User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2011/January

Happy Birthday
Monterey Bay (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Everyone does insist on reminding me :P I'm getting to the age where I much prefer to forget! --Errant $(chat!)$ 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea dude, many happy returns to you. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

your emendation of my addition, an edit of supporters, in the Assange wiki page . ..
you removed pertinent information (perhaps the list of film achievements of Ken Loach could be shortened!), but when a new individual is added to the subhead "support" ("supporters" IMHO would be a better choice)--

it is pertinent to remark on germane connections between the two principals. It seems obviously relevant to indicate some nodding acquaintance with what distinguishes one's supporters, one's notable advocates. It's rather the point to having the list--"supporters."

One doesn't try to cite Facebook, for instance, so as to catch great reflected glory! Why? Everyone and their dawgs are Notables in that forum! SO

in a world of real political and social affairs, -- there's no useful purpose served in adding my name that would merely add clutter to a valuable Assange wiki webpage! Anyone can frivolously generate a "list of supporters". . . of no particular significance. . . BUT

Loach is a recipient of many awards; he is honored in recognition of a legacy-- of refined and ethical, informed film productions, that demonstrate his thoughtful and abiding attention to, and understanding of, political and social issues. Ken Loach did earn his distinction, by his actions!

Not accidentally, and the reason i added Loach to the Assange Support list, is Loach's lifelong thematic preoccupations, that articulate political and social issues that are precisely at the heart of Assange's enterprise. Loach's work, in films, bears directly upon the objectives and aspirations Assange has defined, as being WikiLeak's raison d'etre.

Further, in your cavalier snipping of the Loach entry as i wrote it, you replace it with a version that is actually simply incorrect. Loach did not, as your revision reads, actually provide any surety, he only offered it, as did several others at the time--the asking bail was many times 20K pounds.

I am following the facts and developing history of this travesty of justice (alright, that is my own phrasing, not to be arbitrated on Assange wiki webpage!). It galls me when the apparent helpful efforts to shorten my entry result in something incorrect, and further, the introduced inaccuracy could have been avoided, had the editor been informed in details. Such casual approach to forwarding edits, as fact, lead to any number of opionionated or ideologically driven verbiage, cloaked as unimpeachable fact. but these details, if inaccurate, do add up.

I beg you be constructive and accurate in your alterations to my conscientious efforts. you are welcome to reply to me. I would look forward to a dialog, on these few points, rather than being overbearing and snitty, myself. Hispanosuiza (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC) hispanosuiza.

Hispanosuiza (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

i intend to restore this edit, that i provide you (formatted, & slightly revised) pasted here below:

Ken Loach, director of films notable for their social realism and markedly political themes, movies consistently of topical importance (specially pertinent films include: Sweet Sixteen, Cathy Come Home , considerations of “homelessness”; Riff-Raff , the issue of “labour rights”; Bread and Roses , about exploitation of immigrant labourers; and The Wind That Shakes the Barley set during two events in modern history, the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil war). Offering his contribution of £20,000 as surety for Assange’s bail, Loach observed,
 * Information about Loach is obtainable from his article, via the wiki link. Extended detail is not relevant for Assange's biography. --Errant $(chat!)$ 15:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

your note saying my reversions are "just not relevant"
Ken Loach, and certain films, and themes.

i would like to air this out, to discuss this in detail. you must know this from the detailed account in my remarks to you. but where is that "discussion" forum, that page where i can actually "chat" on this entry i want to see preserved?

i'm new to the many corridors of discussions, and talks, on wikipedia,so i don't know efficiently where to open this topic, nor do i know where to look to find a response from you, about this very note i am sending now.

another versionof my views, thati will copy here, reaffirms what i do believe, and want to be persuaded is contrary to wikipedia protocols or etiquette, before i shall concede that my citation is "just not relevant"! back to me? Hispanosuiza (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC) hispanosuiza
 * I would suggest that Talk:Julian Assange would be a good place to discuss your views on the content of the Julian Assange article.
 * Is there another language with which you are more familiar than English? Wikipedias in other languages are listed here: http://www.wikipedia.org/ I imagine all of them either do have their own article about Julian Assange, or should have. He's very much in demand all over the world. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hispanosuiza, the talk page is the place to be :) I have extreme difficulty understanding your very wordy and complicated messages, though. Perhaps adopting a simpler style of english would help. --Errant $(chat!)$ 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Interest
This article might interest you, Murder of Anni Dewani.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I will take a look :) --Errant (chat!) 16:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology

 * I owe you an abject apology about your work to investigate the status of the image. I feel real foolish right now, and I apologise profusely. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's Coordinator Election
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 22:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

wikileaks clarity
Thanks for pointing out. I am learning :) I will find a appropriate quote :) GreenEdu (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem :) yell if you run into difficulties. --Errant (chat!) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I read the Wired article and the Der Spiegel article. The chat transcript between Assange and Domschiet-Berg just acknowledges these problems that everyone had with Assange. There isnt a direct quote by Daniel about why he is leaving or about these problems. What should I do? GreenEdu (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Can we use something from here? Schmitt(in Der Spiegel)--"The investigation into Julian in Sweden is, in my opinion, a personal attack against him, but they do not have anything to with WikiLeaks directly. Still, it does cost time and energy and it weighs on him. In my opinion it would have been best if he had pulled back a bit so that he could quietly deal with these problems. It would have been fine if he had continued his normal work out of the spotlight. But he clearly saw my internal proposal as an attack on his role. " GreenEdu (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gah, sorry, I missed this message - yes, to me that would seem a good quote. --Errant (chat!) 10:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

ARBCOM about recent AN/I
There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, this is getting tedious :P Thanks for the heads up --Errant (chat!) 10:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sackett (surname)
Many thanks for reviewing. Will Orphan message also be removed in due course? Sackett (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the article is now linked to from a number of pages I removed the tag :) Great article BTW --Errant (chat!) 14:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

fair use
Hi Errant, in this Guantanamo sector there seems to be a lot of fair use claims as the subjects are often in jail but the rationales appear weak to me, this guy was 32 before he was arrested and the picture is claimed to be a quarter but on viewing it is an AP pic and the pic is a composite of four pictures and all the pic of the subject is published here. original - article. I took it out but the user just replaced it without comment, what do you think? To me its failing portion and the aspect that the value to the owner will be reduced through out long term publication and it is actually replaceable but we just haven't got one? I am considering either, Wikipedia:Non-free content review or taking it of my watchlist, thoughts?

As for the other three people in the pic - Osama_bin_Laden no pic, Ramzi Binalshibh PD gov work, and this one Mohammed Atta is funny although AP are claiming the whole pic, they are not specific as this one is a picture of the guys driving licence which has been  at commons since September and is a claimed PD, anyways the actual picture in question is the fair use rationalle for Slahi, because the article is on no ones watch list there is little assessment of the pic - I imagine the reason for not using the BinLaden pic is the same reason there is no rationale for this one also - if this one is a correct rationale then we could also use the Bim Laden pic. - basically its - replaceable - he was walking round a free man until he was 32 - yes. Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the first one... I think I agree. It's not quite the same as the Loughner fiasco because I could buy a reasonable difficulty in obtaining a free image (and; he has been in detention since '01). On the other hand we have a clear policy on this, and a free image is still remotely possible. I'd take it to review, where I think we'd get support for removal. (BTW: The image FUR itself speculated that the family released the image publicly... given the clear copyright status I removed that outright as speculation)
 * The thing that frustrates me slightly about this is that I feel like a "deletionist" supporting the removal (even though it is the correct approach), we need, I feel, a more organised approach to tracking down and obtaining free BLP images - I reckon, for example, with co-ordinated effort one for Loughner could be got within a short time.
 * I'll take a peek at the others in a sec --Errant (chat!) 19:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, reading through the rest. Yep, I agree. At this stage we don't have a reasonable FUR for that image (or any part of the composite). I'm going to remove it too; at least on the basis that another editor removing might prompt some talk. --Errant (chat!) 19:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I see it, any edit whether adding content of removing content, if it improved the quality of the wiiki, better to think in terms of improvealitionist. I can't see a rush to discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - worth a look - User:Roscelese/List_of_designated_hate_groups - Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP issue of interest to you?
Hi Tom. In the past you've expressed significant concern about applying Jewish ethnicity/religion categories to articles, citing WP:BLP as the issue. A similar issue has arisen at Esther Shapira; it has also been raised here on BLP/N. Perhaps you'd like to look at it? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like you have it in hand :) but I watchlisted the article. --Errant (chat!) 08:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier, WikiProject Wikify's First Newsletter (January 2011)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC).