Hi Rodhyull&E, thanks for the message. I'm afraid I simply cannot get my head around photo posting - which is why I've tried shortcuts like linking to my blog. Any assistance would be much appreciated. I lifted those photos from a now-defunct local newspaper in 1982. They were subsequently used in a 1999 book that I co-edited. The publishing company 'Beyond the Pale'(Belfast) handled copywrite. They have now closed down - but are trying to locate the digital version on old computers for me to upload onto the web.
Any help would be much appreciated Maolcholann ( talk) 12:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I have replied to your email, incase you did not get it :) — R 2 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have previously dealt with User:Chace Watson, he has reappeared as User:Nick835 and has been uploading copyright material with invalid FU tags here. Nick835 has already been indef blocked at Commons as a sock [1] and I imagine the same action is appropriate here. I hadn't checked the background on Nick835 until now; I tried to AGF and help this user out, but it seems I've been wasting my time. Wine Guy ~Talk 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
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, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 06:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chace Watson — Kww( talk) 16:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
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 you Buffaloxoldiar ( talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please reprotect. -- Verbal chat 21:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Rod, any thoughts here?-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
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
Rodhullandemu,
Thanks for your response.
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
- Rodhullandemu,
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
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)
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) Rodhull andemu 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
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. MPFC 1969 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
[4] I thought it was funny for some reason... -- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
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 Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for geocoding the now-defunct railway stations in Northern Ireland. -- The Anome ( talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
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/
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)
Thanks for approving me for AWB I appreciate it! :-) Evenios ( talk) 19:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Rodhullandemu, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Black Velvets has been removed. It was removed by B.Wind with the following edit summary '(deprod - there is plenty of coverage by reliable sources; whether or not this is sufficient enough for a perennial backing band should be left to wider discussion (WP:AfD?))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with B.Wind before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Appears to not want talk page priviliges either. raseaC talk to me 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's back. Time to start issuing some blocks, methinks. Woogee ( talk) 23:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Just letting you know that I've left a reply regarding the "Ballyhagan Petition"
here.
Feel free to remove this message once read.
~Asarlaí
16:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule
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))
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...) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
...that every doggerel has its day. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you would take a look at The Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza. I'm stuck. Newbie editor is removing sourced content and adding OR. Won't communicate. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ref your revert comment - were not the Bay City Rollers a boy band; manufactured image, songs chosen for them, indifference to musical ability? I mean, even the Monkees fit the criteria as regards their origins and early fame. I happen to agree that the Beatles weren't, since they were performing their own material a bit better than competently and sold their records on that basis before it was realised that they photo'ed well - but even then their image was carefully managed to maximise their appeal to the widest audience. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (and thanks for the help on my talkpage - I wonder why they don't do it at the time I am active; it would at least cause me some interruption, whereas you and a couple of vandal fighters get it sorted...)
Every single time I go to my watchlist, there you are removing the same old unsourced BLP crap from umpteen million articles! Anyway, your efforts haven't gone unnoticed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The BLP Barnstar | |
For your constant and thankless (until now!) efforts in keeping crap out of BLPs! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
is changing spellings at Beatles articles again, against WP:RETAIN and WP:TIES. MPFC 1969 16:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Democrat ( talk · contribs) is a sock. If you need evidence, i will send you. But i know for sure. If you need something regarded, i am here. All best -- Tadija taking 13:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This [5] is absolutely not vandalism by the IP. Was that a mistake on your part? Caden cool 21:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
How has April Fools day finished ages ago? It's still April 1.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 21:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Was this edit intentional? Ucucha 00:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You gave no explanation in the edit summary - perhaps you did not look at my edits. Before I made any changes to the article there was no consistent style of citation.
I put all the cites into template form, checking each one, adding dates and titles where needed. [6] [7], Rechecked for any small errors [8] [9] Removed duplicate external links that were already cited in the body of the article [10] Removed extra lines for a better appearance [11], references to display in columns [12], expanded info box to make it more informative at a glance and corrected some minor grammatical errors and added wikilinks [13] 209.44.123.1 ( talk) 02:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Dmerkurev (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Dmerkurev444 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Dmerkurev666 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
seriously disrupting at George Harrison. MPFC 1969 03:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
...another one:
Uclad1611 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
MPFC
1969
03:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
...if the cap fits:
Ucla16 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
MPFC
1969
03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Another admin semi-protected the article and blocked the socks. MPFC 1969 04:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you have a look at British Empire please. If I act again it will only be reverted but this user. This is a pointless edit war, and they are going against the consensus. See the Talk Page. Happy Easter! ;) -- BSTemple ( talk) 20:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rodhyull&E, thanks for the message. I'm afraid I simply cannot get my head around photo posting - which is why I've tried shortcuts like linking to my blog. Any assistance would be much appreciated. I lifted those photos from a now-defunct local newspaper in 1982. They were subsequently used in a 1999 book that I co-edited. The publishing company 'Beyond the Pale'(Belfast) handled copywrite. They have now closed down - but are trying to locate the digital version on old computers for me to upload onto the web.
