This is an archive of past discussions with User:ErrantX. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'll take a look thanks :) I think I concur this is going to be notable - but my first instinct is to let the story develop a bit. Perhaps the middle of next week we could summarise some sources? What do you think? --Errant(chat!)19:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to give you a heads up that User:Veldin963 is at it again, literally hours after his block was lifted for sockpuppeting to try and change the pixel size on Haddon Township High School. You were involved in the ANI discussion about the pixel size and I thought I should keep you in tune with the situation, in case I have to take Veldin to another ANI (with the topic being a possible long-term block for disruptive editing). Anywho, keep up the good work on Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!
Get going!
The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun. Please get started, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar formatting. Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month!
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
BabbaQ (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 01:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Sweet, good research. Tonight I am painting my spare rooom (uh oh!) and then I'd like to finish off this article. But tomorrow should be a light day at work and so I will start it off as promised :D Bug me about it if I forget! --Errant(chat!)13:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Eeek, I had to vote weak delete on that one TBH, sorry :) Just a little tenuous at this stage. However, I've been wondering about whether to start up a wiki about murder/disappearance that is more liberal than WP (this is a common activity). What do you think? This stuff is worth recording, just perhaps not here. --Errant(chat!)21:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify that the Dr- Phil episode about Drexel was an whole 1 hour show solely about Britanee and her disappearance with itnerview with her parents friend and police that is investigating the disappearance. I think it even was the first time Dr- Phil brought up a a case of disappearance for a full hour show. So its not equal to lets say Crimewatch where each crime gets like 5-6 minutes of report.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Great :) I proposed tweaking the wording to say "alleged" as that is what the police are calling it. Otherwise looks good. and thanks for the RFA support --Errant(chat!)14:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question on you RfA. You hit the exact point that I was hoping you might in your answer about making a commitment to the project. Good luck (although from the look of things thus far, I would say you are in good shape)! --Strikerforce (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't feel pressured to continue to respond to Keepscases if he/she continues to badger you about that userbox. It seems Keepscases has a problem with everyone's userbox, and is know for opposing people with any kind of religious userbox. Good Luck. -- Tofutwitch11(TALK)12:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes I noticed a trend after replying on his talk. I feel he initially raised part of a reasonable point, one I hope I addressed. I don't mind talking about the box (and issues pertaining to it) but discussing views on religion is always going to be a bad idea online :) I humoured him for one off-topic reply on his talk page but that is my limit. Thanks for your comment/encouragement :) (and of course your support in the RFA) --Errant(chat!)12:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Best wishes
Looks like your RFA's going to sail through with only the sole (misguided, imo) oppose. Best wishes for the rest of the RFA and for your new tools. From what I've seen from your help at Talk:All Day you'll make a fine admin. :) StrPby (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm overwhelmed by the level of support so far. Particularly as most of the (very helpful) criticism is sat in neutral rather than oppose. Thanks for your support & encouragement. All Day is an example of one of those bitter-sweet problems where the policy seems correct.. but sucky and unfortunate. I think we got there in the end, but it was a shame to stop enthusiastic contribution. --Errant(chat!)13:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Greetings
Your RfA has me a little puzzled. It was mentioned in passing in an email from another editor the other day and ever since, I've been trying to figure out where we've interacted. I don't suppose you can help me out? Btw, any chance you;d be able to help out at any of these? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, the only one I can recall for certain is you gave me my Rollback permission way way back last year - and I dropped you a note to say thanks... after that I guess AN/I and occasionally talk page stalking you. Maybe User:TFOWR's (and co.) talk pages? I can't recall any article work we've run across each other on. As to the EVENTS... I might be able to help out with Nottingham, unless it is only during the day (stuck at work sadly, and we're swamped at the moment). --Errant(chat!)22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Umm welcome to Wikipedia... I discuss that on the nomination page :) If you have any other questions please ask away --Errant(chat!)09:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Your current plan for world domination
Mugserrant, eh? Now I have something to blackmail you with when you join the cabal.
Who am I kidding. I think I'm the administrator with the most-suspect name. Upon registration I was nearly permablocked for the name. They thought I was the second coming of the sockpuppet horde. Anyway, cheers - seeing that you're steamrolling your RFA, I'd like to prematurely welcome you to the sysops! If you ever need a hand (or two, but no more - I'm in short supply), drop by my talk page and I'll be happy to help out.
Hi there. I started a section here about the hook for an article you nominated for DYK. Not sure if you are around, but I wanted to leave you this note so you are aware of this. As I said there, I'm uneasy about the hook, but I'm logging off now (it's late here), so leaving things to see what others think. Carcharoth (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Hang on, it was User:BabbaQ who nominated it. I'm confused now...
