After having thought about it overnight, I came to the conclusion that it's more than just a little silly to be editwarring over a DAB page. Your response, which I read this morning, indicates support for this conclusion!
Your response has provided me with all the 3O I need. I'll stop wasting people's time.
Very many thanks for your time and effort, and particularly for your good advice.
But that website only says about public acts of parliament, not private ones. I didn't know there were such things as private acts of parliament, can you explain please? Thanks.--
Aepe D (
talk)
19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Private Acts are those with limited applications, e.g. to a bridge, port or harbour. Just checking back in my papers, it never got as far an an Act, although a Bill was drafted. The effect, however, can be seen in the Statue Law (Repeals) Act 1993, Part XV, Group 4, and this is on
OPSI here. --
Rodhullandemu19:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.
We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.
Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.
P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See
meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.
Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
Well, it's still a wiki, but vandalism hasn't reached the level where you'd get it protected at
WP:RFPP. I've watchlisted it and will protect if it gets out of hand. --
Rodhullandemu19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, I need major help at the Michael Jackson artile now, there are huge BLP issues going on and it's getting a little crazy. The article probably needs protecting until this blows over or something. The conversion to islam is so crazy for a start. —
Realist216:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)reply
My Rfa
Rodhullandemu/Archive, thank you very much for participating in
my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community.
I would also like to thank my nominator
Realist2 and my co-nom
Orane(talk), and special mention to
Acalamari and
Lenticel(
talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards,
Efe
Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
Magritte
I started a train here:
[1] repectfully have a different point of view concerning Fair use imagery in important visual arts articles and the need for galleries...
Modernist (
talk)
22:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
I would have emailed you, but you aren't enabled. Is there any way I can help about your library situation? I have access to storage (well, possibly) 'oop north' which is I assume where you live. It is a great evil to be parted from one's books. Let me know if there is any small way I can be of help.
The Land Surveyor (
talk)
12:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed,
all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced.
—
Mizu onna sango15Hello!
I did an initial rewrite on the entry. I'm still missing lots of information that should be included in the next few days (I've found two sources from which I was able to draw loads of interesting new facts) and I'm still not sure what to do about the logo competition. Perhaps reduce it to something short and merge it in a section on fan involvement or something. Anyway, I'd like to know what you think of my edits so far. -
Mgm|
(talk)10:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Looks good so far; the logo competition seems minor and has too much detail for its worth. I think the Royal Variety Performance line in the previous para should move down to that section when it happens. --
Rodhullandemu10:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I think I'll relegate the competition thing to a one sentence mention in a place where it's relevant. I'm already going to mention the 5 winners who danced in his video when I can dig up the source again. I'm definitely going to put the Royal Variety in chronological order. Hopefully the section won't be a one sentence stub... -
Mgm|
(talk)11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
A day in the life
You sent me a message saying to list a reliable source to change A day in the life genre to symphonic rock. Well, the "Symphonic Rock" page says that A day in the life is the earliest example of symphonic rock. So either they need to change the statement in "Symphonic Rock" or change the genre in A day in the Life. Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Palaciopalermo12 (
talk •
contribs)
01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)reply
We do not regard ourselves as
reliable sources for ourself, paradoxically. It needs a citation in both articles, otherwise it should go.
Noi non la consideriamo come noi stessi
fonti affidabili per soli, paradossalmente. Ha bisogno di una citazione in entrambi gli articoli, altrimenti si dovrebbe andare.
I may be wrong (as it's been a particularly difficult day) but CSD is there for a purpose, and an unused image with no source and no fair-use rationale should go forthwith, as far as I'm concerned. The two things we are most sensitive about are libel and copyright, and rightly. I prefer to err (if at all) on the side of caution; after all, it doesn't prevent anyone re-uploading the image, with proper sourcing,
WP:FUR, and actually using it. HTH! --
Rodhullandemu23:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Just to let you know
Jamalar is editing again, when all the article she edits pop up on my watchlist it's a sure sign. Jamalar seems to be making some effort with this account, although we both know she would return to her normal ways if she could get away with it. —
Realist217:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
She knows she can be blocked anytime for evasion of the original block, however if she's doing good edits & not warring, I'm inclined to let her prove that she can edit constructively. All for the good of the encyclopedia, of course; some blocks tend to be counter-productive. Let me know on the first sign of trouble, though. --
Rodhullandemu17:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it's more a case of filling you in on the latest goings on in "World Jamalar" :-). If she stops taking the happy pills I'll let you know. —
Realist218:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
If you type {{AWBUser|username}} (in the sandbox, for instance) and save or preview, you'll see "count" in the list; clicking on that opens a page which shows all the counts. For AWB purposes, the "Mainspace edits" is the important figure. Hope that helps. --
Rodhullandemu20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Eela Craig page
Hi Rodhullandemu:
You proposed to delete the band page I created for Eela Craig. I'm a little surprised to see that recommendation. I agree that not every local xyz band be put on Wikipedia, but this is an internationally known band - which I created by the way, because their contribution to another page was missing (Fairlight CMI instrument).
Either way, the guidelines for notability of bands lists that any one of the criteria should apply and criterion is:
5. Has released two or more albums on a major label
which is easily matched by Eela Craig. Quite frankly, and that, of course, is my personal opinion, is that any recording band should have the right to be on WP. Plus, if it's good enough for the German WP, I dont'see why it shouldn't be allowed on the English version...
I am a new editor and don't know how to formally dispute your deletion suggestion and would appreciate a pointer on how to do so (WP's instructions for editors are rather lengthy and cumbersome to follow...)
As a long-term (thirty years+) author on progressive rock music, I've never heard of them. To dispute the PROD, all you need to do is delete that tag. It's then open to any editor to apply for
deletion on the basis of lacking
notability, and to avoid that, some independent, reliable sources would help. Cheers. --
Rodhullandemu00:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I've actually deleted the one you tagged as redundant, and will tag the other as needing a full FUR. It keeps thins a little tidier that way, I feel. --
Rodhullandemu22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply
That's cool, I just don't want two identical images running around Wikipedia, particularly when neither of them are necessary. :-) Could the images cracks be the new genre warrior? Scary to even think abut it. —
Realist222:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply
They're just fankids who don't get our image policies- and it even took me some time- but I see that uploader has already been blocked for image copyvios, so he should have got the picture by now. It gets harder to AGF as time goes on, however. --
Rodhullandemu22:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I just stayed well clear of uploading images after the first few failed attempts. I could do it know that I understand the policy. I've just never had the need, someone else will do it eventually. This very issue is currently being discussed at ANI actually (I assume you watch list that bloodbath helpful noticeboard). —
Realist222:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I try to avoid the self-preening drama that goes on at ANI but watch it so I can know what's going on generally; I have better things to do than even develop an opinion on some of the threads. Some people just have too much spare time. --
Rodhullandemu22:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I'd give the username the benefit of the doubt, but the edits show no intention to contribute constructively, hence indeffed as a vandalism-only account. --
Rodhullandemu02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Laughable excuse. And pointless non-remedy. All you are achieving is making people disconnect and reconnect to a get a new IP outside the range. Banning an IP from certain pages would make SOME sense, banning them from the whole site makes non whatsoever unless they have a static address (and don't know what an open proxy is).
88.111.37.94 (
talk)
13:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
It stops him. You obviously don't understand how much of a pest this user is. Every time he gets to edit here it wastes up to an hour of otherwise useful time reverting his edits. There is a script running which is used to try and detect his edits before they cause too much damage. He wastes our resources. He targets numerous pages, mostly connected with soap operas, for which semi-protection is not an option. I have sent about thirty emails to Tiscali's abuse address, with extensive diffs, but they won't act. I suggest that if their innocent customers complain enough, they might, but at present you are the lone voice crying in the wilderness. Sorry, but the integrity of the encyclopedia is worth a little inconvenience. Editors with registererd accounts are not affected. --
Rodhullandemu13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
It doesn't stop anyone. I have stumbled on this block just TWICE. And each time I just disconnected and reconnected. So, unless this person is brain-dead it's just making innocent people's interaction difficult.
You are right, I don't understand how much of a pest he/she/it is, but frankly I don't care. How would you like to get an ASBO just because you live next door to some window smasher? You have a gripe with Tiscali (assuming that the guy isn't using a trojan) not ME.
Great. Okay, I'll complain to Tiscali if you take the guy who just ripped me off on Ebay through the County Court system for me? That sound fair? You want me to wash your car when I am finished???
LOL! It's not YOU that is being inconvenienced, so you have no right to decide what is "worth it" for others.
Since your pram must be completely empty of toys by now, and you're obviously very upset over such a minor matter, I'll lift the block. But the first sign of abuse and it goes back, you can deal with
User:WJH1992, and the quality of this encyclopedia can go to hell in a handcart. Deal? --
Rodhullandemu16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I support the use of a rangeblock like 88.110.0.0/17, if the block is covering a provider (Tiscali) to whom we have complained with no result. Let's allow the ISPs to enjoy some responsibility in this matter. If they have no interest in controlling abuse of their service, then their customers may wind up not being able to edit Wikipedia anonymously. Maybe we should enlarge the file on
Wikipedia:Long term abuse to have a section listing the ISPs who have been unresponsive to abuse complaints in the past. Of course we'd not be charging them with abuse, just recording that they don't respond to complaints.
EdJohnston (
talk)
17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I agree. ISPs have T&Cs, and should be prepared to enforce them on request. Meanwhile it is more than faintly ludicrous that the quality of the encyclopedia should be held hostage by some overactive schoolkid and one whiner disgruntled victim of collateral damage who has no understanding of the problems we face. --
Rodhullandemu17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Rodhullandemu wrote: "Editors with registered accounts are not affected." Registering is free, it only takes a minute. And everyone lives happily ever after :-)--
Goodmorningworld (
talk)
18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I am slowly but surely moving to the position that unregistered editing causes us more trouble than it's worth, despite the purported openness of a wiki. Registered users, for example, benefit much more from anonymity in the normal course of events than unregistered. Other websites seem to have no problem with requiring registration, even proof of identity in some cases, and the way the encyclopedia has developed means it has become vulnerable to those with an axe to grind who are able to switch IPs at the drop of a hat. Perhaps I will review the positions of current candidates for ArbCom on that basis. --
Rodhullandemu18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Did you follow the advice at
WP:RANGE in particular the part that says "If you propose to block a significant range, or for a significant time, consider asking a user with checkuser access to check for collateral blocks - that is, for the presence of other users who may be unintentionally affected by the range block."? --neon whitetalk19:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
ISTR that I remember for one of the early ones I put a notice on
WP:AN inviting checkuser intervention but it was ignored; but it's somewhat irrelevant since I've only blocked anonymous editing from those ranges, existing accounts should not have been affected. I did give one account an IP Block exemption but then found I'd blocked non-anons as well, which I quickly tweaked. You may want to check out the SSP reports linked above and
this script to see the measures we've had to take with this guy- it runs every hour, on the hour and takes up a browser tab I could use for something better. And when I unblocked the range earlier on the IP's complaint, the sockpuppeter was back within an hour. That's what we are dealing with. He makes the
Energizer bunny look like a slacker. --
Rodhullandemu19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree with the action taken and also with your feelings about anon editing in general. I was just trying to see it there was a way to solve the problems for 88.111.37.94 --neon whitetalk20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
While I sympathise with his problem, I have less time for his attitude. As he himself said, all he has to do is reconnect and get an IP that isn't blocked, and that, if he doesn't wish to create an account, is all he has. I doubt he'd disagree if he'd spent the last ten months trying every which way to either get
USER:WJH1992 editing within policy or go away. Fortunately, I don't have to travel to
Kidderminster to ensure physically that he can't edit here; that might have rather less than useful consequences for myself. --
Rodhullandemu20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
You could always go to London, Stevenage, Milton Keynes or Stoke Mandeville, and deal with Tiscali - that might solve a lot of problems :D. ~~
[ジャム][talk]20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Basically, you can't pretend to have anonymous editing AND ban dynamic ranges. You may as well give up the pretence when you start that. It's a charade.
And as for MY so called rudeness= you cast the first stone by blocking me, and a load of other innocent people! I'll leave you to little giggly snide remarks now.
We've manage to bridge the gap between anonymous editing and banning dynamic ranges for about five years now, so I don't see that's a runnable argument. However, this discourse is rapidly running out of point, and you don't seem to be making any headway, so I'll wish you a good evening, and goodbye. My final word: "When in Rome..." --
Rodhullandemu20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
My first email to Tiscali
I am an Administrator/Sysop on the Wikipedia website en.wikipedia.org. For the last six months or more, one of your clients, whose name is apparently William J. Howes, of Worcestershire, has been persistently blocked from our site and is now effectively banned since no Administrator/Sysop is willing to unblock him.
Having blocked all his named accounts indefinitely, he persists in editing using an anonymous IP address within your ranges. It has got so serious that I have been forced to block three separate CIDR ranges amounting to a potential 81,920 of your customers. I'm sure they will find this as unacceptable as we do. His abuse has also necessitated the development of a script to monitor his edits, and its output can be seen here:
http://james.dev.greenhead.ac.uk/dev/wjh1992.html You will see blocked IP addresses, but they are part of the ranges. By clicking on the "contribs" link, you will be taken to his edits, but they are many, and almost all unwanted.
We have also set up separate pages to manage your client here:
On any reading of your Terms and Conditions of Use here:
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/legal/aup/
he is in breach of Condition 10.2 as we have explicitly denied him access to our website on numerous occasions.
We have tried to persuade him to go away for a while, return and edit properly, and apart from the insults we get, he promises to do this but returns with the same nonsense within 24 hours. Our time is better spent than reverting all his useless edits, and we would appreciate some intervention from you. We would rather not involve the police under the Computer Misuse Act 1981, but we don't rule it out either. I look forward to hearing your response.
Regards,
And this is how they respond
Don't be stupid. The Wikipedia servers are in America, I am in the UK and don't have access to the firewall logs.
I have given you IP addresses, dates and times and the name of your client. From these you can work out from which account
the abuse is coming. At present 81920 of your IP addresses are blocked from editing Wikipedia and you owe it to your
customers to work out which of them is committing a criminal offence, and stop them.
You don't need the firewall logs, it is not a case of someone hacking into Wikipedia servers, it is a case of someone gaining access who has specifically been forbidden access.
Thanks.
Original Message -----
From: abuse-various@uk.tiscali.com
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:48 AM
Subject: Abuse of Terms and Conditions [Incident: 080723-000027]
Subject
Abuse of Terms and Conditions
Discussion Thread
Response (AB_RajkumariB) 24/07/2008 02.48 AM
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for contacting Tiscali Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Team.
We regret the inconvinence caused to you in this regard.
Please note that the firewall logs taken from your computer will provide the details about any attempted hacking made to your computer.
In order to investigate the Internet abuse report you sent us, it is a must for us to have the "Firewall Logs" of the abuse incident with correct time and date. Without this information, we cannot proceed further with our investigation to trace the abuser.
Also, please be informed that we take all the internet abuse reports very seriously and definite action will be taken against the abusers, if traced out.
Therefore, we kindly request you to send in the Firewall Logs, which is very critical in enabling us to identify the user abusing the Internet. Please note that if we have not heard from you within seven days of this e-mail being sent we will have to close the investigation due to a lack of information.
We apologise for the inconvinence this may cause.
Should you have any concerns or queries relating to this, then please do not hesitate to respond to this e-mail.
Yours faithfully,
Tiscali Abuse Team.
abuseresponse@uk.tiscali.com
This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). This email and its attachments may also be privileged or protected by legal rules. If you have received this by mistake please let us know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
Much more, but it doesn't get any better. An executive summary would be "complain as much as you like, but we don't give a fucking toss; he pays and that's all we care about". --
Rodhullandemu23:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Essentially that is all the ISPs care about really... if they actually bothered to do anything, he'd probably only get a few warnings before actually being removed! ~~
[ジャム][talk]23:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, if he's that offended, why doesn't he nominate it? And it's extremely unlikely that it would be deleted unless there were
WP:BLP concerns. I prefer not to work in the dark with my hands tied behind my back, if that's all right with you. --
Rodhullandemu17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I would like your permission to use this quote, "The defendant must be functionally unaware that his actions are legally wrong at the time of the offense to satisfy this requirement", from the McNaughton Rules Wiki page. I appreciate your response.
