User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2011/June

Appreciate you taking a stab at editing on that article-- it's been sorely in need of additional eyes. A note about your content removal, however: it appears you excised large sections without really explaining your reasoning, or summarizing the content that was being eliminated. In the case of this edit [1] you seem to have left an incomplete sentence, along with removing the crucial discussion, central to the controversy, that the site is used by women to anonymously post profiles and data about men, without any verification or adequate means of removal.

Your second removal of an spin-off project states in the summary it's not from a reliable source -- the appropriate means would be to tag it for better citation. In fact, the announcement of the site "DontDateHerMan.com" was covered in multiple, media sources-- outside of the owner's original blog. For example: a 2006 New York Times article notes, "Ms. Joseph, who is planning to start a companion Web site for men, DontDateHerMan.com, said she understands the anger her site provokes." This was even picked up by an Israeli news source and on Wonkette.com) In an article for one site, and in her own blog reports that the site actually was in pre-launch in 2007 -- and an About.com writer reports that Yahoo Buzz showed "Don't Date Her" as the #5 mover-and-shaker for the week of August 17, 2007. So my feeling is, it is germane to the topic to discuss the particular spin-off, as it was announced and publicized enough to get media coverage. --

Hi yes, I did mean to look at that article in more detail, but got sidetracked. Will try to come back to it. My off-hand thoughts are... the content I removed in the first edit just seemed irrelevant to an encyclopaedia, and dubiously sourced at that. The other site.. with those new sources might warrant a sentence mention, but it doesn't seem overly significant. The problem is that the website is pretty insignificant as these things go, there does seem a minimal amount of media coverage which is why I did not AFD it, but there is little to cover about it and constructing an article off that is hard. Will look into it more tomorrow if I have time. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I do understand the intention -- but it seems that you may have been hasty in trying to simplify the discussion in your first edit, as it merely repeats what was already stated in the lede of the article. The content you deleted is part of the core notability of this particular site -- and why it received much attention in the mainstream media after its launch. You may not be familiar with the site (as I certainly wasn't!) but a review of the various news sources covering it and its controversial practices may be helpful.

It's been written about not only in US-based press, but other English-language media worldwide. For example, a discussion in the Sydney Morning Herald (which was reprinted by Stuff.co.nz and the Brisbane Times); an article in Canada's National Post from 2005 touched on some of the concerns about defamation as they relate to Canadian law.

At its peak, it claimed to have millions of visitors a month, 600,000 registered users and tens of thousands of profiles of men posted. The founder used it as a launching pad for her various other ventures and self-promotions, including appearances on numerous television programmes. All of which makes it a bit more notable than you suggest as "pretty insignificant." While I agree that the sections you point out could be better written/sourced, the appropriate means to handle such concerns is to rewrite the offending passages, tag them or point out the issues you have with them in the article's discussion. IMHO, deleting a large block of content should only take place when it is inaccurate, fraudulent, or breaches

HidariMigi (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(HidariMigi asked me on my talk page to comment here, since I also reverted the edit) HidariMigi, I see you're pretty new here, which explains the fairly common confusion over how the idea that "Wikipedia is not paper" works. While it is true that, since we have no space limitations, we can theoretically include everything, in practice, we do not; furthermore, other policies contain what we may or may not include, such as

WP:UNDUE is a matter of interpretation; it could be that other editors disagree; the best way to find out is at the article's talk page. I'll start a section there now to kick off the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

