User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2011/February

Just asking
Hi, I was thinking of doing a stub on a criminal case that has been blown up big in the U.S Julie Powers Schenecker shot both her children in her Tampa home a few days ago. And its very likely that her future trial will end up with her becoming the second woman on Floridas death row. I think there is enough information to do a good article check this link out for information. If you feel like it please start a stub as I know you are great with editing. Perhaps under the Schenecker double murders or Murder of Beau and Calyx Schenecker or similar. thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Agreed. I contact you in next week.!--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could check out the Afd for Disappearance of Brittanee Drexel and tell your opinion too. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A heads up
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!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 00:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. 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, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers


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)

Hi
Hi, I have done some searches for Julie Schenecker and found alot of good news material. like here,and here,here,and here, and here, and here and so on and on. Perhaps a stub for the Schenecker double murders or Murder of Beau and Calyx Schenecker are good to go now?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:15, 9 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)
 * Maybe you could have your say on this Afd Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Brittanee Drexel. Either keep or delete, thats not up to me to decide but I personally think that the article is definitly worthy of staying on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 10 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)
 * Yes as I said thats up to you;). Yeah that could be a good thing.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 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)

DYK
Hi. I've nominated Schenecker double homicide, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 11 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)
 * Yes that tweaking sounds good. And you are welcome;).--BabbaQ (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good luck
Good luck on your RfA! -- Perseus  8235 21:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for your support :) --Errant (chat!) 09:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust Talk  Contribs  22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
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)
 * No problems and thanks for your support :) I'm very encouraged so far! --Errant (chat!) 09:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA
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. -- T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 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 &#124;  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)

Slahi photo
See my latest entry on the fair use of the previous photo. Talk:Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ty551
so why you nominatin' youreself to be admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ty551 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 15 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.

All the best, m.o.p  05:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, I guess whoever tried to do that wasn't a Metallica fan then! Thanks for the support. I have my white cat and laser sharks sea bass ready to go :) --Errant (chat!) 09:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK hook
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)
 * Congratulations. And for the record, this is the sort of Jim Crowism from User:Keepscases you were up against at your RfA: ""No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator." He barely escaping being topic banned at RfA for this type of thing. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 18 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)
 * I know you won't. ,best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would much rather have an admin who freely admits his biases than one who hides them. Congrats! —DoRD (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats as well. I agree with all of the above. Good luck!-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You are now an administrator
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. – xeno talk 14:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers Xeno, much appreciated --Errant (chat!) 14:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's your standard T-shirt. Hope it fits. -- Perseus  8235 15:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Orphan Wiki 16:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't just get a t-shirt you get a mop (or three)! Nice work so far btw :D SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that a ruler leaned against the wall? I'll have that! ;) --Errant (chat!) 17:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats!!!! --j &#9883; e deckertalk to me 17:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations my friend.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 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)
 * Indeed it is, hadn't noticed that! SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats also. PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done. "Go forth and mop apply"! - 220.101 User talk:220.101.28.25\ 12:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI
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)
 * Yes thank you:) I wasnt worried but never nice when accused of something like sockpuppetry.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 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)

pic
Hi Errant, as your now an admin and you started this RFC Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner I was wondering what you feel the consensus is not the RFC is closed, congrats on the successful application by the way. Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 20 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!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Assange and Hurtig
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * x 1,000,000 - Found this Assange's lawyer tried to mislead court, judge rules - Solicitors journal - unsure as to if its a WP:RS but as you see it will be independently reported. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I would be happy with that as RS - particularly for legal matters such as this. .--Errant (chat!) 16:06, 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)

Hi
Hi, perhaps you could give a third party opinion on a dispute I am having over the removal of content from the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest with user Parishan. I believe that the removal of the sourced content is politicaly motivated. Not wanting to write my reasons all over again I am giving you the link to the discussion in which Orphan Wiki also agrees with me. Hope you can see my point.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel like it you can check out my stub for Emilia Carr.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Emilia Carr has now been put up for Afd. I believe it is yet another similar situation as with the Murder of Joanna Yeates etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Heya, I've been real busy today :) will try to look at it asap. --Errant (chat!) 19:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Emokid
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 | contribs 15:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you have time later, you can check out my report at WP:AN/I about those Russian IPs that I mentioned and leave your say there. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking into it now --Errant (chat!) 16:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

AFD close
Hi Errant, would you close this afd early, they became notable during the discussion as promoted to the Irish parliament.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Mitchell_O%27Connor Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone got there before me :) --Errant (chat!) 14:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking Errant. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)