No problem, since all written content here is licensed under
GFDL, you don't need permission as long as you attribute Wikipedia- and I'm not sure I wrote that part anyway. --
Rodhullandemu21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)reply
What is happening?
In the middle of editing, I found myself suddenly blocked. I am not sure why you did it. What is happening? I have never been close to being a vandal!! --
Natsubee (
talk)
16:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi Rodhullandemu, could you lift the autoblock on the IP address that
User:Jonnyh93 used. I also share this IP, and considering he only made 7 disruptive edits it seems a bit much to block the IP? Cheers,
Jack (
talk)
16:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)reply
This is not the best time for me, 11pm on a Friday evening, and it's been a bad day all round but I have asked Shutterbug for an explanation of the blanking. Depending on his response, I will decide what to do next. --
Rodhullandemu23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I didn't have time to look into the detail, just the first link you sent me. It's far too complicated for me to manage at present, however if this is a hot edit war I will gladly fully-protect all relevant articles for a short while until the AE & CU threads have been evaluated, say 48 hours; this maintains the status quo (rightly or wrongly) until it all falls out of the bottom; I add that I would only do this reluctantly to allow the dust to settle. Let me know if this is useful, otherwise, I would think a "more eyes" thread on
WP:AN might be a better way forward. My judgement is not currently as sharp as it might be. --
Rodhullandemu23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi Rodhullandemu. Since you know more about The Beatles than any admin I have encountered, I wonder if you could take a look at an ANI report I made about original research, POV, and personal attacks
here. My comments on the anon's talk page are
here, and you can look at the edit summary comments in the edit history of
I Am the Walrus. I'm not necessarily asking for any admin action on your part unless you feel that it is appropriate. But I would welcome your opinion on the matter, either at the ANI report, the anon's talk page, or here. Thanks very much.
Ward3001 (
talk)
16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Seen it. I agree, this sort of nonsense should not be allowed. But if I remove it, I can't then use admin tools in relation to the article. I'll keep an eye on it. --
Rodhullandemu16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I posted messages on the article's talk page and on
WT:BEATLES. I've only made two reverts, but I'm going to wait for 24 hours after my last edit, then remove the passage with a note to discuss on the talk page. If a consensus emerges to include the passage it can be restored. Thanks again.
Ward3001 (
talk)
17:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Understood. And I've only made two so far. But I'm just playing it safe to avoid anything close to edit warring. Now that I've posted info on the talk pages I think one more revert on my part a little later today is appropriate. Thanks.
Ward3001 (
talk)
17:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Re:
this, what's the process for an anon that has only made 4 edits, all within a 10 min period, and all very mildly amusing rubbish vandalism? Thanks,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
You'd normally revert and warn, then report to
WP:AIV if they continue past a level 4 warning; in this case they seem to have stopped before this can happen. Over 6 hours ago so not much we can do now. HTH. --
Rodhullandemu13:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi Rod, are you still open to providing a short nomination
here. I've decided to bite the bullet so to speak. Any comment would be appreciated. It's going live on Saturday-ish. Best, —
Realist218:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi, I'm not sure 3 co-noms is going to go down well, but I would keep it short and to the point. Balloonman & Iridescent have said most of it already. I'll put a draft and you can remove it if you're not happy. It will be an interesting RfA anyway, and I wish you all the best with it. --
Rodhullandemu18:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Balloonman said 2 is best but 3 is OK. I feel you know me very well and respect your input, even if short and sweet :-) It sure will be interesting and thank you for the good luck wishes. —
Realist218:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
On
7 December,
2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jane Couch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
Did you know? talk page.
whoever you think you are, I am not the one you are looking for, I am just an ordinary reader of this homepage, looking into it from time to time. it appears to me that someone uses my IP address to put inapproriate notes. I have never ever written any note here and not have any intention to do so. please investigate the case yourself. yours faithfully, rene regal —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
190.80.145.139 (
talk)
23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)reply
You, stopping your weird answer-questions-for-jimbo thing on his talk page. That would be cool. I know you want to piggyback on his fame for some time in the spotlight, but you're really just embarrassing yourself. Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
168.105.121.61 (
talk)
04:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Could I get your opinion on these edits:
1,
2. Do they qualify as trivia or do they show (as I think) that a company decided to add a Wikipedia page verbatim to it's corporate website instead of writing it's own information? Trying to clear up a non-consensus backed dispute. Thanks...
