we have, I might add) to articles, not discourage them. CloudNine (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I distinctly got the impression that he was attempting to take ownership of the article since he didn't seem to be cooperating with the other editors whom, it has to be said, have already put in a lot of work. Apologies if I misread the situation. --Rodhullandemu 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming articles with the same name.

What happens when a football player has the same name as another and the article has the title 'Players Name (footballer)'?

--TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change and redirect please.

Hey these two articles are exactly the same, only ones better and has more detail than the other. The "Michael Jacksons Music Videos" article is the same as the "filmography" only it has the extra stuff on MTV and his affect on the Music video at the top. Its much better. The filmography page is inferior. Would it be possible if you could delete the "Filmography" article and change the name of "Michael Jacksons Music Videos" to filmography please. Take a look at the too article you will see what I mean. [1]. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, yeah, ill get around to it in 2011 mate, im overloaded as it is. ;-) --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University Challenge userbox

If you're interested, I've created a University Challenge userbox. Visit {{User:UBX/University Challenge}} for instructions on how to use it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Its Britney Bitch!

This is SOOO funny. I still love this. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JJ wikiproject

Hi I just set up the Janet Jackson wikiproject. The JJ article was tagged as part of the project and the quality & Importance parameters were also added. Yet it hasnt been added to this table. Do you have to update it manually or does a bot do it? If manually could you show me, cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I found a way to do it manually, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Stewart (actor)

Discussion moved to /Harvey_Carter, please make additions there. --Rodhullandemu 22:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: My talk page

Yeah, I will keep my head. I will revert edits of that variety, but I'm not going to go crazy blocking people (I can't I'm not an admin ;) ) or preemptive strike-reporting to AIV. But thanks for letting me know. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

heh. I didn't take it that way at all, but thanks for the reassurance. ;) Thingg^⊕^⊗ 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WarAgainstRugs

I see you agreed I was correct in my ID of this account, but I still worry if it was appropriate to revert so quickly (which I screwed up in any case, due to weird edit conflict I guess--he is quick!). Would it be better just to lie low and watch? Is there any good way to alert the admins to keep an eye on a user without alerting him too? I know you are on the case, but everybody gotta sleep sometimes. I was too sleepy to be reliably rational myself last night. Thanks ! Wwheaton (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Law Project

That's great, thanks for the pointers. I am new to writing for Wikipedia and so familiarising myself with the conventions of it. I guess once I have written a page I submit it generally under an article head or do I submit it to anywhere specific if it is concerned with the project?(Willrgby (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Re: The Beatles

Yeah, I did that to start with, and I'll spend a while cleaning it up - I did it pretty quickly, as I find it easier to look at it in context and amend from there...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#complaint_about_a_ADMINISTRATOR_-.3E_User:R._Baley

I know we'll both go to hell for it, but I couldn't help but laugh at your comments. Corvus cornix_talk 06:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had the same feeling for a while. Corvus cornix_talk 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 07:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

This IP address, (my address), is registered to Opal Telecommunications, and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses proxy servers or firewalls, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

i have no idea wtf u are on about i never even went on that page so piss off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.113.255 (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on IP talk page. --Rodhullandemu 15:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you replied to the user at the same time as I did :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the joys of edit conflicts! --Rodhullandemu 15:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That or not knowing that the other editor is going to reply at the same time. I wasn't sure if you were around, saw the comment and so decided to be bold and go for it. I've removed my comment anyway since yours has dealt with the issue at hand. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 15:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deleting

Sony/ATV Music Publishing - could you delete this article please, it repeats everything that is in the Northern Songs article which is a better article and well sourced. It should be redirected to Northern Songs really. If you can do it please also take the Wikiproject banners off the talk page. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, will do. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blade Runner

I understand. I still regard it as an obscure and needless addition to the opening paragraph, but I will of course abide by the collective decision.Normalmouth (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:91.104.156.54 is DY71 sock

I am almost sure. An unnoticed edit of ACC from 27 March is the tipoff, together with list of contributions. Another IP editor with the same modus operandi is active now, User:85.73.240.56. I have reverted both cases, but keep an eye out and block him when you are convinced. Wwheaton (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also 78.109.28.16, I think, still active. Wwheaton (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I just tagged three or four IP accounts as suspected socks. Keep on truckin' Wwheaton (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silver editor service award

Because of your many edits you have a Silver editor star.

Greetings! Demophon (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rodhullandemu,

My well-meant excuse! You 'don't' have the right to the Silver editor star. You're right, only after more than 16,000 edits and 3 years' service you're entitled to the Silver editor star. Sorry!! How did you get so many edits in such a short time? Demophon (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Insomnia, mostly. --Rodhullandemu 12:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your intervention

Hello! Thank you for your block of the editor NewLeadership, who was creating disruptive edits and articles. I was going to list a Level 3 warning when you intervened -- I am glad that you did, as I think that editor would not have paid much heed to additional warnings. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)