My response at

HidariMigi (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

HI! Your robot removed a 120years old map about Louis The Great's rule (Louis_role.jpg) The map is originally part of the Hungarian Encyclopedia Pallas, it was printed in 1890. It is clearly older than 70 years. There is source: The full map: http://keptar.oszk.hu/000500/000590/magyaro-nagyl-terkep_nagykep.jpg , here is the informative source: Kapcsolódó dokumentum: A Pallas nagy lexikona : Magyarok eredete, the last edition of Pallas Encyclopedia was printed in 1910. Can you upload this important historical map again, and insert it in its former wiki articles? Than You!--Darkercastel (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it didn't remove anything - what it did was notify you of the deletion, it's the people on commons that asked for, and performed the deletion. Regarding the image; it is probably in the Public Domain then; I am not sure what source/licensing you originally used but I suggest re-uploading it and giving it another shot :) One thing I would say is that URL does not appear to identify the map as definitely coming from the Encyclopedia, is there a page or a source that shows it as coming from there? And lists the date of publication - I am going to guess that the source that was listed was just that link and so it was tagged as suspect. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Pallas encyclopedia: A_Pallas_nagy_lexikona It was published by the Pallas Literary and Press Corporation between 1893 and 1897. Therefore the historic map is clearly old. The source of the picture states that the map originated in the Pallas encyclopedia, you can read it in this site:

The source is here: http://keptar.niif.hu/html/kepoldal/index.phtml?id=000590

http://keptar.oszk.hu/000500/000590/magyaro-nagyl-terkep_nagykep.jpg

Can you upload and paste it in its former English Wiki articles? Sorry, I have'nt enough edits on wiki to modify important semi-protected articles :((( --Darkercastel (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I will try to have a look at it over lunch. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this whole issue of reporting the pair being found guilty at the first trial is a major source of the accusations of NPOV, BLP violations and possibly some other alphabet soup. It would be really good to nail it this time, one way or the other although there's never been any success before! pablo 09:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We are in this really annoying situation where what probably needs to be written is simply not recorded in reliable sources.. so we end up in this circular problem. I think we should remove all reference to the word "guilty" and just work with the fact they were convicted. I think that... objections to the way it is phrased will be resolved when the appeals finish, and the problem is only due to trying to write the article in the middle of proceedings. Not sure on the best way to address that, other than is currently being done. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, how's it going? I see you have walked away from DSK and all that, just to reassure you the article is now 99.9% pruned and the last prurient-detail obsessive has given up and gone to the fork! I have probably not edited anything useful on WP for about 10 days due to getting dragged into DSK and being accused of edit-warring (ridiculous as the version of the article now could be read to a 3-year old without causing offence whereas we had editors insisting on anal sex etc., who have moved onto other things, probably Ratko Mladić). What to do? I know you are working on your draft but, in general, if people want to argue about the semantics, or a dash, or the name of some disputed islands, then let the debate rage and (hopefully) common sense (sensus communus, not bad eh? ;-) ) will prevail. Where I find this problematic is with BLPs. One insistent editor pointed out "over 860,00 people viewed this page in the last week, that's why we should publish every detail that is relayed in RSs". Basically, totally ignoring the notion of WP:NOTNEWS that yourself and AndytheGrump and myself were trying to point out.

Sorry, but this is totally missing the point of WP, what do you think? I don't know where to suggest it, but I think a roving BLP watchdog could be useful to enforce policy, I think the same happened with Assange, all of a sudden 25% of WP editors want to add stuff and then the media coverage dies down and Bin Laden is killed or DSK arrested and they go obsess over something new. I think this seriously undermines the mission of WP, and, frankly, some people's insistence and refusal to read plain English is quite demoralizing.

I personally think that high-profile "in-the-news" BLPs should get extra supervision and stuff to stop this happening in the future. It seriously drained me and I was asking myself cabal or not cabal, that is the question? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hiya. I tend to drift out of interest of these article, just to stop me getting fed up of Wikipedia (right now I am doubly absorbed in fixing up mny bot and writing about the history of my local area). What you say about BLP is true... and current events do tend to get a set of roving BLP editors to help out - but there is little that we/they can do in some cases because the strength of consensus stands against them. I think the best approach is to make sure the worst of the crap is kept out and then leave people to it, to go back later and clean up the messes. Eventually a decent article can emerge from these things.

