User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2011/March

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.

Hi Errant, You know that there are more computers without keyboards (in your car, control systems, satellites, toasters...) that there are with keyboards. What you have described is a PC, not a computer. Please name one computer that is not Electronic besides the first few (less than ten), compared to billions now. There hasn't been one computer built in the past 50 years that wasn't electronic! I was trying to keep the introduction simple so that a non wizard could understand what was happening, you have drowned it in words and concepts that will prevent a ten year old from understanding what it is. Memories and peripherals were in the third paragraph, taking the novice's mind from one concept to another, one new idea at a time. Just a thought! Cheers Ezrdr (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the intro you wrote is better integrated into the section describing the computer. Regardless of when computers were mechanical they can be mechanical and it is incorrect to describe them purely as electronic. It is definitely worth noting somewhere that most computers today are electronic. In regards to your first point; that was just an example of an interface. If you read the article in detail then it explains it; a computer conventionally consists of a processing unit and some form of memory. Then onto that we add any manner of peripheral I/O devices, connected by Buses. We don't really have a reading level to aim at in articles - but simplicity is good, as ytou say. Unfortunately my opinion was that what you wrote was pretty incomprehensible to a non-expert. For example Test and jump instructions allow to move within the program space and therefore to execute different instructions as a function of the current state of the machine or its environment. certainly is a high level concept :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I can log in and create pages again :) --173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Errant. I noticed you responded to a recent WQA thread regarding Giacomo, and I also read over the comments you and another editor left on his talk page. I must admit I'm a little confused; Giacomo seems to have a long term pattern of incivil behaviour and at least one prior successful (ie. expired, not lifted) block for such. I see that in the past it does seem that some incivility accusations against him could be considered light, but the evidence provided in the WQA thread was, in my opinion, nothing short of atrocious.

I'm curious about the reasoning you've employed here, as I'm not familiar with Giacomo's history other than a few ANI threads and the WQA thread - why do you believe that it was more appropriate to simply talk to Giacomo (unsuccessfully) when his conduct seems to warrant a stronger response? Particularly in light of the fact that this seems to be a case of ongoing repeat offences, I'm unsure of how this conclusion was reached. Are there mitigating circumstances or other pieces of information that might help me understand the rationale here? Regards, TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hiya. Well the history of it is that any discussion about Giano's civility descends into nastiness and drama as his supporters and haters (both of which are equally problematic) get into slanging matches. I mostly closed it and attempted to talk to Giano because the admin that brought the WQA thread was already getting messages on his talk page chastising him for what was a clear good faith action. To try and mitigate that and the impending disaster I hoped a personal approach would work. It has not, and having slept on it I am now prepared to raise the matter myself for the community to discuss on [{WP:AN/I]] --Errant ^(chat!) 09:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are mostly right, I think nothing will happen, I don't know how to improve the situation, but boy, would I have liked it if you had posted your request 5 minutes earlier or half an hour later ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are 100% right. Sadly I can't in good faith let it ride. :( (ah.. sorry for that, I'll take a look at it myself before work consumes me) :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you been checking the Commons versions of the files you're deleting? I'm finding almost every one of them needs to be fixed in some way, you're deleting them faster than I can look. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Eeek, yes I have been checking all of them. I haven't seen an issue needing fixing, apologies, got any specific examples? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Several of the Greek Prime Minister images had the wrong link, and almost every "own work"/"self" image that is transferred credit the person who transferred it to Commons rather than the original uploader (example). --Closedmouth (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, I see your fixes... some of those didn't occur to me (the death dates thing) because of the commons differences on licensing, but I should have caught the links :s I checked the other images & I think ZrO2powder is the only one I could see at a double check that I got wrong (actually I saw it was credited to MS and missed that the link and source were wrong). I'll dial it back, was fitting in deletions between spates of work ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW I make the reasonable assumption that images uploaded under the same username on Commons within a reasonable timeframe of the original upload are from the same person. I take it that is acceptable? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Files at F8 specifies the (stringent) requirements and death dates are mentioned. Thincat (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at Cube lurker's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some opinions for Delete has been raised. Perhaps if you feel like it you could specify why you voted Keep on the articles Afd. Or give an argument for why it should be kept in discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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) 11:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read some extraordinary statements in my time at Wikipedia, but I believe yours here has just taken the proverbial biscuit for underhand misconstruction of fact. [1]

"Someone incapable of interacting pleasantly in difficult situations should not be doing article work - it is simply fortunate that Giano works in a relatively non-contentious area” I consider this to be an attack far worse than any I have ever made. Has it occurred to you that the reason I don't have problems writing and editing is not that “I work in a non contentious area” but that those of us in that field are able to understand each others views and and debate them accordingly in a civilised fashion and I do so with them. How dare you say “I should not be doing article work” I expect were my interest those of image fiddling, porn stars and comic characters I would find those with similar interests just as agreeable, as it is I don't even bother those pages or dive in with my opinion. In fact, if you check my edits, everytime I go near an area of contention, I seek outside advice from other editors, often from those I know will have a different perspective in order to avoid contention.

This recent problem arose from gross stupidity and it was not mine. So when writing your “thoughtful” conclusion, try and do some thinking and if you think political and social history is not contentious, especially when it touches on Ireland and Jews, then you really are a little out of touch - or is it that you don't even know what I write and where I write. If you want to malign my editing, get your facts straight first.Giacomo Returned 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Giano; The comment was not brilliantly expressed, on reflection. I have ckarified it. My point was a more general one along the lines of "you can be an awesome article contributor but if you end up being nasty in content disputes it will never end well", with the addendum that this was not the sort of dispute I've ever seen you in. Hopefully that is clearer, and intended as a positive note.

DGG has a comment (which I've lost for the moment) which epitomises my thinking entirely; I agree entirely with your comments about the underlying problem, but disagree entirely your response is appropriate or helpful --Errant ^(chat!) 09:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why mention content disputes at all then? - I have never been directly involved in a serious one - perhaps one (I say that just to cover myself, but I can't remember one) - in 7 years of editing 1,000s of articles and certainly never one that has required the community or the Arbcom to add their ten cents worth anywhere but the talk page. I am begining to wonder quite where your information about me is coming from, but I can't be bothered to go there. Please check out your sources before mentioning me in future. Heresay can be very misleading you should not beleive everything you are told about me. Giacomo Returned 10:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW no one has "given me" any information on you. I act on my own volution. Believe or disbelieve that as you wish. The "content editor issue" is a wider part of the discussion, I didn't disengage it well from the specific discussion about you in that case, for which I apologise --Errant ^(chat!) 10:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well you seem to have a very narrow idea of the areas and places in which I work. Well, I will disengage with you now, I can't say that I have enjoyed meeting you - hopefully our paths won't cross again - unless you suddenly develop an interest in architecture, social history, boxing, historic political biography or politics. I'm at a loss to know why our paths did cross, there was certainly no crossing on my part - ever. Let me give you some parting advice: If you don't like somebody here, wait for them to come and chase you, never go chasing them. It's my golden rule here. Later, it's always interesting watching those who come chasing me - it may take a year or so, but they always prove their true colours eventually. There used to be a page "The spooky curse of Giano" - I was too lazy to keep it up to date so I deleted it - pity. Farewell. Giacomo Returned 10:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should be closing your own proposals at ANI Errant, that's not an expression of consensus. Plenty of people have commented in good faith expectation of a proper closure, and you've effectivley nullified those completely, and made it inadmissable in any future DR aswell. You have simply reinforced the toxic idea that 'there's nothing you can do about Giano'. Fair enough if the consensus outcome is no sanction, but this isn't the consensus outcome. Because of that, as a conclusion of a process, your statements cannot be used for anything except your own view. And in that regard, it's not news to most people that Giano would not accept any sanctions, but for proposals made at ANI, that's really beside the point. RFC/U is the venue where he gets a say in the content of any proposed sanction, or is at liberty to ignore/ivalidate it. ANI is not. RD232's point was not exactly relevant either, there was nothing in your proposal that is not compatible with how such things work already. It was effectively a formal NPA probation. If I'm wrong on any of these points, it's for an independent closer to say so, so I'd appreciate it if you re-opened it for that purpose. MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mick; I had a total of 18 emails arrive overnight in my Inbox and 3 more this morning when I was considering matters (and a few more since closing). Ranging from vague threats, to genuine concern (for me), to thoughtful advice, to basic incomprehensibility. People obviously feel extremely strongly about this - I already knew that before embarking on the shennanigans, but it is dragging on and on and, honestly, I had other things to do today :) I've no issue if people feel it is essential or useful to re-open the thread and continue the discussion, but I will no longer be involved, sorry. Giano has said he will ignore whatever is agreed anyway, so I am treating it as a dead end from my perspective. BTW, I found your comments insightful in the thread :) thanks --Errant ^(chat!) 16:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on what you've said here, I'll re-open and request an uninvolved review takes place. An advantage of having email disabled is you don't have to deal with these people. If they claim speak for Giano or his interests, just remember that he absolutely hates people using off-wiki communications to influence things that really should occur on-wiki. MickMacNee (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Most are just cranks, without any actual involvement. :) But thanks. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If Giano says he won't follow the restrictions, then he gets a block. That's the whole point of a restriction. (X! · talk)  · @749  ·  16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh really? you do surprise us all; and who exactly are you X!, that you can claim to be a senior editor and yet I have never seem your name before? Giacomo Returned 08:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll move this off pump, you are obviously professionally involved and I have had contact with folk who have had problems with inaccurate reporting on their CRBs, I would suggest that there is a different range of professional standard adopted by different forces across the UK. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe. But it would basically be a miscarriage of justice for anyone to get anything on their permanent record for this (type of) picture. Indeed, you'd not get it accepted in front of a court (in today's climate you wouldn't even get it past the CPS). The problems I've seen in the past relate to someone being wrongly reported on suspicion of, well, you get the idea. Even if it comes back negative that can hang around on their record (it is possible to scrub such things, but no one realises). So that, perhaps, is the area overlap where we are both right/wrong. In this case I don't think it is a major consideration, although agreed, giving her more prominence just seems a bad idea :) feel free to email me if you want to carry on the conversation :) always happy to discuss etc. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

