User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2010/October

Autoerrant comment
Thank you for all your good anti-vandalism & general cleanup work under Autoerrant. I do, however, have a suggestion/request in light of a recent edit to Gerontology. The edit in question removed many (or all?) of the duplicate wikilinks that occurred in the article. As indicated at WP:REPEATLINK, there are many exceptions to the general guidance that only the first occurrence of a word should be wikilinked. Several of the duplicate wikilinks that Autoerrant removed were useful, IMO, and should have been left. Therefore, I would recommend/request that you try to make this aspect of Autoerrant's AWB-based editing less indiscriminate or remove it completely. Thanks, and keep up the good work! —Zach425 talk / contribs 09:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FLicking through the page, most of those links were good to remove IMO - the article is massively overlinked in places. Sirtuins, for example was linked about 5 times in the same section.... in general, for links, simple or broad concepts (such as Ageing or phsycology) only need to be linked once unless there is a very specific reason it needs to be directed to (which I couldn't see in this case). For more complex terms (example: biogerontology) it might be reasonable to link several occurences. However in this case a large portion of the article dealt with the subject so there was no need. Names were linked multiple times within a section. The resources section was a mess of blue links. Good linking is an artform - too little hurts the reader, but too much is equally bad. In this case the article is much overlinked, I realise that AWB is more of a "hammer fix" than an artful fix, but it improved things a bit and hopefully clears the way for more careful linking.  --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 10:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I agree with you on most points. I would disagree on the issue of providing copious wikilinks in the references... when looking down to to a specific reference, I feel the inclusion of as many resources as possible to help the reader evaluate the reference's validity is a good thing, including wikilinks for the author, source, publisher, etc. Also, I have a question for you that's specific to the gerontology page, as you're a more advanced editor than I am. My inclination is to wikilink each name in the lists of notable gerontologists, even if the name has already appeared in the article (this applies to Hayflick, Birren, Crimmins, & Harper) - how do you feel about this? Thanks for your guidance & all your help in improving this article. —Zach425 talk / contribs 15:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * when looking down to to a specific reference, I feel the inclusion of as many resources as possible to help the reader evaluate the reference's validity is a good thing, including wikilinks for the author, source, publisher I see your point. The reason I tend to remove such duplicate linking is because of the advice of a much longer term editor than myself who explained the above rationale :) (for example linking the OED, for example, twice is possibly redundant). In terms of the names, you're probably right; because it is a list then there is reasonable rationale for linking their name independently of the rest of the text. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 08:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks again for your input! —Zach425 talk / contribs 03:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