NeutralHomer •
Talk • December 10, 2008 @ 00:19
To be honest, not keen on "interestingly", because that is
a non-neutral assessment. They are entitled to copy our text as long as they attribute it, that's allowed under
GFDL. If they don't acknowledge us as a source, they should be asked to, and I can't put my finger right on the way of doing this right now because it's late here for me. Paradoxically, our text is most likely originally sourced from their own PR material, creating a somewhat circular debate, but for now, it can probably wait. Please catch me tomorrow if it's still an issue. --
Rodhullandemu00:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Okie Dokie, thanks for taking the time to look into it. Have a Good Evening :) -
NeutralHomer •
Talk • December 10, 2008 @ 00:44
Rodhullandemu, when you get around to it, do you think you could address whether or not you believe that
this statement belongs in the article? That is the crux of the dispute here. Neutralhomer believes that, while trivia, it belongs in the article. Others (it has been removed four times now by four separate users) believe that it is unnecessary trivia. Your input would be appreciated,
either way (
talk)
01:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Its encyclopedic value, or lack of, struck me while I was away doing something else. My test is "What does this assertion/information/edit add to our understanding of the topic at hand?" Unless that fact in itself is
notable, my inclination is to treat it as trivial. So a radio station pinched info from our article? Sorry, that's the Internet, and it happens all the time. It would be different if this grew into a plagiarism issue, but I don't see that happening. The
GFDL issue of using our content is different, however. --
Rodhullandemu01:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Verification of relation to famous people
Just out of curiosity, let's say (hypothetically of course) that I'm, oh, Angelina Jolie's sister. (For anyone reading this, yes I do know Angelina Jolie doesn't have a sister - that's why it's hypothetical.) Let's say I go through proper Wikipedia channels and prove this beyond a doubt to the proper Wikipedia authorities. What happens then? Obviously
WP:COI comes into play. Is my account (assuming I choose a username) marked as a relative of the actress? Am I allowed to say, add what college she - okay, her kids - are attending, without being fact-checked? I know WP has a list of famous people who have edited their own article, but what about relatives? If any famous relatives are "out" here on Wikipedia and editing their relatives' articles, are they generally well-respected?
RainbowOfLightTalk03:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm sure this happens but have not seen it. There would be no point identifying as such, because any information added to articles would still be subject to policies such as
WP:V and
WP:OR. Remember that when we look for
notability, we require "multiple independent reliable sources", and a close relative would not be regarded as independent. We generally avois
self-published sources for the same reason. Having said that,
WP:COI is a guideline and not a policy, so has some tolerance. In the case to which I think you are referring, that article and its subject has been something of a problem, and per
WP:BLP, we should resist any inclusion of improperly-sourced personal information wherever it claims to come from. HTH. --
Rodhullandemu13:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Can I just point out that I don't have any objection to providing objective sources for the block. The problem is that there are none!! When the block was first placed a week ago, it was between 2 - 3 days before there was any public comment on the issue (media releases). Discussion on the issue was very slow, and it was almost after a fourth day before the problem became widely known about. The delay was caused by the lack of working hours over the weekend.
But having agreed to reverse the block, why should it be re-instated?? And for how long will it continue?? What if the block is in place over Christmas?? That would mean a delay of up to 14 days before any remedial steps might be taken (OK, there might likely be wider awareness of it before then). What I'm trying to say is, at what point should an issue move from being unsourced to sourced?? Well afterwards, or whilst it's still in progress??
