A.J.1.5.2. (talk | contribs) |
A.J.1.5.2. (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 388: | Line 388: | ||
[[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">><font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
[[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">><font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
==[[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|Sockpuppetry]] case== |
|||
{| align="left" |
|||
|| [[Image:Puppeter template.svg|50px]] |
|||
|} |
|||
You have been accused of [[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|sockpuppetry]]. Please refer to [[{{highssp|1={{BASEPAGENAME}}}}]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect|notes for the suspect]] before editing the evidence page. |
|||
[[User:Curious Gregor|Curious Gregor]]Synthesis for all 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:54, 26 March 2007
[[Image:Template:POTD/2024-06-07|right|thumb|200px|Next week's Picture of the day]]
Still need help
I wish you hadn't archived there. I still need help and I'm still being harassed. I think this individual and the others involved have exhausted any possible good faith we can afford them [1], [2].--Crossmr 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I permanently semiprotected the talk page and removed some recent inflammatory comments. I noticed the anonymous editor was already blocked for incivility and vandalism. ~ trialsanderrors 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, I accidentally semi-protected your talk page instead of the James Kim talk page. But if the harassment extends to your talk page (and looking at the edit history I see some offending comments) I can semi-protect that too. ~ trialsanderrors 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I mentioned before that I do occasionally help IPs and they do leave actual questions on my talk page, so I'll wait a bit before I make any decision on that. If he really gets at it there it may be something to explore.--Crossmr 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- That block he has is expired, which shows how much good it did, as does this comment he just made [3].--Crossmr 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you happen to know if Feb 15th is too old to do a check user?--Crossmr 00:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- No idea. Who are you thinking of? ~ trialsanderrors 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- 24 and jake b both edited on the 15th (its the only time both accounts have been editing close together) I wondered if that is not too late to tell us if its the same user or not.Some of the things 24 has been saying and another article edit outside James kim makes me suspect that its the same person. I've also found out something else rather interesting which I'm just in the process of piecing together.--Crossmr 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say you should go for it and list it if you have the evidence. Worst case is that they tell you it's too late now. If you want you can email me. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done, I've included a bunch of links and some info. Some feedback would be appreciated.--Crossmr 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say you should go for it and list it if you have the evidence. Worst case is that they tell you it's too late now. If you want you can email me. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- 24 and jake b both edited on the 15th (its the only time both accounts have been editing close together) I wondered if that is not too late to tell us if its the same user or not.Some of the things 24 has been saying and another article edit outside James kim makes me suspect that its the same person. I've also found out something else rather interesting which I'm just in the process of piecing together.--Crossmr 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- No idea. Who are you thinking of? ~ trialsanderrors 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like this IP is going to pick up where the other one left off. Antandrus thought they might be the same person as he thought they were geographically close.[4].--Crossmr 13:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- And I think we'll go ahead with the semi protection. This individual has been known to vandalize both my user page and talk page, so perhaps a month on both?--Crossmr 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Let me know when you want it taken off. Default is 1 month. ~ trialsanderrors 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, as always I appreciate the help.--Crossmr 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Let me know when you want it taken off. Default is 1 month. ~ trialsanderrors 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- This has been confirmed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jake_b. Unfortunately he hasn't edited recently to find out if he isn't also the 131 IP. I'm not quite sure what should be done with this, but since december his disruptive edits out number his beneficial edits about 10 to 1.--Crossmr 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was gonna block him, but it looks like Inshanee already shot him down. ~ trialsanderrors 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- The nose knows. Thanks again, hopefully this will put this all to bed, there are still some consensus issues on the article this all sprang from (mostly bolstered by IPs and accounts which have only made 1 or 2 edits since this all happened), but hopefully we can get those sorted out.--Crossmr 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously 131 intends to start stalking me anywhere I edit [5]. The IP address seems somewhat static. You might try a range block of the Air force base as well.--Crossmr 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think I could get away with that. The only thing I see that might work is 3 hour blocks whenever he pops up anywhere. ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously 131 intends to start stalking me anywhere I edit [5]. The IP address seems somewhat static. You might try a range block of the Air force base as well.--Crossmr 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- The nose knows. Thanks again, hopefully this will put this all to bed, there are still some consensus issues on the article this all sprang from (mostly bolstered by IPs and accounts which have only made 1 or 2 edits since this all happened), but hopefully we can get those sorted out.--Crossmr 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was gonna block him, but it looks like Inshanee already shot him down. ~ trialsanderrors 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Actors by series
Thanks. I've removed that CFD template; the nominations were actually for its subcategories (which are now renamed and untagged per bot). The work to be done would be to (1) tag those subcategories with {{Actors by series}} to indicate their purpose, (2) prune some of the subcats that still contain guest actors, and (3) consider whether some of those cats should be lists instead. I believe some people more knowledgeable on the subject than myself are already working on it, though. >Radiant< 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Please comment
On whether you agree with this proposed principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Workshop#Purpose_of_Deletion_Review . I'm asking Xoloz to comment too. My M.O. these days is to quote you in order to look smart. Kla'quot 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Jesus. I made a comment where I thought was appropriate, but this is far too convoluted for me, and I'm half-glad I missed out on it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's quite the train wreck ;) By the way, good luck with the job hunting! Kla'quot 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
Hey Trials, I thought you might be interested in a (very small) debate about whether a body of research is, or is not, pseudoscience taking place over at Talk:Height and intelligence. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe. Commented there. ~ trialsanderrors (5'10") 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Pete.Hurd 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have time
Hey man, I totally fluxed-up an attempt to create a 3rd AfD for Steve Nguyen. I don't know what I did to anger the transclusion gods, but if you have a spare minute, could you please fix my mess? Sorry, Pete.Hurd 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- got it, nevermind, sorry for disruption. Pete.Hurd 03:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, I can't even watch the Simpsons without something breaking here... ~ trialsanderrors 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- You think that's bad. I just rewound the first six minutes of Man Utd vs. Reading on my PVR in the vain (but I thought not unreasonable) hope that it would come out differently on replay. Pete.Hurd 04:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- You should rewind the last 6 minutes and play them over and over if you want to change the outcome... ~ trialsanderrors 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! right! of course, I'll get the hang of this technology stuff yet! Rock on. Pete.Hurd 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- You should rewind the last 6 minutes and play them over and over if you want to change the outcome... ~ trialsanderrors 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- You think that's bad. I just rewound the first six minutes of Man Utd vs. Reading on my PVR in the vain (but I thought not unreasonable) hope that it would come out differently on replay. Pete.Hurd 04:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, I can't even watch the Simpsons without something breaking here... ~ trialsanderrors 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support of the article. It blew me away that an entry on the company would be deleted as "non-notable". It blew me away further when I read the "endorse deletion" replies and reasoning (to cut the endorsers some slack). It blew my socks off to discover that the article had actually been speedy deleted, which takes two parties. No wonder it never turned up on my watchlist, and I only discovered the deletion months later. (I still wonder what needed "improving"?)
I'm hoping to add more (like pictures) to it soon, and if I turn up press references (besides the online one, which I had to wade through literally dozens of online catalog pages to find... and this still wasn't "notable"?!), those will go in as well. (If they don't get dismissed as "original research", since somebody had to ask about them.) I'm hoping someone else will add even more. – This one had the personnel at our local Sam Ash and Guitar Center rather surprised, even if nobody had seen a recent news story. Zephyrad 08:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a common misapplication of the new Notability guideline that bugs me. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use claims
I am having a bit of trouble on a redirect's talk page with User:Miaers, but when visiting his user talk, I separately contacted him about using a fair use image on his user page. He has left replies (User talk:Miaers and User talk:Dekimasu) indicating that he disagrees with me, and I just now glanced through his archive and saw that you've already recently had this conversation with him about the image Image:Chapman Hall.jpg. He's been reacting similarly at other pages, such as List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people, which I reverted once.
Since I've already had nearly a month of going over redirects and WP:DAB with him at Talk:University of Wisconsin, would you mind following up on this and talking to him a bit more about fair use? I don't want him to think that I'm following him around and attacking his edits. Sorry to take up your time. Dekimasuよ! 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll leave him another note. Thanks for reminding me, I had planned to follow up on it anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for relieving some portion of my Wikistress. Problems are ongoing at List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people, which I'd rather not revert anymore. In response to my explanation that a photo wasn't fair use for the article in question, he says it is being used for "publicity". Maybe I'm being too picky? Dekimasuよ! 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Photoshop Query
I ran it through the bag of tricks I know to detect Photoshop tampering you said in a comment on FPC, and I wondered what exactly you meant, is it a plugin (if yes could you give me a link to download) or just a technique (could you describe it in detail) because I think I could make use of something like that just to check I havn't left any 'scars' in my images. thanks --Benjamint444 11:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly I don't find the tricks very useful in fixing images, which is another art by itself, but I usually try to increase contrast or enhance borders. One trick is to create a separate layer in a bright color (e.g. bright red) and set it to color screen or color burn. In the case of the race car I also rotated the image into a position where the car is horizontal and checked if it would look "normal". ~ trialsanderrors 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- thanks --Benjamint444 01:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me
Hi there, I contacted the author of this photo, Allan Hong. He agreed to let me use this photo in Wikipedia. Could you please let me know what kind of license tag should I use? Miaers 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. In short, Allan should change the license for the picture to a free one. Saying we can use it on Wikipedia isn't sufficient. ~ trialsanderrors 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I restored the categories after your successful challenge at WP:DRV. You have to re-populate them though or they might be subject to redeletion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Diyarbakır 13:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Q. How do I find out what was in the villages category? I don't believe I ever added anything to that one, so I can't re-apply my own edits... --Diyarbakır 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea. ~ trialsanderrors 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Butting in, my guess would be that they probably were emptied by one of the participants in the CFD. So I'd suggest looking through their contribution histories. GRBerry 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- This might help. ~ trialsanderrors 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Q. How do I find out what was in the villages category? I don't believe I ever added anything to that one, so I can't re-apply my own edits... --Diyarbakır 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
So the deletion was overturned because of improper depopulation during a CFD and others have to root through the bad actors' "contributions" in order to fix it... --Diyarbakır 09:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to force the "bad actor" to undo his actions. Not knowing much about the case I'm also held to assume good faith editing first. ~ trialsanderrors 09:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Hi! Just popping round to say thanks for your support at my RfA. Great turnout and a humbling level of support. Thanks again. :) Bubba hotep 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Fazal Mohammed
I tried to find some when it was prod'd, but I can't find anything online - not that it means an awful lot, especially in the case of someone who died in the 40s. But I am looking again. Guettarda 03:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg
Re The O2 → Millennium Dome
Hi trialsanderrors,
- ...I started a request to move The O2 back to Millennium Dome under common name rule. Since you originally asked to move it to The O2, you might want to offer your opinion.
Just spotted that I did support that move; I guess I must've been feeling "official" that day, as I'd agree that it usually seems to be called the "Millenium Dome". (From what I happen to've read more recently, however, maybe it will soon become something along the lines of "Casino Royale"...? ...!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Kernow (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Why did you do a brightness correction in your edit? As far as I can tell there was nothing wrong with the brightness. It was just the border that needed editing. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I retouched the whole background since the page has very sketchy color pattern, not only in the corners. The actual drawings of the spiders are untouched. ~ trialsanderrors 09:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg
Political user categories
Hi- can you tell me what the process is for recommending the elimination of political user categories? (Actually, my preference would be to set up a format like [[Category:Interest-Communism]], which would extend to more than just politics. Collaboration is germane to encyclopedia editing; promotion of one's views or talents or qualities is not. Anyway, any tip about where to start such an initiative appreciated! -Pete 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just informed the editor who offered to group nominate all political user categories that I undeleted the fascist one. The correct forum for it is WP:UCfD, I don't really know more about it since I rarely deal with user categories. I'd have to read the instructions myself. ~ trialsanderrors 02:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- No need, that link is plenty! Thank you. -Pete 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration
Just to let you know that I have begun a "Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration" in which you will be involved. --Iantresman 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- How so? I don't see how I am involved in this. ~ trialsanderrors 23:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Peace war game revisited