History of Paraguay
TM, I would applaud your continued thinking about which links are likely to be effective in the article. The article looks and reads very much better indeed as a result. I had cleaned up the links somewhat, and replaced quite a few with WKT links because was hesitant to remove too many. I have no issues with any of the WKT links you removed. Whilst I may have some small reservations – linking words such as 'monopoly' and coup d'etat, I would say you have it about right. Keep up the good work! -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It frustrates me because I still disagree (grumble) but I can't argue with multiple editors. I'm willing to defend those links though, particularly "coup d'etat" (though it might be possible to remove it from the text with some copyediting, which might be a better solution). Monopoly.. I don't know - it seems like something that is not a well understood term. However, if someone removes it I promise to grumble only to myself ;) Thanks for your help. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 09:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Should an English-speaker know what "monopoly" means? Yes. "Coup d'etat"? I knew that by the start of high school. I think these shouldn't be linked unless there's a more focused target/rationale for them. Tony   (talk)  10:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm most pleased about is your openness to the new paradigm. I feel that your obviously engaging grey matter whilst evaluating is also very beneficial. Linking is a skill, and it may take some time to be perfected. We may never agree 100% on what should be linked, but then there is a degree of subjectivity. Thank you for being a good listener! -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tony; I'm willing to lay down a fair amount of money that most people would not know either of those terms if you went out onto the street and asked them. Take my scout group (ages 10-16); just one of them knew what a monopoly was last year when we were doing about "starting a business". I will check around tonight but I doubt Coup d'etat is any better understood. I defend the latter because it is a French term adopted for general use and has a quite specific meaning; I doubt the majority of readers are familiar with the term "coup" anyway (the number of people I have heard pronounce it "coop"... :P) and, so, I argue it needs clarity. Though I admit that such clarity is probably best achieved by copyediting it out. We are all, by virtue of our ability to edit with a high level of competence, way above the curve on this, so I generally disagree that our own knowledge is in any way a good guide on this. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 10:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Tony meant that we should avoid using wikilinking as some sort of dictionary function. Although not everybody would know those two terms referred to above, they are sufficiently common. Going to those articles will not specifically enlighten the reader any more than looking the term up in a dictionary. That is why I suggest they were not linked (Please note that this is not an insistence). Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Diaspora logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Diaspora logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Sorry! Mootros (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No no, it was my fault! I removed your edit by accident when moving the image :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pic
Did it break headers for you? It didn't for me. Also -- for years MOS suggested alternating pics. Was there a robust discussion leading to a change on that of late? If so, I missed it. Best. (You can reply here).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes it very much does. It offsets the next section heading and partially squidges text between it and the next image. Generally images should be on the right, please see WP:IMAGES. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 08:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi there - a link to ANI was emailed to me, and I want to be very clear about one point: see this edit. The Foundation does not globally assume the responsibility of contacting law enforcement: I specifically did so in that case only. I appreciate you being around this morning, and offering your advice. I just want to correct your misunderstanding of what I said so that it is clear if it needs to be in the future. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I replied on the thread. In this instance I believe that going through the foundation is the better option, as there is no credible immediate risk, such matters will be treated with more weight/adequacy. I always recommend (generally, not just on WP) that people only report suicide threats themselves if the risk is highly credible (and they believe urgency is paramount to anything else), because such reports will be treated as an emergency. The risk is that it risks devolving the response to such reports. It will probably surprise many people how often local LE will receive such a call.
 * However I appreciate I misunderstood your post as a general "we are on top of this" note :) thanks for clarifying --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 10:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I want to thank you for your extensive help with development of LGBT Parenting article. Your edits and insights are very helpful and the discussion help to overcome the differences in opinion how to dealt with issues. Thank you for constructive attitude. I've created the majority of content in last several years and I really appreciate such development since I care much of it. I hope the cooperation will continue. The article deserves careful edits. --Destinero (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I confess I disagree with some of what you are doing with the article (clarify: more in terms of the language and how sources are presented than anything else). My thinking is to try and improve it where not-controversial and if it is controversial take it to talk. i.e. verging on the side of caution. However if you see me edit something that seems wrong or bad then please do undo it (if appropriate) and we can hash it out :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 11:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

typo on your user page
While stalking your user page I noticed a typo - you need to replace "legitmate" with "legitimate". (It's in one of your userboxes.)