But it is not worth burning out over, I just drop it and go do something else till it doesn't bother me any more :)

The idea of current events BLP's being treated differently has some merit - and I tend to agree with the idea. How one would manage to get such a practice in place I don't really know - it would likely meet stern resistance and end up floundering on a million small points. But it is in the back of my mind to try and sort something out. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

100% support current events BLP being treated differently. It's especially important the DSK trial because, as I've noted from The Irish Times in my latest (sorry) thread on the talk page, 'rape shield' law mean that mud-slinging will take place in the form of leaks. It's already started. Wikiwatcher1 now a serious nuisance at DSK I think. He's just restored the Conti material despite BLPN consensus not to include it. I see you deleted. Good. But how dare you delete 'lambast'? If my three lives weren't already up today I would have reverted immediately :-). Away till Monday FightingMac (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. It's a lovely word for sure. Unfortunately not very neutral :P --Errant ^(chat!) 08:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course I defer to you concerning the 'Paris Match' paragraph but it really is more than just about the naming. The point is PM made sexist remarks about her appearance (and it was also, incidentally, criticised for repeating DSK's lawyers' naive attempt to suggest DSK couldn't possibly have fancied her in the first place) and it is this sexism repeated throughout the French mass media which has led to the demonstrations, petitions and current soul searching in France. It really isn't an exaggeration to call it a sea-change. Off2riorob (a somewhat controversial editor I notice from his December 2010 go at the arbitration committee: he's been blocked 18 times!) is quite wrong to characterise the demonstrations as 'anti-rape'. They were, rather, anti-sexist and they sought to introduce a corresponding "presumption of innocence" for the complainant, not to mention some degree of sympathy predicated on the possibility it all happened exactly as she said it did. Now I know a year on, whatever the verdict is if it goes to trial as does seem presently likely, that I will be able to find any number of sources to cite for all that. But I would have hoped the community sufficiently informed and in touch to let this go now. It's a mixture, I think, of puritanism and prejudice against the complainant.

Have you read Paris Match recently? I picked up a copy in a dentist's waiting room after the Bali bombings a few years back. It contained several very graphic images of the carnage. Absolutely horrifying. I was gobsmacked.

I'm withdrawing from contributing to this article. I shall be following its development minutely in connection with my own work but I shan't attempt to add content any more. If I see BLP violations like Wikiwatcher1's pathetic Conti edits I shall simply revert them. If I see Wikiwatcher again restore a BLP violation after reversion without seeking consensus I will this time seek to elevate it beyond just a noticeboard, whatever that might be (in my opinion it should already have happened), but I shan't again seek to edit for neutrality his numerous POV violations. His current edit of the Tristane Banon affair is an absolute disgrace and it reflects very badly indeed on the community that it has survived so long, and indeed looks set to continue in its present form.

I'm glad I found an image of the perp walk (lifted from the perp walk article). A heads-up about the copyright if issues arise: it's a non-free historic image and the point about it is that it's allowed in material discussing the image but not the event. Hence the caption describing it as an example of the kind of image that distressed the French so much. The caption shouldn't be about the event and the image should stay in the 'French reaction' section.

Thanks for your courteous messages. FightingMac (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The PM article seems to be basically recording all the details known about the victim, part of which includes the defence comments about her appearance - I don't see anything in that section that that really delves deeply into controversy over her appearance, it just repeats material with no analysis. And this is the problem; it is problematic enough to source "Paris Match published her name" to the PM article that did so (a secondary source would be better), but to pick out a piece of commentary of dubious relevance is problematic. If these issues have wider consequences then someone will have commented in more depth on the situation behind them. I have found a couple of sources that we could use for the feminist response, a few sentences should cover that adequately. Perhaps the same can be done for this situation.