Noticed these? [6] [7]? Pete.Hurd 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Someone being persistent, huh? Can't say I'm bugged by this, as long as it's being pointed out that it's an iPD (not sure where the "varition" comes in though). ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, on closer (but deeply sleep-deprived) inspection, it's a bit odd, but I can't see anything factually incorrect. Pete.Hurd 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well I see no evidence that this was actually played as PWG. From what I can tell this is the retelling of the Axelrod simulations under a different name. But I'll just declare this outside my domain and leave it for the folks writing the War article to figure out. ~ trialsanderrors 20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, on closer (but deeply sleep-deprived) inspection, it's a bit odd, but I can't see anything factually incorrect. Pete.Hurd 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
TaE .. My apologies if I am not leaving this comment in the proper place. I am writing because a Abou didee (talk · contribs) seems to be violating WP:point regarding the article European Graduate School and the user Europeangraduateschool - much the same as user Santa Sangre did about one year ago. His malicious modifications span at least WP English and French (particularly the Baudrillard articles). According to the AfD re: European Graduate School. Because the history recorded that you provided some level headed comment in that instance, I am wondering if you would look into this current matter. It may be that the Europeangraduateschool (talk · contribs) needs some censure, but I think Abou Didee may have gone overboard. Thank you and Peace. Talk:European_Graduate_School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.140.22 (talk • contribs)
- I'll have a look at it. ~ trialsanderrors 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your recent comment on Talk:European_Graduate_School. Unfortunately Abou Didee has continued his behaviour not only on that talk page but also Talk:Jean_Baudrillard. Would you please consider providing some neutral comment once again .. and/or suggest what is an appropriate next step (I and a few others have already solicited other neutral commentary and it seems not to have helped). Thank You. 68.160.140.22 03:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for such a rapid response to the above request. It simply seems that when I write it inflames the situation. I take responsibilty for that, tho it is not my intention. Both you and Metamagician3000 carry necessary authority, legitimacy and weild it with neutrality. I respect you both for such skill and tact. Peace to You. 68.160.140.22 05:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response on Baudrillard's links, it's a bit heated at the moment, I'll concentrate on Black Empowerment articles first Black Economic Empowerment, and then put some energy into Baudrillard. Perhaps you'll be interested in the article, it's very biased at the moment, especially the "effects" section Black Economic Empowerment#Effects, I'm trying to fix it, but especially the talk pages are full of.. well... propaganda.. and I should actually be working...Goodlucca 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Milwaukee Art Museum 1 (Mulad).jpg
- Thanks for closing these! ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi Trialsanderrors. Thank you for supporting my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 13:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Comedians
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
I award you the barnstar for your great Sense of humor which you showed regarding this diff and its following comments ....--Cometstyles 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
P.S..That really made my gloomy day more Bright..Keep up the Good Job..--Cometstyles 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just had to laugh myself re-reading the RFA. It looks like it's catching on. Thanks for the BS. ~ trialsanderrors 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please Articulate Reasoning
I notice that you closed the the DRV on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_9#North_America_.28Americas.29 without any explaination of your reasons for decision. In the future, please provide a brief elaboration of your reasoning when closing. A sentence or two would be just fine. Not providing any elaboration makes the actions of admins appear lawless and is harmful to the community. Warm Regards. Edivorce 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's not common at DRV unless the result is close enough or the case is convoluted enough that a comment is required. This one appeared convoluted at the outset, but once you get through the personal stuff between a small group of commenters the endorsement was clear and I had no reason to discard their reasoning. ~ trialsanderrors 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Illustration Punica granatum2.jpg
DRV Bot
Hi - a bot request was made which specified to contact you for details, so I am doing :). I'll be happy to write and run such a log making bot for DRV. I've just got one or two questions:
- Where shold the log pages go (ie - what are their titles)?
- What templates should go at the top of each log page?
- Is the bot to *just* create the monthly and daily archive pages at midnight (UTC), or are there any other tasks you want in it?
Thanks, Martinp23 07:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Martin, thanks for getting in touch with me. I'm trying to make this as organized as possible.
- The current format of the daily logs is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 6, of the monthly logs is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March. If it's easier for you you can switch to ISO format 2007-03-06 and 2007-03. It seems to be catching on.
- The bot should create tomorrow's daily log page. Currently there is a preloaded form at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Next day for this. If you go to you can see the generic headers.
- I'm currently creating the monthly logs by hand and archive by hand. If you the March log you can see the format. Days are listed from 31 to 1 (this goes for all twelve months), and for every archived day I move the comment arrow --> up one day. The is currently no generic page to create the next monthly archive but I can create it if it helps.
- The current system archives the daily logs once all reviews are closed. This isn't really necessary. The WP:DRV front page contains 11 days (6 current, 5 recent). So it would be ok to archive the daily log that drops off the front page.
- The most complicated task would be to strip the discussions from the monthly archives so that they only appear in the daily archives. I have to write an example code for this which will include some <noinclude> and <includeonly> tags.