While I do not know how the swimwear image debate will end up I do know that it is nowhere near this File:Whipping-tan.jpg (TheFarix found it and posed at for deletion), there a way this can be speedy deleted from wikipedia given it's nature? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's a commons image so the deletion would have to go through there; there is AFAIK no way to rid us of it locally here :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Wikify for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, ErrantX, what do you think about this video - its up for deletion here and its insertion in the infobx of an article, Battle of Brega actually there is not imo any confirmation at all of where it is or when it was or anything, myself and at least a couple of other users have removed it but its just been replaced. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems highly dubious to me; plus it doesn't really seem to add much to the article... I will opine on the talk page :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For jumping into the fray a few times! CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Carol :) I'm afraid I haven't been around those haunts for a little while, how are things going for you? --Errant ^(chat!) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's international womens day and we're getting another girl dog, so all the princesses are doing well! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi ErrantX. Thank you for closing and summarizing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3. Would you close and summarize Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 22#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation and/or Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition and implement any consensual changes (if any) to the wordings of policies? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'll try and look at those others later. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You did a good job summarizing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3, and the two RfCs I listed above are much shorter in length so will hopefully be easier to summarize. Cunard (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you closing the protection policy RfC. Relisting the bot policy RfC since it didn't attract much attention is a good call, though I don't know how more input can be sought. It was listed at WP:CENT for a month and few people were interested. Best, Cunard (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I reread your closure of the protection policy RfC and think you mean "volition" instead of "volution". Cunard (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's March Mini! Hello, I thought you would be interested in the March Mini, a coordinated effort by WikiProject Wikify members to eliminate the 2008 backlog of articles tagged with {{wikify}} and/or {{dead end}}. Come join in the fun! There are only three prizes to be won, including a special barnstar created just for this drive! Regards, WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Uncivil personal attack by an arb.[2]--Cube lurker (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Which part is the personal attack?

• Saying of Pedro "Goodness knows what brought that on - is he sensitive about his own age?" after Pedro described her (her, not her actions) as "an utter disgrace" ?
• Saying "I assumed the candidate was in his 20's - he doesn't come over as a bratty teenager, but he does come through as someone with the energy to rush through a load of things" ?
• Her comment about her husband?

If it's the third item, I don't think it counts unless he has a Wikipedia account.

I'm no supporter of approaches to Wikipedia that involve viewing 95% of the participants as being "children", but as far as I can tell Elen doesn't display that attitude, plus I think you are really clutching at straws to consider this a personal attack that you can "challenge" Errant with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Bratty teanager. I'm not "challenging" ErrantX. I'm assisting him. He's expressed an interest in applying NPA on admins and arbcom members. He has every right to decide it's not actionable. I just don't want to deprive him of an opportunity he'd like to act on just because he may have missed it.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You consider it a personal attack to say that someone doesn't come across as a bratty teenager? The mind boggles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to miss the obvious connection that the one who posted on her talk page did.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that there's an regional idiom I've misunderstood however. If ErrantX sees it as you, it's all good. No need to get so tense about it.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm having a very hard time seeing a personal attack in that diff... In general (i.e. on the RFA) she made an observation about the attitude of the candidate and made a somewhat rash assumption about why the candidate might be that way, I'm not really sure that is particularly rude, or nasty. It's not something I would ever complain about. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Doing further research I did misunderstand "Come over". Where I am come over means, well, to come over. We use the far superior "come across" when meaning "to give the impression".--Cube lurker (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'd use "come across" for that meaning as well. Given the context, maybe it's a generation gap thing rather than an I8n thing. Although I'd understand both, so I have the advantage of backwards compatibility. Glad you're less tense. ----Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to tell you that the Afd has been closed as No Consensus. I feel it is a "victory" for the "Keepers".. It feels particularly good this time as the Afd discussion was at best really nasty. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey just thought I would drop by to say congratulations on your successful admin request. I hadn’t realised you were up for nomination otherwise I would have strongly supported you. Well done again and best of luck with the duties that come with it. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Work and essays are eating my life this week, but hopefully back into the grind next week. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Leonel Fernández

Hi, this BLP came under some POV additions again and misrepresentation of a source as well, would you keep your eye on it, or shall we semi protect it for a couple of months? Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I protected it for a bit, on the basis that a) it is low traffic and not getting the attention needed reasonable timeframe (oh for PC's... perfect target for that!) and b) I have 10,000 words to write by Saturday and so have no time for the alternative (help watch it) ;). Possibly heavy handed but, meh :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, go get busy dude. That will take it of my mind for a few weeks, good luck Errant. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am informing you of this [3] discussion because of your involvement in this [4] previous ANI. Onthegogo (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi if you have the opportunity please check out my report on vandalism from an IP that has been terrorising me for months. Now I think the IP has crossed the line when He/She is trying to report me on false ground and also continuing to vandalise. Atleast check it out if possible. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

here are the IPs contributions please if possible take some action.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the latest IP, not much I can do today (I'm v busy this week so totally missed the message last night). I'd say.. if it happens again feel free to drop me a note here (and also ping me an email because then I will be prompted to check in :)) and I don't mind having a look. I know it can be frustrating working with IP editors who won't take part in proper discussion, but just take a deep breath and try to ignore any baiting. Sometimes after a bit of a spat they can settle down and become good editors :) FWIW I wouldn't refer to their edits as vandalism (sorta) and I'd extend an olive branch to see if they will discuss the next issue they take up. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I will not respond to the suspected vandal anymore. And I will report to you if I see similar incidents again by the IP. Thanks for leaving the not on the IPs talk page. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at Elen of the Roads's talk page.
Message added 11:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dont know if you have the answer but I ask you anyway.. If I completely rewrite and article from scratch and then nominate it for DYK does it still have to be a 5x expansion from the original version, or does it count as a new article in itself as no original text remains in its former version?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm away from home this weekend, hence slow reply. To answer your question: no idea I am afraid... DYK is not really my expertise :P p.s. I saw that other AFD was withdrawn - probably it's a little soon to be writing that article, but we will see :) --Autoerrant (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi if you feel like it please participate in this articles Afd. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, would you close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users Epeeflech and Wjemather? No admin has responded to the request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close an AN/I thread?. If you are busy or don't want to read through the discussion, then no worries. Cunard (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Done :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing that thread. Since you decided that there was a consensus for an interaction ban, could you please log it at WP:Editing restrictions? Unless I've missed something, I don't see it there. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah brilliant, thanks; I was having a "moment" last night and completely failed to locate that page no matter what I tried :) Cheers & logged --Errant ^(chat!) 08:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing a discussion that no admin wanted to touch. Your work is deeply appreciated. Cunard (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. Similar polls have been tried before, but I have a feeling this would meet with good response. It will greatly support the work we are doing here on RfA reform. I will link to it. Please check it out, and do consider joining the task force. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung, yes I am hopeful we can get some real data this time. Your RFA reform page definitely looks like it might get some critical mass; hopefully my own contribution will fit in there somewhere? I'll comment more there though :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)