Secular Humanist
Let me be the first to congratulate you on your RfA. If we religious folk ever get into a pious snit, I will call upon you as an "unbiased Secular Humanist" to referee. Thanks for making yourself available to be an Admin. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. And FWIW I am glad the point was discussed by the others, the final solution was much better from my own perspective :) Not going to hold it against him. --Errant(chat!)14:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on your succcessful RFA. I've done the needful and you should notice some new tabs along with some other bells and whistles. Now go forth, and do good unto the wiki. –xenotalk14:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you could take a look at the sockpuppetry accusation against me mister Admin. I was accused of that after voting on the Schenecker articles Afd. As it seems some IP voted keep the day after and now I am accused of being that IP even though its not even mine its a wikistalking IP it seems too. I dont see him reporting the IP that voted delete for the article. Feels really bad for me. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey sorry, I didn't have time the last few days to help out :s sorry. but it looks like things got ironed out ok? :) Ping me if you need anything! --Errant(chat!)21:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
On another positive note is that a Keep consensus seems to be emerging on the Schenecker double homicide article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Being involved (i.e. started it :P) I won't close it. The discussion is something of a mess but I think the consensus is mostly in favour of keeping the image in the section with the critical commentary but not in the infobox. Being that this is my preferred approach it might be my bias speaking :) --Errant(chat!)16:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes mine too, I have asked Sandstein who was the original uploader and who wrote the original rationale for the infobox to assess the discussion also, so his comment will be useful. I asked at AN over a week ago and was rejected as too early and I asked again two days ago and as yet there is no apparent interest. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I chucked a comment on the page, I think the status quo is clear, so I'll close it midweek if no one has issues or we can't find someone uninvolved. --Errant(chat!)16:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Procedural question
Hey, I was wondering if you could explain the reasoning behind the semi-protection of Malaysia? I thought that in instances of one IP or users making changes the IP is usually warned and blocked, but was this to try and make them follow up on the talk page? Not criticising, just inquiring! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for pinging me. I've seen it go either way.. in the end I semi-protected the page for three reasons: (1) because the edit war was on-going BUT the user had not been warned at any level on their talk (2) the IP is changing, and only seems to have the one target for now and (3) the article has been hit by vandalism quite a bit recently I figured a 3 day break might do it (and the page watchers) some good. :) Rather than wait & cause more work for page watchers, and then finally block the IP I figured it made more sense to protect and try to force the IP to interact. Mostly I err on the side of avoiding blocking :) Bear in mind: I'm a newbie at this bit (as you can see above) :) so if it seems drastically wrong let me know and I can change it.--Errant(chat!)15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!
Please help!
The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is almost complete. Please help, as the backlog is still very large. Still exceeding 20,000 articles! The goal is 18,000 or less. Lets see if we can do it! We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to help as well.Thank you for all your help thus far!
Don't quite see what is wrong with my edit that the judge in the extradition hearing said that Hurtig was trying to deceive him. That is what he said. Without my edit, the article is unintentionally misleading, as apparently accepting Hurtig account as true, when the judge rejected it as false. The judge also said this. "9.Mr Hurtig says he was unable to make direct contact with his client between Ms Ny asking for a interview on 21st or 22nd September and 29th September. By this time he says he client was no longer in Sweden. An interview was offered by the defence on 10th October onwards, but that was said by Ms Ny to be too far away. Mr Hurtig [is] an unreliable witness as to what efforts he made to contact his client between 21st, 22nd and 29th September (see transcript pages 122-132). He has no record of those attempts. They were by mobile phone, but he has no record. He cannot recall whether he sent texts or simply left answer-phone messages."
And the substance of my edit was not (pace BLP) to use the court judgment as a source for a conclusion about Mr Hurtig, but to use it as a source (and there is none better) for what the court judgment said.
Would you kindly consider reinstating my edit?
Best wishes Ironman1104 (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As Errant said and I agree it would be better to wait and use a report of the report about Hertzig, a secondary report. I am sure after reading the report that there will soon be some reports about the judges comments about Hertzig so it will soon be ok, I will go look for one now. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 10000 ;))It is a primary sourced and contentious statement; we are not qualified to assert what the judge is trying to say (my own reading of it is drastically different from the broad allegation/statement you added) and in such circumstances it is much better to use a secondary source to judge the relevance. It is definitely not a good idea to make use of the primary court finding for most of this detail, particularly such contentious and problematic content. I definitely do not think that the broadness of the statement the judge concluded that Hurtig had deliberately sought to deceive the court can be adequately supported in the source without our own OR/SYNTH. This highlights the problem with covering events that are currently occurring; we really have to wait now for some form of reasonable analysis. --Errant(chat!)15:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
At lease my faith in the British legal system is confirmed with this result, it seemed pretty cut and dry to me as well. At least Assange can be happy that through the extradition request it helps Assange not be extradited to the USA. It will be interesting to see if the Americans will attempt to request him after all this silly-ness is over and also interesting to see where Assange will settle, I wonder which countries would allow him access or an entry visa. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The proposition that, when the judge expressly said that Hurtig tried to mislead the court, one should look to a secondary source rather than the primary one to say what the judge said, is so silly as not to be worth debating further. Ironman1104 (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The sentence was not a simple recording of fact from the document, it was your interpretation to summarise the judge's thinking, and that is a misuse of primary sources. Secondary sources, if available, are definitely the right approach for material like this. There is no real room to debate over this, I agree --Errant(chat!)09:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your message: Honestly, I don't know. I just stumbled on what he did while for Favonian's response to my message there. Emokid did change names (making my message his) and inserted a message with false links. And my message is actually related to several Russian addresses used by a vandal, which I posted at WP:AN/I. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs15:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
.