~ trialsanderrors 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi - I've just got the code written to make a new daily listing page at midnight, and on the first day of every month make a new monthly listing. For the final part of the task - completing the monthly listing - I should be able to program the bot to create its own summary of each day, providing a link and result. For this stage, I would be helpful if you could continue as before with uncommenting substed days, and the bot can then know that the uncommented page is complete, and so put the summary on the archive page. Does this make sense, and work for you? Finally, are there any other tasks you would like the bot to do in this vein? I'll put a BRFA in now, and we should be ready for testing within four days, when the bot will be able to create new pages - bearing in mind that the change in date format could cause some problems, is there a preferred date for the commencement of bot tasks? Martinp23 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at User:Trialsanderrors/AfD there are examples for my intended way of archiving without the need to write new summaries. In essence, it works as follows:
- Standard daily header
- <includeonly> Click on the date link above to review the following discussions </includeonly>
- Standard review header: Foo — Deletion endorsed — User:Foobar 11:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- <noinclude> Discussion </noinclude>
- Discussion footer
- So in essence the bot should create the "Click on the date link" line and add a number of noinclude tags. Does this make sense? I have no preferred date, whatever works for you. Thanks for working on this. ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at User:Trialsanderrors/AfD there are examples for my intended way of archiving without the need to write new summaries. In essence, it works as follows:
- Hi - I've just got the code written to make a new daily listing page at midnight, and on the first day of every month make a new monthly listing. For the final part of the task - completing the monthly listing - I should be able to program the bot to create its own summary of each day, providing a link and result. For this stage, I would be helpful if you could continue as before with uncommenting substed days, and the bot can then know that the uncommented page is complete, and so put the summary on the archive page. Does this make sense, and work for you? Finally, are there any other tasks you would like the bot to do in this vein? I'll put a BRFA in now, and we should be ready for testing within four days, when the bot will be able to create new pages - bearing in mind that the change in date format could cause some problems, is there a preferred date for the commencement of bot tasks? Martinp23 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I just archived the March 1 log. See the difference between Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 1 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March.
- This is done via adding the following <noinclude> tags between discussions:
Discussion 1 |- | style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |}</noinclude> <noinclude>{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |- ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |</noinclude> * '''[[Bonney Eberndu]]''' – {{{2|Deletion endorsed}}} – [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC) <!--01:09, 7 March 2007 UTC)--><noinclude> |- | style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |- Discussion 2
- and similarly at the top of the first and bottom of the last discussion. The bot should also add the line
;<includeonly><small>Click on the date link above to review the following discussions:</small></includeonly> <noinclude>
- below the date header, and strip out multiple lines between discussions. Is that doable? ~ trialsanderrors 02:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh OK. April is fine with me. There's also a short discussion at WT:DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, I just noticed the second time stamp in html comment tags: <!--01:09, 7 March 2007 UTC)-->. I replaced it with a simple <!--*--> to mark the end of the closing statement. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth 2 double vote
You have both a support and neutral vote on the RfA—with the same timestamp nonetheless. Not sure which you meant to be your real position. —Doug Bell talk 13:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I had already logged a support when I read the exchange about canvassing and forgot to remove it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your vote on my picture. I would just like to point out that the image has an extended caption on the image page summary. I have however attempted to write a better image caption for the peer review. Please revisit and improve it if you want, as I am relatively unsure about what exactly is needed in an image caption and would appreciate any help to get the picture to featured status. Thank you. LordHarris 00:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey. This template is a pretty good idea; however, can you WP:SUBST it? gren グレン 01:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about it, but it would put three lines of text into the nomination. Maybe I can subst it in closed noms. ~ trialsanderrors 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [8] .
Thanks Atulsnischal 12:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Request for deletion
Hey Trials, I accidentally created Talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive1 instead of User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive1 while finally getting around to archiving my talk page. Can you delete the mainspace article, or do I have to submit a request to some *fD list? Cheers, Pete.Hurd 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done, that's a {{db-user}}. No need to run this through FoofD. ~ trialsanderrors 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! thanks! I'll know better next time, Cheers. Pete.Hurd 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Manzanar calisthenics 0016u.jpg
Thanks! ~ trialsanderrors 01:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Closing DRV discussions
Good evening, Trials. I've copied your instructions for closing DRV discussions over to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. When you have a minute, would you please make sure I got it right? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for fixing my last two DRV listings. I never remember from one time to the next what to do to list categories correctly. Who would be a good person to suggest an update to the instructions to include separate copy/paste lines for articles and categories? Otto4711 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- They're really too rare to create separate instructions. Probably 90% of reviews are for articles. Usually if the nominator doesn't do it himself between the four or five DRV regulars it's usually fixed within an hour or so. The only things that need to be changed is to replace {{la|:Category:Foo}} with {{lc|Foo}} and copy-and-paste the CfD over the AfD link. ~ trialsanderrors 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration
I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Emcee T article recreated (?)