I decided not to fix it directly just in case it messed up the userbox formatting or something, plus I understand it's seen as a bit rude to edit others' userpages for reasons other than something drastic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting it :) BTW, feel free to edit my userpage(s) if you spot anything else (within reason), as you say it can be seen as rude but I don't mind at all :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 15:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Big Beautiful Women
I appreciate your joining into the conversation at Big Beautiful Women, but I think it is premature to impose a solution without first gathering a consensus among the other editors. This is a situation in which one editor is refusing to discuss his opinion and participate in creating a new consensus and you come along and drop in your solution without bothering to participate in generating a consensus as well. Doesn't that seem wrong to you? Several editors have favored the "above average" wording over the other. You bring to two the number of editors who feel that "overweight or obese" best captures the source. We are not limited to using only the exact words which happen to appear in the source when we choose words to capture the claims in the source. I don't understand how you (or the other editor) can think that we are limited in such a manner. The words we choose must capture the claims, but it would be a bizarre parlor game to then limit the choice of words to those found in the source. I have reverted to the earlier text. Please come participate in building a consensus one way or the other. Regards, Celestra (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's something of a clear cut case IMO. But as it was not a heated edit war or anything I threw a suggested compromise into the text then added to the talk page, I was a bit surprised to see it locked this morning! That's hardly an edit war :P (try working on Jesus related articles...). As it was a calm editing war I threw in an idea, no one needs permission to make such edits and I felt it improved the article enough to go BRD. This is how WP works. Of course I am going to take part in the discussion, but BTW certain rules may trump consensus in this case - for example WP:V/WP:OR --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 06:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand how you might feel that way and no harm done. Thanks for joining in. Celestra (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. It might be worth having an RFC to make a solid decision either way. If you want me to draft one I would be happy to do so :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 14:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * thanks --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 15:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Thanks for your comment - this is the last but one of several hundred Wikipedia tags I am closing down. Of the maybe 5 editors who have set up home on my talk page, I am sure only 1 1/2 intend to hound. But I have actually been unable to achieve anything for three weeks due to the level of argument - it passes the duck test. And while some are level headed, others pull statements out of the air, then ask me to explain them. When I demonstrate they are simply wrong in their assumptions, another member of the tag team will pick up that I "have an 'I'm right, you're wrong." attitude. Which, considering the number of "happy customers" I have had when there have been substantive problems, is rather irritating in itself. Anyway I won't bore you any further, off to my Wikibreak. Rich Farmbrough, 17:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Yea
Stop removing my posts. If you're not aware I have a dynamic IP and numerous computers. So stop removing my posts, just because you fancy BW (Big Women, they're not beautiful) doesn't mean you should remove peoples comments that you don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.92.37 (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, we all understand DHCP. And we're all used to dealing with editors who think a dynamic IP is magic pixie dust. . Keep your posts relevant to improving articles and they won't get removed. Make off-topic forum posts, and they'll be removed. "Free speech"? This is a private web-site. TFOWR 10:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Creative abuse! I'm slightly impressed, but only slightly. (also, thanks TFOWR). --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's not trolling, then you don't know what is
Given these two diffs in the recent "discussion" by this admitted dynamic IP sockpuppeteer,
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABig_Beautiful_Woman&action=historysubmit&diff=392004296&oldid=391984161
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABig_Beautiful_Woman&action=historysubmit&diff=391089907&oldid=390556175

admitted on your own talkpage no less, I categorically reject your lecture and submit that you are not in a position to tell me I can't call WP:DUCK. He is a troll, I call them as I see them.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm... that first one is another vandal that I had a run in with on another page unrelated entirely and then attacked me. Please take care over such accusations! Snapping in frustration an incivility is not and never will be trolling. Trolling is the simple agenda of disrupting WP as much as possible, it is considered a very strong word :) In terms of the second diff; certainly poor and uncivil behaviour, but it was a number of days ago and with luck he seems to be improving day by day! I am fully of the belief that we can and should "rescue" editors where possible. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 15:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we disagree. They are the same editor. The aformentioned poster (right above) says "I have a dynamic IP and numerous computers". Now check out this diff on user #2, 89.100.0.70 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A89.100.0.70&action=historysubmit&diff=389834204&oldid=389705561 . It's the same guy, and all the handwringing charity work is a burden I will not carry with you, nor will I be lectured for being blunt about-I intended to be strongly worded, that is why WP has policies like TROLL and DUCK. Wiki is better without such users. That said, good luck with everything else you do here.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. (which is who I was talking about) is 100% definitely a different person, and a definite troll. The other IP is almost certainly Dbpjmuf as you say, but since such uncivil outbursts he has calmed down a lot (from what I can see). Calling him a Troll is very unfair; and in fact I am now going to suggest you to openly retract what you have said to him. We have NO policy over trolls, except to define the term as an editor intent on disruption. Uncivil and awkward editors are not trolls. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in a million years. My AGF evaporates with umpteen reversions and no clear desire to stop being obtuse. There are many editors who I have seen gestalt and say "Oh, now I get what everyone has been trying to tell me, sorry for the mixup, can we try this instead?" I've done it myself a time or three. If I saw a hint of that, I would consider your suggestion. As I do not and have not, I reject it as I did your admonition. Since this discussion has run dry, good night.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looking over the edits here: Special:Contributions/89.100.0.70, may of them seem to be correct. And apart from the incivility and mistakes in how the BBW edit was done it seems a net positive for the Wiki. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 15:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)