Any help would be much appreciated Maolcholann ( talk) 12:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I have replied to your email, incase you did not get it :) — R 2 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have previously dealt with User:Chace Watson, he has reappeared as User:Nick835 and has been uploading copyright material with invalid FU tags here. Nick835 has already been indef blocked at Commons as a sock [1] and I imagine the same action is appropriate here. I hadn't checked the background on Nick835 until now; I tried to AGF and help this user out, but it seems I've been wasting my time. Wine Guy ~Talk 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
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, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 06:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chace Watson — Kww( talk) 16:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
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 you Buffaloxoldiar ( talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please reprotect. -- Verbal chat 21:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Rod, any thoughts here?-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
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
Rodhullandemu,
Thanks for your response.
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
- Rodhullandemu,
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
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)
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) Rodhull andemu 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
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. MPFC 1969 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
[4] I thought it was funny for some reason... -- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
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 Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for geocoding the now-defunct railway stations in Northern Ireland. -- The Anome ( talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
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/
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)
Thanks for approving me for AWB I appreciate it! :-) Evenios ( talk) 19:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Rodhullandemu, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Black Velvets has been removed. It was removed by B.Wind with the following edit summary '(deprod - there is plenty of coverage by reliable sources; whether or not this is sufficient enough for a perennial backing band should be left to wider discussion (WP:AfD?))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with B.Wind before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Appears to not want talk page priviliges either. raseaC talk to me 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's back. Time to start issuing some blocks, methinks. Woogee ( talk) 23:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Just letting you know that I've left a reply regarding the "Ballyhagan Petition"
here.
Feel free to remove this message once read.
~Asarlaí
16:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule
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))
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...) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
...that every doggerel has its day. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you would take a look at The Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza. I'm stuck. Newbie editor is removing sourced content and adding OR. Won't communicate. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ref your revert comment - were not the Bay City Rollers a boy band; manufactured image, songs chosen for them, indifference to musical ability? I mean, even the Monkees fit the criteria as regards their origins and early fame. I happen to agree that the Beatles weren't, since they were performing their own material a bit better than competently and sold their records on that basis before it was realised that they photo'ed well - but even then their image was carefully managed to maximise their appeal to the widest audience. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (and thanks for the help on my talkpage - I wonder why they don't do it at the time I am active; it would at least cause me some interruption, whereas you and a couple of vandal fighters get it sorted...)
Every single time I go to my watchlist, there you are removing the same old unsourced BLP crap from umpteen million articles! Anyway, your efforts haven't gone unnoticed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The BLP Barnstar | |
For your constant and thankless (until now!) efforts in keeping crap out of BLPs! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC) |
is changing spellings at Beatles articles again, against WP:RETAIN and WP:TIES. MPFC 1969 16:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Democrat ( talk · contribs) is a sock. If you need evidence, i will send you. But i know for sure. If you need something regarded, i am here. All best -- Tadija taking 13:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This [5] is absolutely not vandalism by the IP. Was that a mistake on your part? Caden cool 21:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
How has April Fools day finished ages ago? It's still April 1.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 21:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Was this edit intentional? Ucucha 00:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You gave no explanation in the edit summary - perhaps you did not look at my edits. Before I made any changes to the article there was no consistent style of citation.
I put all the cites into template form, checking each one, adding dates and titles where needed. [6] [7], Rechecked for any small errors [8] [9] Removed duplicate external links that were already cited in the body of the article [10] Removed extra lines for a better appearance [11], references to display in columns [12], expanded info box to make it more informative at a glance and corrected some minor grammatical errors and added wikilinks [13] 209.44.123.1 ( talk) 02:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Dmerkurev (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Dmerkurev444 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Dmerkurev666 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
seriously disrupting at George Harrison. MPFC 1969 03:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
...another one:
Uclad1611 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
MPFC
1969
03:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
...if the cap fits:
Ucla16 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
MPFC
1969
03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Another admin semi-protected the article and blocked the socks. MPFC 1969 04:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you have a look at British Empire please. If I act again it will only be reverted but this user. This is a pointless edit war, and they are going against the consensus. See the Talk Page. Happy Easter! ;) -- BSTemple ( talk) 20:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)