To be clear; it is a good idea to step away from the news reports when talking about what the news is saying - and instead go to analysis material that can be used to summarise content. Plus; we need to get away from masses of quotes and start to summarise. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I do get that about PM being a primary source and I did reflect on it. Essentially it happens because these are ongoing events and the rules should change a bit to accommodate. The basic deal about primary sources is the risk of OR but I don't call picking up a newspaper OR, thought I grant it might be for some of the editors I see contributing. I followed the Bin Laden execution for a while and I was stuck then, and commented at length (naturally) on the talk page, how troublesome it was proving to summarise the legality under international law. Editors were just quoting opinions from various legal luminaries and television personalities and to begin with there was just a single sentence of actual law cited. Funnily enough I don't seem to have taken a note for the Paris Match article. I'll look around and copy it back if I find one, but it might well have been Dutch. FightingMac (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with such sources is that it starts to get into the territory of "X reported Y", which then begs the question as to who identifies this reporting as significant. It's very much editorial discretion on such things, but ideally if we can find a secondary source that is the better bet. There is ample time now to work out the mass of quotes and replace it with summarising content - along with particularly significant quotes which help with understanding the event. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, been off in real life land, glad to see that my post got a roling conversation going between you two.

@Errant, yup, exactly what I've done, walked away, edited some other stuff and avoided wiki-burnout ;-) Anyway, a lot of the warriors have given up or got bored and gone on to more juicier pastures.

@Fighting, thanks for the support about current events BLPs. Where would this need to go to be suggested? Any ideas? Cheers. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ErrantX

Looks like this vandal in

Thanks for the heads up, I was keeping an eye on it when I remembered :) but it passed me by the last few days. I've given it a longer stretch of protection, see if that works. Cheers. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

To all my talk page stalkers: There are just a few days of voting in the board elections, head over to meta:Board_elections/2011 and take part :) turn out is low so far this year so your input would be ace disclaimer; I am standing as a candidate --Errant ^(chat!) 17:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just seen this bot delivered notification on a Wikipedia page;

	An image used in this article, File:Jedlik's dynamo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk) 09:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

While it is good that a notification is issued, the actual message is pretty useless. First of all it invites readers to challenge the speedy, but neither in the message nor the linked guideline is it explained how to actually go about challenging the speedy. Secondly it states "there is no rush to respond". The message was delivered at 09:00 and the image was deleted at 10:26. Well yes, that might be slower than on Wikipedia - an hour and a half as opposed to minutes - but it still requires a pretty fast response to stop it. At least you could link to the deleting admins comments, anyone who does not know their way around here hasn't got a hope of finding the "who" and the "why".

I am not particularly trying to get this image undeleted, I am trying to get the messages to Wikipedia improved. SpinningSpark 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the request above, I believe that no source/ no permission/no license notices should be transmitted to wiki-en as well, since they are in practice nominations for deletion, and in some cases input from Wikipedia users could be useful to solve those situations.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of practice, I often do put a note on the page of en-wp article that is using an image, usually where it is the only image of a subject that we have. However, that's really up to the individual. Identifying and dealing with copyvios is a thankless and endless task. If there is a bot that could do that task, fantastic, but otherwise I can't see much traction in the suggestion that we force volunteers to do it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This request is out of place, here. Ask the bot-author

• Rillke, this seems a perfectly reasonable place to discuss the text. If any consensus is to be reached, it probably needs broad discussion, which probably won't happen where you suggest. - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem of en.wikipedia not of commons. -- RE rillke questions? 06:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Came across this by complete fluke :) I'm the bot operator (I wrote it because we realised it was impractical and unfair to ask commons contributors to notify other wiki's). Darwin; that is a useful point, and I will have a look into no license taggings, they should be fairly easy to add into the bot code. Regarding the template text; the place to discuss it definitely is my talk page :) To address the points raised:

• Speedy deletions here tend to come in a bunch (at least by my testing), some can hang around for hours or days and some for minutes. I try to catch them as soon as they are tagged
• I am not very versed in commons policy/help pages - is there a better link I can use in the template?
• Changing the text is definitely something to discuss on en-wp, with input from Commons as needed, the bot is purely for English Wikipedia so it is up to editors there to decide what it is they want :)
• Originally a further notification would have been added to the page with a "this image was deleted for the following reason" template, once the image had been deleted. This was vetoed on en-wp by a couple of people; rethinking it I could probably go back and add some new text into the speedy notification section to say "now this image has been deleted - for X reason". I'll add it to my todo list.