It would be a lot less of an issue if administrators had more understanding of the issues!! That's not to criticise administrators, but all I (and many others) could see was
a talk page that didn't belong to any of us. This demonstrates that there is an event in progress.
Why not qualify the statement, add a rider that the block may not be entirely removed, or something similar?? It cannot be allowed to rest for days and days, simply because no office has made a public statement on the issue. (
Kreb (
talk)
19:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC))reply
this section here is supposed to reflect our current knowledge of the situation. If you have any specific knowledge of which ISPs are still blocked, or have reblocked, that is the place to inform. However, given the volume of media interest in this matter, we cannot afford to make accusations without something, even if it is our editors' own experience. This is
verifiable by any other user of the same ISP. And, er, some Admins are very tech savvy and understand the situation; we do have one or two Admins in the UK, you know. Cheers. --
Rodhullandemu19:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks. BTW, I wasn't suggesting there was anything wrong with the admins., but it always seems like it's the non-UK admins that impose the blocks first!! That, and the fact that the IP is temporarily shared by thousands of writers, so has a disporportionate effect. Pity that they're not always able to check the admin. noticeboard, perhaps. (
Kreb (
talk)
22:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC))reply
Alvaro Arbeloa
Hi. Im still new to editing wikipedia and wondered why you changed my edit on the alvaro arbeloa page? I dont mean to get at you I just want to know what was wrong with it to avoid that sort of thing again. Thanks! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Acidulantes (
talk •
contribs)
12:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi I was about to warn
User:Rian13 for his misuse of fair use images
here and
here when I noticed that he has been warned and blocked for same issues a number of times. Since you gave him a bolded last and final warning and are familiar with the user I'm bringing this to you directly. Cheers,
Amalthea21:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks, he's a she. I keep an occasional eye on her but I'll look at these and block if necessary; bearing in mind she's recently come off a six month block, during which time she sock-puppeted, I think it's about time to say goodbye to her. --
Rodhullandemu21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I had the impression I did not need to give an edit summary as the "undo" page says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message." However, if you are happy to sort it out, please carry on. Thanks.
DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (
talk)
22:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah, but you didn't leave an edit summary; and I'm not happy to sort it out, because I have other things to do. The editor is clearly able, because he produced a new, properly wiki-linked section in one edit. all it needed was a
reliable source. So goes the rest of my evening. Hum. --
Rodhullandemu22:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Let me try to explain what I thought. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism is says "If you see vandalism on a list of changes (such as your watchlist), then revert it immediately. You may use the "undo" button (and the automatic edit summary it generates), and mark the change as minor. It may be helpful to check the page history to determine whether other recent edits by the same or other editors also represent vandalism. Repair all vandalism you can identify." Now what I thought I was doing was You may use the "undo" button (and the automatic edit summary it generates) and my reading was that I did not need to leave another edit summary in addition. The undo page also seems to say this. Was I wrong? Thanks
DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (
talk)
22:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Further clarification: I'm not dealing with this article any further, so as you are not happy to, I guess it is staying like that for the moment. And did I do something to your evening?? I'm confused by that sentence, and I very much hope not!
DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (
talk)
22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I saw an auto edit summary of "Undid...", but that only explains what you've done and not why. And it wasn't
vandalism, which is "a bad faith attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". But for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and the editor you may have frightened off, I will now see if I can Goggle a source for his edit. If not, I'll put a {{cn}} on it, which is something you could have done rather than revert without leaving an explanatory edit summary. Meanwhile, vandalism will continue happening while I'm doing that. I am also disillusioned, bitter and knackered, but I also believe in going the extra mile for the benefit of "the sum total of human knowledge". Sleep well. --
Rodhullandemu22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Having had a chance to look at it in detail, I sincerely doubt that an extension of the
Northern Line would reach as far as
Chesterfield, and it is in fact vandalism. An edit summary, ever "Rvv" sould have helped. I'll now nuke that edit. Serves me right for trying to do eight things at once. --
Rodhullandemu22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Merry Christmas
DavidWS(contribs) is wishing you a
MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{
subst:
User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
When I did my rewrite, I dug up all the sources I could find, but I didn't find enough about the BGT tour which is kind of a major omission. Is this something you can fix?-
Mgm|
(talk)23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)reply
You said on
User talk:S. Dean Jameson "if you have a recipe for three sausages, four bananas and some onions, I could do with it, because it's all I currently have in my fridge". Well you might have eaten now but my suggestion would've been to fry the sausages with the onions, if you have some bread to eat them with then even more yum. As to the bananas- cook them, they go sweet and tasty, even nicer if you have a bit of sugar to sprinkle on them, that could make a very basic version of this simple treat.