I suspect that EMCEE T (MC T) is a recreation of the article above which you deleted in January. I found the other spelling (Emcee T) when I attempted to move the EMCEE T (MC T) article to properly name it. Could you take a look?--DO11.10 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. That seems like a duplicate article created while the deletion review was ongoing. I guess we have to be on the lookout for other duplicates. ~ trialsanderrors 02:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I write for a Bay Area magazine in the Bay Area (YAYAREA.biz) and I am curious why Emcee T's page got deleted (twice)? I want to use the wikipedia as a source for an upcoming issue. Thank you. Jerome J.
- You can e-mail me and I'll send you the text. The deletion was endorsed by the community earlier this year. ~ trialsanderrors 23:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Haeckel Arachnida.jpg
- I don't see any reason why not to upload it over the old one; it's hard to imagine a situation where editors would prefer the old one, and it will bypass a lot of mess replacing the instances where it is used.--ragesoss 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've replaced Image:Haeckel Arachnida 2.jpg with Image:Haeckel Arachnida.jpg where appropriate. Thanks for notifying. And thank you for the barnstar as well! --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I missed a few. Should be ok now... --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I was about to take care of the rest but got distracted. Thanks for doing that too. Sucks that it seems you're stuck with closing all the FPC's. ~ trialsanderrors 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I missed a few. Should be ok now... --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've replaced Image:Haeckel Arachnida 2.jpg with Image:Haeckel Arachnida.jpg where appropriate. Thanks for notifying. And thank you for the barnstar as well! --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, DRV acknowledged. Looks like mandate is clear at this point, hence I'll leave the matter as it is. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for stepping in! Left some comments on the DRV page. Sincerely, Novickas 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
For your entertainment
Seen [this]?
- Awesome. I should award myself a barnstar for being your meat puppet. ~ trialsanderrors 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey yeah! We could sign it John Nash, or John Maynard Smith. Rock on, Pete.Hurd 21:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- One of John Nash's alter egos, maybe? ~ trialsanderrors 22:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Spot on! William Parcher it is then! Cheers, Pete.Hurd 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- LMFAO, excellent! Pete.Hurd 13:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- You should. It is great fun. ROFL. I love the way you spoof the user name. I feel that it is a clear breach of etiquette and indicates some form of meatpuppetery. I shall soon start the case against you. - Curious GregorTALK
- LMFAO, excellent! Pete.Hurd 13:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Spot on! William Parcher it is then! Cheers, Pete.Hurd 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
New article on Steve Omohundro
I found some new information on Steve Omohundro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that was not brough up in the original AFD discussion - 17 publications and a US patent - and thought this significant enough to warrant restoring the article. After restoring it, I made enough edits that I feel it's a new article rather than a restoration (it would have been easier to start from scratch than to restore), so I have removed the CFD tag. However, I wanted to invite you to take a look at the article as you participated in the original AFD discussion. --Zippy 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the last version was deleted for copyvio, so that's not restorable. On the notability issue, 17 publications isn't all that much when compared to the normal standard for academics, so that's what an AfD would have to decide. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Omohundro (2nd nomination). ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Hey Thanx I really appreciate you moving the deleted BRITTANICA article into my user space, so it didn't get lost forever. Thankie! Sue Rangell[citation needed] 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
.htaccess
In the AfD for the .htaccess article [9] you wrote that you were redirecting the article until someone was willing to clean it up. If you could give me the article text, I might be able to clean it up and repost it. I think this is especially important in light of the close 'vote' (7 to keep, 6 to merge/delete): there is clearly interest in keeping the article around. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Still in the edit history. Stay away from the copyvio version though... ~ trialsanderrors 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realize it was still there. Thanks! CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Myg0t
FYI: I have overturned your speedy closure of this DRV based on a number of reasons that I have outlined there. My hope is that this DRV can focus on the merits of the case and not on the bureaucratic procedurals. I would not have done this if a real conversation on the mertis of the evidence had not started and I don't think it's ever a good idea to squelch a consensus building exercise when it's not clear what the outcome might be. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page, my email or here. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the history of the request, posted by Guy. This site is being posted every two weeks, with more or less the same flimsy sources. Repeat nominations without new sources in the hope that one day they'll get inattentive voters to ok the sources without looking at them is strongly discouraged. It's disruptive. ~ trialsanderrors 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The sources are not "flimsy", and "more or less the same" does not mean you get to discount the new sources that are introduced. I feel that the previous DRV did not accurately portray the merits for restoring the article, for many reasons, not the least of which being that it didn't include sources that were included in the newer DRV. Regardless, the idea of speedily closing a DRV based on the precedent of another DRV which was ALSO speedily closed is completely illogical. The DRV filed two weeks ago cannot be used as a precedent because it was not allowed to complete, and so didn't accurately represent the consensus of the wikipedia community. The past three DRV's (including this one) have all been speedily closed because of a failed DRV half a year ago. The self-referencing precedents and subsequent speedy closures have become so prevalent that an actual consensus hasn't been reached in at least six months. Accordingly, I request that this DRV be allowed to continue in order to properly form a consensus. cacophony ◄► 03:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I posted, if you think the sources are strong enough to support an encyclopedic article, write up a stub in user space and present it at DRV. In that case the DRV will run a full five days. ~ trialsanderrors 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- So now my edits are vandalism now? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seriously. I don't recognize your name. I just had a look at your contributions and find maybe ten edits to DRV over the last four months. And the first thing you do is overturn my closure? The second thing you do is ignore the directive not to modify a closed discussion and move text out of the box into no man's land? And you're trying to make a case that you have no intention to turn this into a circus? Well then let's start with the simple first step on how to not turn this into a circus: Ask the closer why it was closed early and if it's ok to overturn and let it run for five days. I'm ok if any of the other regular closers overturn me without consulting, but from someone who has no experience at DRV you can't expect that I treat this as a serious attempt to resolve an issue unless you give me a reason to. You're disrupting DRV to make a point when you could've gotten an answer quicker and more civilly. ~ trialsanderrors 03:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hold much of the blame for the current situation as I contacted J.smith on IRC in an effort to resolve the issue. Taking your advice, then, I'd like you to overturn the speedy closure and let it run for at least five days, for two reasons;
- There has been no consensus on the issue in six months, during which time new sources of notability have been discovered.
- A legitimate discussion on the issue has already started by many members of Wikipedia
- I also think it a bad idea to create an article in userspace before filing for DRV for two reasons;
- Time and effort may be put into creating an article which may ultimately be wasted if the DRV fails
- Creating the article in articlespace would allow other editors unaware of this discussion to contribute to the article. If I create the article myself, it may be denied by DRV because I personally may not create a good article. If, however, the article is opened on articlespace, the article produced by the Wikipedia community at large may be better than that which I could myself produce alone.
- Accordingly, I am requesting the right to create this article before actually creating it, and thus humbly requesting that the DRV be reopened for a minimum of five days.
- Regards, cacophony ◄► 04:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hold much of the blame for the current situation as I contacted J.smith on IRC in an effort to resolve the issue. Taking your advice, then, I'd like you to overturn the speedy closure and let it run for at least five days, for two reasons;
- I think it's a very good idea to request that an article be created in user space once the namespace for the article is protected. And the reason for this is to make sure processes don't get bogged down by repeat nominations based on evidence that has been viewed and rejected before. In the same manner you say it's wasteful to create an article that might fail at DRV it's wasteful to use DRV to establish again that the article fails policy. At one point the burden of effort has to shift to the editor who wants to create the article, and for myg0t that point was a long time ago. Also, it's extremely easy to create an article from available sources, if the sources are substantial enough:
- X is a Y best known for Z.
- Reference 1
- Reference 2
- Reference 3
- This article is a stub
- is a perfectly valid article iff the references support X, Y and Z. I've never spent more than 30 minutes starting an article, and none of my articles has ever been deleted or even listed at AfD, because I follow that scheme. ~ trialsanderrors 04:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
DRV
Ok, I'll keep that in mind, thanks. I just automatically used the same method I use on other deletion processes, but it doesn't really work on DRV. I see it may be difficult to have those templates function in the same way; but perhaps it should give an error message if you type
{{drv top}} overturn. ~~~~
>Radiant< 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to [[Template:Highssp]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.
Curious GregorSynthesis for all 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)