Thanks for the feedback, it is probably best to ping me on my talk page (here or en-wp) as I may forget to check back here in time --ErrantX (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just say that anyone who has concerns about "speedydeletion" and "no license", "no permission", "no source" should put it on the talk page (link it) of the image. Everyone should be able to find the "normal DR" discussion. After the image has been deleted, it is probably good to provide a link to the log (you'll see the admin who deleted) and to commons:COM:UR. -- Rillke (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) I will add those to my bug tracker and try to look at sorting them out early next week when I have an update pencilled in for the bot. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, not too sure how I should have handled that. I strongly felt that the statement was made in an attempt to intimidate editors that RS disagreed with. I left two pretty darn polite requests, and got a response with a bit of an explanation and blown off. Fairly straight-forward request to ANI, and get a diatribe of the usual garbage in response. And honestly (as I pointed out on the talk page), does anyone NOT get the point that side is hammering into our heads? And more importantly, does anyone disagree with the point? Wikid77 already tried to get the word "convicted" out of the lede which is ultimately what I suspect the pro-Knox editors are trying to eventually accomplish. Sigh. And of course, the usual clamor for Jimbo.

Well, hindsight is a great thing - you just did what seemed logical. I wasn't blaming you :) I'd just have ignored it, and if they kept up the discussion pointed out it was off-topic and they should stop per NLT. But, "meh", what happens happens. My patience with the article/talk page is exhausted also - am off away for the weekend :) so hopefully that will refresh me. Have a good weekend! --Errant ^(chat!) 08:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mau Mau

Thanks for re-adding the protection. That guy just does not give up. He likes to refer to Mau Mau as 'terrorists', which is about all you need to know. Anyone without an agenda, though making no apologies for Mau Mau brutality, would pick a less loaded term like 'militant' or 'rebel' or 'fighter'. I can reduce the article bloat and finish it off next week, I have some time. Thanks again. Iloveandrea (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good :) Give me a shout if you have any more problems. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

This is to recognize your sterling efforts at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher and User talk:John. I have a bias towards this barnstar as I made it, exactly to recognize folks who are as good at their job as you are at yours. You may do with it what you will. --John (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

		Home-Made Barnstar
		A great admin who isn't afraid to think outside the box and is unfailingly polite and constructive. An example to us all. John (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John, that's very kind & much appreciated - and a good boost. :) This last week was pretty busy for me and I am taking a well deserved holiday next week (of to Glastonbury) so I think I will be going on a bit of a Wikibreak on Sunday night till a week Tuesday. Been a little "burned out" the last few days so a break and coming back fresh will be good. also... I stupidly started playing Minecraft again... which messes with my time :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

mail sent to you

Hello, ErrantX/Archive/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

talk) 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs

Hi Errant. I hope you don't dread seeing my signature on your talk page again. ;) Would you be willing to close and summarize the long discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs? The debate started on 31 May 2011 and has still not been resolved. If you don't have the time or inclination, then no worries. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Unfortunately in the past I've had involvement (against) Doncram and his work. It's a close call but speaking personally I feel too "involved" to close it. Sorry :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. :) Would you be able to look at

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Content RFC closure) or Talk:September 11 attacks#Arthur Rubin reverts good faith edits (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting brave admin to close contentious RfC)? Cunard (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I took a look at both of them - and made a start reading through... and then just couldn't work myself up to it. Sorry.. busy week for me. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for taking a look. Orlady (talk · contribs) has closed the PBS RfC. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

MoMK hatting

The discussion on a potential Knox article is derailing. I tried to hat the off topic sniping [2], but was the subject of a threat by TMCk and an insult by Black Kite. I don't suppose you would consider weighing in.LedRush (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've dumped the whole section - and tried to summarise the general outcome of the discussion, with suggestions on where to go next. Someone may re-open it... but I've asked whoever does so to at least consider whether the conversation can continue to be constructive :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Good move, it was past its sell-by date. It'll be back at some point though. Someone might even write one, although I still don't think there's any value in it, yet. I believe that when the appeals process is over will probably be the logical time to fork this article. A separate "Trials of …" will make most sense when those trials are over, especially given Wikipedia's nature of lagging behind current events.
Furthermore Knox stands a reasonable chance of being successful with these appeals, in which case a separate article on her (and possibly Sollecito) will definitely be necessary.  pablo 12:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, can't disagree with that assessment (FWIW I strongly support the idea of lagging behind the events, so sounds great to me) :) Although technically speaking if found innocent we should scrub much of the mention of them from the article per our usually BLP process... I doubt that one would get through :P --Errant ^(chat!) 12:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If they are found innocent the trial, conviction etc will still have happened. Which part are you suggesting for removal? Britmax (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh let's not go there :) It was a throwaway remark FWIW, in the interests of privacy, if someone is tried and found not-guilty we usually cut back material on them to the bare minimum. In this case, yes, it is heavily complicated by the length and publicity of the trial; so, no, we wouldn't be doing that in this case --Errant ^(chat!) 12:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force

WP:RFA2011

update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

sorry

I'm sorry for that my brother got a hold on my IPod and I suspect it was him that wrote this thank you for bringing this to my attention --Clum112 (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

problem editor

Hi, thanks for reverting my user page. I'm pretty sure the user is the same as the anon who for several years was persistently vandalising an article I largely wrote, now protected (Robert Gilbert (chemist)). This it the second vandalism to my user page in a fortnight, and only the third since 2005. I have no idea who it is, and psychiatric help is clearly needed. Any chance of expunging the history? And I might have to ask for my page to be semi-protected or protected if this person keeps returning. Tony (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I deleted it for you, it slipped my mind earlier. He does seems a little odd, to say the least :S If you do decide to have page protection just yell :). --Errant ^(chat!) 11:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

• News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief

• WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

• Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dan96phillips

I've removed your message to Dan96phillips (talk · contribs), because I had blocked him immediately before you added it. We were dealing with him at the same time - when I went to clear personal info from his user page, I found you had just done it. On its own, his record wasn't quite enough for a block though it contained some nasty attack pages; but he had been tag-teaming with another vandal-only account, Fakester 11 (talk · contribs), and what they had done between them seemed to me enough to block both. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I noticed you blocked him. I was going to scrub the message but then I figured I'd just leave it in case the message about personal details got through :) no worries removing it. My finger was millimetres from the block button also. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Special Barnstar
		For your willingness to step up to the plate and help out in all kinds of arenas and most particularly for the assistance you recently gave me. You put a good face on the project. :) Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Maggie :) always happy to help where needed. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

DSK Admin discussion re: ownership, tag-teaming

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I think you are an outstanding editor; but may not be aware of the impact on other good editors in the DSK assault case who do not share your views on what is appropriate to include. See here. FatTrebla (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mau Mau

Blessed child: please be so good as to keep half an eye on my Mau Mau article. I am away till Monday, but then can vigorously finish it off over the next week. It's about to come out of semi-protect, and there is a pro-colonial irritant who will show up thereafter. The Lord be with you, my son. Iloveandrea (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're off to Glastonbury... Iloveandrea (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yes I am away for the same period. I extended the protection till next week. Any good? --Errant ^(chat!) 16:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems

A while back you had an excellent suggestion to write a document helping people fix fair use problems. I thought it was a good idea at the time, but I only got around to doing something about it this week (actually, Ched Davis wrote most of it.) Your input is welcome. 28bytes (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks excellent, when I wake up tomorrow I will have a proper read through. Thanks --Errant ^(chat!) 11:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

... for removing that item from the history. Tony (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No probs --Errant ^(chat!) 11:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Otrs

Hi, I want to thank you for your support at my OTRS volunteer application which I am pleased to report was successful. I will be starting steadily but look forward to contributing and assisting in this new area, regards.

Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ace! that is good to see :) Just got in from the festival so will be going to crash now :) hopefully back into the mix tomorrow. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Eoghan Casey All-time Ukrainian Premier League table Soviet Second League B 1990 Joe Connelly (producer) Balvenie Castle K. Babu Peter Blake (actor) St. Cedd's College, Cambridge Yume ga Saku Haru/You and Music and Dream LGC Forensics Flag (Yello album) British Parachute Association Lanercost Chronicle Soviet First League 1978 Right Where You Want Me Paul Rosenberg (art dealer) Couffy Newark Castle, Nottinghamshire Virginia Institute for Forensic Science and Medicine

Cleanup WikiLeaks 2011 Libyan civil war Lycée Carnot Merge Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation Death of Osama bin Laden Cadaveric spasm Add Sources Alone (Bee Gees song) William de Warenne, 3rd Earl of Surrey Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories Wikify Erik Laykin Longboard (skateboard) Martijn Katan Expand Jerry Vale To Be True Perugia

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the

RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals

page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Victory93

Sorry, but I have undone your deletion of the user's sockpuppet pages. Please note that Courcelles (oversighter) indicated that the redirect should remain in place. If you feel strongly about the matter, we should discuss it in conjunction with Courcelles and see if there is some alternate solution. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Replying by email. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

gyroscopic exercise tool

Extended content

Hi, I'm quite confused to see your edits to the 'gyroscopic exercise tool' article. While often true, the 'forums are not a reliable source' slogan can't be applied universally. If you really do care about the article, I would suggest that you check the facts I referred to along with my intro word that you can find on the talk page. Yes, FACTS: either easily verifiable or supported with evidence, and in all cases provided with links. Some info that was added (and removed by you) is supported with photos, other links output of frequency-analysis tools, and if an article makes clear it refers to statements made by people and links sources (as opposed to passing opinions for 'truth' or 'facts' as some may practice), then I gather many will agree it's good enough in liew of more reliable information. Put another way, it's the best one can have in such situation. That being said, if you have 'better' or 'more reliable' information than the one linked by me, I suggest you add it. Otherwise, I suggest you describe your motivation for the edits in more detail. Failing to hear anything from you on this subject, I will restore the information removed by you. Repeated attempts to remove it by you or someone else shall be reported. Regards, Andy Monakov (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Hello. Forums are never considered a reliable source for content - and the ones you posted contained original research that has not been published in a reliable source (for example; a national news article with reputation for fact checking or scholarly journal). then I gather many will agree it's good enough in liew of more reliable information; Unfortunately not, it is definitely not appropriate. Please do not add speculative or research content you have conducted to articles :) thanks. --Errant (chat!) 13:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC) By far not every subject described (or to be described) on Wikipedia gathers enough attention from press or 'reliable' encyclopedias printed on paper as to be described. 'Real' encyclopedias contain mistakes. Reputable newspapers are not always right. You seem to prefer the letter of the rule for reliable sources to the spirit thereof. Besides, some editors may have ulterior motives. The former is not good for a wikipedia editor, the latter is unacceptable. Andy Monakov (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC) The spirit of the RS rule is that everything needs to be well attributed to a properly published source. My only concern is that an article content be correctly attributed, suggesting ulterior motives in editors (especially with no evidence) is a poor form of argument and is uncivil. Please take care to properly cite material in future. --Errant (chat!) 13:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Cited material is as good as it can be for this subject! There doesn't exist a peer-reviewed journal that publishes articles about powerballs and anything related to it. Andy Monakov (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Then, unfortunately, this is not material Wikipedia can currently cover. If you have conducted research that you believe may be of value I encourage you to have it published in a peer reviewed journal. --Errant (chat!) 13:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid none of the content of the article in question -- along with many others describing other toys as well as people, movies, games etc. -- was published in peer-reviewed journals, yet they, and this article in particular, do exist on Wikipedia. Rules are there for the spirit, not for the letter. And certainly not to serve as a premise to remove information that some quarters would prefer to not be presented on wiki pages. Wikipedia is not a place to advertize things to the benefit of the sellers. Andy Monakov (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC) If you do not believe what I am explaining to you I encourage you to ask for input from WP:RS/N. Peer review was simply an example - if you can get your material published in a reliable source that has a reputation for publishing such material (in this specific case, yes, a journal is the best bet) then it will work equally well. Forums; no chance. This is nothing to do with the "letter" of the law, but the fundamental spirit of the policy and the underlying tenet of Wikipedia. --Errant (chat!) 14:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I believe the most fundamental principle of Wikipedia is to provide people with unbiased information. Do you agree? Andy Monakov (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC) That's a leading question and I don't really have time for such a tedious argument :) As I mentioned WP:RS/N will give you more input on this. --Errant (chat!) 14:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Then may I suggest that you should realize that rules are there to serve the goal, and the goal is -- correct me if I'm wrong here -- information for people; the more complete und unbiased, the better. Not misinformation. And certainly not skewed in favor of related sellers as is the case with the page in question. As for RS, let me give you a simple example which will hopefully put an end to this part of conversation: sources, no matter how reliable they are as presented in relevant sections in WP guidelines, can be downright wrong. The spirit of the rule (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is to prevent wrong information from penetrating the pages and presented as true. Therefore, the overriding principle, when it comes to material which is challenged by someone on the premise of sources being not reliable enough, is truth and verifiability. In conclusion, may I ask if you consider yourself well familiar with the subject, let alone an expert? Do you have any written contributions on the subject in whatever form? Andy Monakov (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC) You raise an interesting point about referencing - generally if the reliably published sources are "wrong" then Wikipedia is simply "wrong" as well (yep, absolutely, and this is one of our founding tenets). If the information is trivially wrong (for example claiming the sky is green) then we can use other forms of verification (looking out of the window) to correct this. However in your case this is not about right/wrong information - you are adding detail of your own research. It looks from what I can see like you are in some sort of dispute with the manufacturer of this project - Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your views or research, please do so in another medium. --Errant (chat!) 14:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Please review the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research article and allow me to quote an excerpt: "In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." In this regard, a free-for-all discussion forum is the ultimate form of peer-reviewed publication. A mistake in such 'original research' as mine which was attaching the output of a frequency analyzer has probability of exactly zero to go unnoticed by others. Note that if anyone had a goal of somehow switching the frequency plots, he or she has far better chances to get away with it by arranging a publication in a 'reliable' source which would have to be reviewed by academics far less familiar with the subject than non-academic forum members! Andy Monakov (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I am sorry but forums are not am ultimate form of peer review. They are explicitly noted as unreliable sources. I do not have the time to continue going over the same ground again and again - please take this to

WP:RS/N --Errant ^(chat!) 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation

WikiProject Wikify. After the retirements of our first two executive coordinators, Mono and Guoguo12, WikiProject Wikify is undergoing a period of transition. We are currently holding a discussion to create a plan for the future, find volunteers to help fill our many administrative positions, collect any feedback about what has happened in the last six months, propose some new guidelines, and see if there are any creative ideas to increase participation. We appreciate your input!

Sumsum2010·T·C 23:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ErrantX/Archive/2011/June&oldid=1144419819"