[3] There you are- two courses. Hope this helps.:) As to SDJ, I've warned him against badgering in the past, and others advised him against it as he was doing it to opposes on the arb voting pages.
StickyParkin02:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Hello, Rodhullandemu/Archive! A user you have blocked,
Mezarapper(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification
opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page
here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you,
DavidWSBot (
talk)
18:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Sorry for my mistake regarding Jeremy Clarkson. What I changed was what I took for fact. I had heard it from another source and seen it on his page so I assumed it to be true. I went back to the page and it was gone, so I put it back —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Twalker94 (
talk •
contribs)
21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Chesterfield revisited
Hi Rod
I was left somewhat angry and upset the other night after my encounter with you over
Chesterfield. I hope not to bore you with my opinions of this incident in detail but there were a couple of things I was wondering, the first of which was whether you were considering apologizing to me? Best wishes,
DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (
talk)
08:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, I do apologise for misunderstanding that you were reverting vandalism, because the edits looked perfectly formed and initially plausible to me; your edit summary did not say that you were reverting vandalism, or indeed, anything. On that, I was mistaken. The problem with automated tools, as you point out, is that they give you a default edit summary of "Undid...." and without more, three such summaries in quick succession without an additional "Rvv" even, may look like vandalism itself. When you deal with the volume of vandals that I do, it can sometimes be difficult to tell which is which. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --
Rodhullandemu13:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Dear Rod, that's very kind, and honestly is much appreciated. Thank you. You've actually thought ahead of me and gone on to my other point, which is the use of edit summaries. My confusion here is that neither the page that "Undo" lands you on, nor the page about vandalism, seem to require any further edit summary. They are both quite clear, one (as far as I recall) implicitly and the other explicitly, that if you're just reverting vandalism then you can just use the default that the tool provides. Now, having thought about it I see that I might have been able to avoid this unpleasantness had I used a more descriptive edit summary, but it seems unfortunate to me as a (relatively) inexperienced editor that I have to second-guess the system and do something which it seems to make clear isn't required. So there seems to me to be a mismatch between what you're saying is correct/helpful/whatever and what is actually required. To avoid any kind of repetition I can see that it would be better if I did provide more of an edit summary (if I remember!) but I wonder also whether the instructions to editors should not be changed, in those two places at least, so that we are all clear about what is a useful approach? Thanks and best wishes
DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (
talk)
16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
The problem with Undo is that it's frequently used in edit-warring, so tends to raise a red flag. That's why edit-summaries are encouraged, however, the defaults can be less than informative. It's more helpful to recent changes patrollers to see "revert vandalism", or "Rvv", than just "Undo". I'll take a look at the instructions and see if they need clarification. --
Rodhullandemu16:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm an
Administrator here and as such responsible for the proper application of policy and in particular issues that can affect the Wikimedia Foundation's legal liability. Now, if you retained any rights to that image, I wonder why are News International claiming all rights to it on
The Sun webpage? Perhaps you could take that up with them. Also, if you own the original image, why did you not upload it to Commons as a copyright-free image, and why is it lacking Metadata such as make and model of camera, exposure time, etc, or even a Photoshop tag? Additionally, the name under which you uploaded it is not the sort of filename that would be applied by anyone outside the photo-journalism indistry, and I would have thought that its owner would have given it a more easily understandable name. In the meantime, and pending an explanation of these issues, I am unwilling to allow that image on Wikipedia. Thanks. --
Rodhullandemu14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Unblock Request Notification
Hello, Rodhullandemu/Archive! A user you have blocked,
Traumatised(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification
opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page
here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you,
DavidWSBot (
talk)
15:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply