User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2011/July

Larry Norman
This edit, or more correctly the comment that the source is not reliable is causing a small edit war. Care to explain how the decision that the site is not a reliable source was made on the article's talk page? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

MoMK Tag
So, I am sure you don't want to get dragged into this than you already are, but I think the issue here is symptomatic of the issues with the whole article.

You said "So, what criteria for the tag hasn't been met?; the only criteria for the tag is that someone raises an POV issue here on talk. You appear to be doing so. So fine; but now you have done so you must discuss the specific issues and resolve them via consensus within a short time. Once discussion goes stale, consensus agrees or the issues are resolved the tag is removed."

Can you please, support my inclusion of the tag on the article until such time as the issues are resolved via consensus (within a short time)? I feel like the removal of the tag is a clear violation of WP:OWN. Because it is done without explanation and against WP policy, it is probably some other type of violation, too.

Anyway, I propose the following. I put the tag up with an expected expirary of two weeks. We address the 10 issues I've raised (and any others that come up). When we through consensus decide (a) the issue isn't one of POV, (2) there is no POV issue or (3) the issue has been addressed in the article, we remove that item from the list. If at the end of two weeks we are still working towards consensus, the tag stays up until the discussions are finished. If, at the end of two weeks, the discussion is stale or all issues have been resolved by consensus (not resolved according to my view, meaning, if consensus agrees it's not an issue, it's "resolved"), we remove the tag. If the tag remains after two weeks, we need to continue actively resolving the issue. If the discussion grows stale for (let's say) 3 days on the outstanding topics, the tag gets removed.

This is off the top of my head, but it seems sensible to me. What'dya think?LedRush (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * yes... I could support that as a compromise. I would be interested to see if it does bring in new editors during that time (which is the tags only intent after all). I'm still not convinced that it will have such an effect, but happy to compromise rather than us spending another month writing thousands of words about the issue :P Cheers LedRush --Errant (chat!) 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, I've just asked Berean to reply here before I bring this to the talk page. In thinking further about the suggestions, I'm liking it more.  It should give people like me who complain about the POV of the article the inducement to propose specific fixes so we can move past this.LedRush (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Briefly gatecrashing to say I think this is a good idea. pablo 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First a heart at the top of talk pages.. now "Like" symbols in the text. Whatever next! heh ;) --Errant (chat!) 14:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know - I'm not a big fan of pagecruft like this in general (and the whole concept of WikiLove is just ... creepy, but this one made me smile. I'll soon get sick of it, I'm sure! Let's hope so anyway. pablo 15:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (caught in cross post) I certainly would like to see things move forward. I don't plan to argue unfounded claims brought up by SPAs (wHERE'S THE jUICE? iT IS POV wITHOUT THE jUICE). LedRush, if you have the tag up, it needs to be about issues that you are going to back. We still have the issue that many of the SPAs simply believe that the tag should just be up all the time...how do you propose that we solve that? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that should be an issue. Though WP policy clearly states that anyone can put up the tag when they identify a POV issue, the tag comes down when consensus is reached on that issue (or if it's stale, or...).  For an issue like the juice, we pretty easily came to a consensus that it shouldn't be included...it was one or two SPAs who dragged the discussion out forever (just like the stomach contents discussion).  I think I've proven that I don't side with those types of edits, and those things never got included in the article because only one or two SPAs thought they were issues.  Consensus was against them.  If a new editor wants to add the tag because of a similar issue, we merely get together on the talk page and discuss the edit, and remove the tag when consensus is clear.LedRush (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Suggest you present on the talk page and concurrently begin working the issues. I have some time right now to work on it but also have other things happening through this long weekend. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  15:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was toying with User:ErrantX/Sandbox/Kercher the other day to fix #1 and #2. Perhaps we could merge in the newly addeed trial details from the proper article and start to rework. The intent was to get an overview of the timeline and details on the whole appeals process thing as a "mini-lead" before detailed trial info. --Errant (chat!) 15:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks promising. Certainly, just taking your first section and putting in front of the current trials could resolve my issues #1 and #2 (and could be implemented almost immediately).  For the rest, I would probably want to run blacklines to see what (if any) more minor points have been added or left off, but the draft seems generally promising.LedRush (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd strike while the iron is hot and begin boldly adding. We can clean up spelling, grammar, etc. One small point, you may want to point out the presumption of innocence concerning Mignini while he is appealing. ⋙–Ber<b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LedRush; none of the info should be removed, unless I accidentally did so, some of it is lightly expanded. But if you spot anything let me know. WIll try to get some of it into the article later. --Errant (chat!) 16:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Errant or Pablo, would you like to indicate your opinion on the talk page? I'd like to move past this ASAP and get to addressing the points.LedRush (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:John Fund
Thanks for your edit. I liked it so much that I did more of the same. Cheers, CWC 17:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the rest :) --Errant (chat!) 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

CommonsNotificationBot issue
The bot correctly left a notice at Talk:Sami Callihan because File:Samicallihan.jpg, used in that article's infobox, is up for deletion. However, the reason that it gives is "Deletion requests June 2011", but the actual reason given by the nominator is "'Feel Free To Use' is no valid license". Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, leave me a talkback please. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI
A couple folks seem to want to AN/I. You're not a named party or anything, but when I looked at it, I noticed that you had been in the discussion. I'll make a comment at the AN/I thread, but I don't want to jump into the talk page discussion as you are much more up to speed on what's going on there. The thread is here. Didn't know if you wanted to comment or not, but thought it only common courtesy to let you know a couple of your fellow editors there seem to be ramping up the tone a bit. Cheers. — Ched : ?  17:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on   major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel  that other important language  Wikipedias should be added, please let  us know. This may however depend on  our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

RfCs
Would you take a look at some current RfCs and perhaps summarize and assess the consensus in them? I have requested that RfCs be closed at this link and this link. has asked that some RfCs be closed here. If you could close one or a few of them, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try and have a good look at some of them tomorrow :) --Errant (chat!) 21:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Cunard (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari
Hi. Was your suggestion that the Disputes section should be rewritten intended as a response to my recent proposal that the page should be rewritten? What I proposed was a rewrite that effectively eliminates the "disputes" section, using only notable information from it in other sections. I'm not sure if it's still on the Talk page, but an issue about the "disputes" section is that it appears to have been largely written by David R, an editor who, at the very least, has WP:COIN issues connected to Johann Hari. In short, I'm not at all sure that your counterproposal to rewrite the Disputes section is actually worth it: I don't think the disputes were notable enough to have any other sourcing but articles by the people involved in the dispute: and I would appreciate it, if you feel strongly that the disputes section should be preserved and rewritten, that you respond more directly to my proposal that the page should be revised/restructured: I don't follow from your section on the Johann Hari Talk page exactly what you find of value in the Disputes section that you feel it's worth preserving. Yonmei (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, no it was not in response to your suggestion - and I largely agree with your assessment. I came to the article today from an unrelated direction. I suspect there may be some recoverable content in thye disputes section, but as it stands most should go. I gather that most stems from "David R" who has been causing all manner of BLP issues that are slowly coming to light. I found a bare piece from 2006 that mentions Hari as getting into disputes; this might be workable. Same for the Hari-Cohen dispute (I found a source that mentions the criticism without much detail) which I rewrote, see what you think.
 * But if you feel it best to cut the section, you won't find me arguing at all! :) --Errant (chat!) 10:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Afd
I would like to nominate the article List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries for deletion since it makes anachronistic claims and is full of WP:OR. However it is unclear to me whether my editing restriction allows me to do that. Please provide direction on that. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really sure - speaking as an editor I doubt you will get an AFD through, seeing as the topic has some reasonable notability and could be improved (Im assuming your concerns of OR are accurate). The article is probably technically not inside your topic ban but a) don't take my words as gospel (it is up to you, ultimately decide) and b) remember that it is a similar article that was the straw that earned you the topic ban. So proceed with caution. --Errant (chat!) 15:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On second look I suspect your issue with with the IVC content? Which is semi-related to the History of India. So this article could, I suspect, reasonably be construed as falling under the topic ban. So, as I said, proceed with caution. --Errant (chat!) 15:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will stay away from it for now. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Do I need to declare ...
Picked your name at random from administrators and because you are not involved in the astrology discussion. In early April I took an involuntary break from Wikipedia. A day or so after I resumed my 'pedia life I received an email from Zac to my personal account encouraging me to rejoin the discussion on astrology, to which I had contributed prior to my break.

It transpires that my contributions put me at odds with Zac's opinions. No problem there on my part. But do I need to declare somewhere that Zac contacted me privately to encourage me to rejoin the discussion?

Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   02:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Take a look at WP:CANVAS; if you think that he "broke" those rules inappropriately then maybe chat to him about it. If he was pinging you for your known interest "meh". Maybe just say "Zac pointed me at this discussion and I think..." just for transparency. Do you have a link to a specific discussion? --Errant (chat!) 11:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No canvassing rule was broken, so it's 'meh'. Thanks for the advice.   Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   18:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User Zuggernaut
See his post on my talk page and the reply to my post at User talk:Ncmvocalist - do you want to deal with this? Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at those edits and get back to you ASAP. --Errant (chat!) 11:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At this stage, speaking personally, I don't want to block this guy. For the most part he has not taken part in Indian history topics - however he is pushing gently against it (see a few sections up on this talk page). Most of the diffs I was "meh" about; I looked at one or two of those in the past and let them slide as being the natural clatter after a topic ban. But the giving of the Barnstar seems a clear, if tangential, violation of the topic ban.
 * Because of the somewhat reasonable attempt at good behaviour and the age of the most clearly violating comments I am not in favour, myself, of a block at this stage. I would suggest a firmly worded note (which I am happy to hand out) explaining that those edits are a violation of the topic ban. What do you think? --Errant (chat!) 12:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeable but this needs to stop as it encourages others. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, note posted. I think I covered it. My feeling is that we can put a stop to it without having to block Zuggernaut - but I am the eternal optimist :) --Errant (chat!) 13:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The problem that concerns me is that this seems to be part of a dispute between several groups of editors and has even spilled over off-Wiki with accusations of editors being paid huge sums, and the less heat here the better. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll stick it here rather than start a new section because it ties in with what Dougweller says above ... Have you seen the contributions of  ? Does this bear any similarity to the Z of old? - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, forget the above. There is enough drama at the moment without trying to work out if there is a good hand/bad hand playing. - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vaccine controversy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vaccine controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ajay Puri
I removed the prod tag you placed on Ajay Puri because it was discussed at AfD and kept in 2008 and is therefore ineligible for prod. This is not an endorsement for keeping the article. Feel free to re-nominate at AfD if you still wish to pursue deletion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I missed that. Was tempted just to delete it with the speedy tag but process is getting the better of this one :) --Errant (chat!) 17:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Unblocked
Thank you! Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 22:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
You explanation of the software problem in the CA Case was interesting and appreciated. I think that, in the past, and certainly in the US, foresenic testimony concerning software analysis will be viewed with by me and others with much more speculation than in the past. One always wants to believe it is infallible. I do not think I have ever heard it challenged before. Mugginsx (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think I have ever heard it challenged before.; Heh, there are plenty of defence experts who would beg to differ... I have about 10 reports on my desk to go through an try to rebut ;) Generally speaking digital forensics evidence is pretty good nowadays, and work by competent examiners is more and more widely accepted by courts :) Stuff like this is run of the mill though - an over eager prosecutor read the report of a forensic examiner who didn't check his work well enough... and the rest is history. Usually mistakes like this are collared by the defence experts before they even make it to court :S This isn't so much a comment on the fallibility of digital evidence, so much as a comment on the fallibility of forensics experts in general :) Thanks for the comment! --Errant (chat!) 21:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess my comment shows that I am retired, thus old information. I think your work is both fascinating and very obviously important.  I think it was the computer searches in a child molestation/murder case that "did-in" the defendant.  Watched entire trial on Court TV some years ago.  David Westerfield was the man's name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Westerfield  It was a California case.  Anyway, thanks for the updated info.  Mugginsx (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted page!
Thanks a lot – very quick! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► constablewick ─╢ 17:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks :) that's very kind. --Errant (chat!) 17:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik
I appreciate your boldness, but I have reverted you. There have been three formal merger discussions and TWO AfDs, all closing with "keep" or "wait". You cannot wheelie this and bulldozer over community consensus just because you chose to ignore that WP:BLP1E clearly says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." and WP:BIO1E says "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." If you disagree with the community's consensus, got to WP:DRV. Otherwise, please do not revert. --Cerejota (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. The event is recent and obviously across all of the media. However the individual does in no way satisfy ONEEVENT; which cautions strongly against this sort of biography. Policy is not subverted via article level consensus, and continuing to contribute to this article is a BLP violation. Community consensus is against articles of this sort, and our policy reflects that. I suggest strongly you take to content to the right article - which is about the event. --Errant (chat!) 20:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I would hate to block you for this, but it is not at all appropriate for you to continue edit warring like this. Whether the BLP policy applies here is not 100% clearcut. As such it is inappropriate for you to be edit warring until you can convince people otherwise, as there is already at least a minimal consensus in favor of having a separate article. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please remove your protection? WP:GRAPEVINE only applies in the case of unambiguous BLP violations, and this is not one of those. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be a pig over this... but BLP policy, and indeed notability policy, is incredibly clear. WP:NOTNEWS is in play too. I am happy for you to take my actions to a noticeboard for review, but I am confident they will hold up (or I would not have taken them). Our policy cautions strongly against this form of biography, and where it involves a living person that policy is enhanced with yet more caution. At this stage the only information relating to this individual is in the form of reporting and news relating to the event - nothing else about him is of significance or note. As such he is not independently notable. An article about him is not appropriate. --Errant (chat!) 21:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are completely misunderstanding BLP policy. I'm not someone who would disregard BLP so easily; feel free to take a look through my OTRS tickets or my AFD closures for evidence of that. I'll bring this up on ANI for review, though I hate doing that. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly am quite surprised to see you on the reverse side of this :S I hoped you had more respect for the privacy of individuals! Take your McVeigh example; he is the feature of a couple of books, written some time after the event; obviously someone was subsequently interested in him. This individual, currently, barely compares by our standards :) BLP1E is fairly clear on this, especially the problems over news. At the end of the day, if the biography you are writing constitutes 100% details relating ot the one event then, well, that's fairly obvious surely? --Errant (chat!) 21:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Jared Lee Loughner (see for example the first AFD and the article 24 hours after the event) would be a better example. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I ask you one more time to remember that consensus can change, that there have been two AfDs (hence, you should go to WP:DRV with concerns), and that there is no general consensus in wikipedia beyond the WP:5P, which means every case must be evaluated on its own merits, and that using admin tools to gain advantage of editing controversies is prohibited by ArbCom. Using those arguments, please remove your protection. You are simply wrong that there is a blanket prohibition of BLP of people notable for one event only, and the relevant policies clearly state the criteria for which such BLPs are to be allowed (you say: "it prohibited", the rules say "its generally prohibited unless this criteria is met according to consensus"). It is for the community to determine, in a case by case basis, if the threshold is met. Not for a single admin to ignore community discussion unilaterally, as you have done.--Cerejota (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's up on ANI: WP:ANI. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied on AN/I :) --Errant (chat!) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, no one is saying that your actions are bad faith, as your clarification at AN/I implies. Its just that you did a mistake as per WP:INVOLVED. The outcome should be you revert protection and discuss in WP:DRV, and you take a lesson to trust us editors a bit more. :)

More than one other editor and admin has argued more or less what I have argued, which is that this is a matter of interpretation of policy, not of clear-cut policy violations (such as vandalism or libelous BLPing). We disagree on this interpretation, and am more than happy to ge ton with this debate, but you must understand it is not clear-cut either way, and hence you misused your tools as per WP:INVOLVED. --Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, not at all what I meant to imply. But there was the valid suggestion that I might have missed a facet of policy or misapplied something - but I wanted to make clear that of all the policies BLP is the one I can read you almost off by heart :) So this is not so much a Rhino in a china shop action as a bold application of policy. As I said; I cannot in good conscience reverse my protection given that I believe it will be immediately reverted to a violation of the BLP policy, however is another uninvolved admin disagrees then, fine. This is why I asked for it to be raised at the noticeboard level. Anyway; I have to go do RL stuff for a bit, will try to pick up the threads of this discussion later. --Errant (chat!) 22:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E
Hello,

I am certain that you are acting in good faith here, and appreciate your dedication to BLP policy. However, I think you are misinterpreting BLP1E here. There is no realistic likelihood that this man will remain "low profile" in the future. He is the central character in a crime with major political significance that is receiving attention from almost every media outlet worldwide that generates political news coverage. I don't think we need to wait for books to be written, instead, we should follow the precedent of Jared Lee Loughner and continue over the days, weeks and months to come to develop this biography. That being said, the biography should be watched and edited in accord with BLP policy, relying on the ample coverage in reliable sources, and avoiding speculation and rumors.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey; low profile refers (if you read the sentence) to coverage independent from the event (note "otherwise"). So any subsequent coverage related to purely the event does not adequately address that (this is regularly upheld - see Amanda Knox for one example). If he gets significant coverage in relation to this event, yes, that might form another exception. But not a day after the event (i.e. lack of persistence) :) This is held up in our standard approach, at least in my (fairly lengthy) experience of BLP --Errant (chat!) 21:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Amanda Knox is a good example because there was no terrorism/political attack component to that case, which was nothing but another murder despite some folk's deep interest. What are your thoughts on Jared Lee Loughner, which I see as a far more relevant comparison?  How long must the coverage continue, in your view, to be judged "persistent" enough to justify an article?  I see reliable sources running  articles on this man's background, not just what he is accused of doing yesterday.   Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the stuff in those articles is not relevant per our BLP policy - and this is one of the reasons we actually have the One Event rule. Loughner, well, the problem with that article was that it happened in the US and emotions naturally ran high given the community here. In fact Loughner is an example of why we shouldn't have these articles, given the content in the "personal background" section, which is the violation of the privacy of a non-public individual. And still sad to see. --Errant (chat!) 22:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for chiming in again, but this truly grinds my gears. Cullen, you are still entirely missing or ignoring the quintessential point of BLP1E. All the coverage about the guy is related exclusively to yesterday's events. They would not cover him if it weren't for yesterday's events. He is not notable at all independent from yesterday's events . Give it at least a month or better two, and if new sources about him actually keep appearing at roughly the same rate as today, then you may have a point. But not before that. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ErrantX, redirecting was completely correct. Thank you for taking bold action in the face of so much underinformed opposition. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We could call your position underinformed too. That is the problem here. When two positions collide, admin tools should not be used. --Cerejota (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What matters is the fact that one "position" is unequivocally wrong while the other one is correct. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your position is unequivocally wrong, yet I do not call for your blocking as a disruptive anonymous user, using uncivil propositions to troll. You get it?--Cerejota (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cerejota, your interpretation of the policy is 100% correct, as simple English, normal rules of policy interpretation, and the examples set be WP users illustrates. The problem is that every time you give Errant an example of why he's wrong, he goes and tries to delete the article.  For the record, Errant is generally a good editor/admin, but when it comes to BLP1E issues he tends to be condescending, uncivil and close-minded.LedRush (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner
I think that the existence of this article for the past six months shows that there are certain exceptions to BLP1E and PERPETRATOR in very high profile cases of terrorism and assassination that any reasonable person can recognize as of historical significance even 36 hours after the event. This is precedent of a sort. That being said, I agree that the article now contains way too much trivial detail about his personal problems, drug usage, dog walking job and so on. So, when this other matter dies down, let's work to improve the article. I can learn a lot about BLP policy from you. Wishing you well.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy itself makes it clear that it is not an absolute rule and that it can be overcome in circumstances. If that doesn't convince you, the hundreds of articles on people who became famous for a single event yet have their own article should convince you.  Unfortunately, it only convinces Errant to try to go around deleting articles that shouldn't be deleted.LedRush (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar/typo?
You put, If it gets to the point where a book is written on their life then for me that raises any further objections to details of their private life on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales; perhaps you meant to put "removes" instead of "raises" - otherwise, it doesn't quite make sense, I don't think?

(incidentally, I do happen to agree with your statement)  Chzz  ► 01:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ach, that's what happens at 2 am :) Fixed, thanks --Errant (chat!) 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E, The New York Times Edition
Lo and behold, this is the New York Times cover story, not about the attacks, but about the perp:. --Cerejota (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that puts him on an inauspicious footing with the woman accusing Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault. In fact, if anything the NYT treated her in more detail! :) --Errant (chat!) 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral talk page stalker comment: Ceretoja, from all that I've read on Errant's talk page today, I think you're getting a bit too close to hounding him over something you two clearly disagree over. It might be a good idea at this point to disengage and let the facts play out. StrPby (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cara Hartmann
Hi, just a quick note to point out that when you PRODded this article, I had already removed a previous PROD. Policy, of course, is that once a PROD is removed, it should not be replaced. No damage done as another editor removed your PROD in any case. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, damn, sorry I missed that - checked for added prods in the edit summary but missed you removing one :) --Errant (chat!) 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't we all have something better to do?
I apologize in advance for this post, but I think it sums up a problem with Wikipedia in general. I grant you that the article about a viral video is in no way comparable to the importance of World War II or the French revolution. But reliable sources exist on the topic. Maybe you think the video is stupid and that the article about it is stupid. That's fine. That's your right. But if we have editors who are willing to work on the article, why rain on their parade? Or to put it another way: there are lots of Wikipedia articles that can be improved. Is it really an effective use of our time to be concerned with this article? I've spent the last 2 months trying to get our article on September 11 attacks to WP:GA and hopefully to WP:FA status. I think that's a much more effective use of my time. Instead, I'm being side-tracked by this AfD. (Obviously, we're all volunteers and it's my fault that I've allowed myself to be distracted by this AfD, but still.) I'm sure that you have articles that you would rather be working on. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that with all the problems on Wikipedia, is this really an effective use of our time? Again, I apologize in advance for this post. I don't mean to take this out on you. It's a problem I've noticed in general (senior/experienced editors wasting time on minor/negligible problems) and finally tried to articulate my thoughts on the matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I actually do not see this as a minor problem.... in fact I think there are two separate major problems here. I have no real opinion on the video itself, although it's not something I have any interest in. However if we allow content of this sort then it undermines the idea of storing a notable subset of human knowledge. I'm not being critical of this video and thus deciding it as non-notable. I am looking at the quality, persistence and depth of the sources in an objective way to consider whether it is of historical significance. The video has a brief mention in trivial low quality news articles - hence I feel it has no long term significance.
 * I think it is important to make sure we are focused on what content we do include; the task of maintaining and improving the quality of content that we currently have is already pretty huge without relaxing the notability boundaries that keeps out masses of articles of this form. At the end of the day my view is that this sort of content - OK prose with a few, contemporaneous news sources - is best dealt with in a larger list, where it has more context for the reader.
 * The other issue, of course, is raining on the parade of new editors, or people trying to contribute to these articles. This is a whole other matter way beyond the scope of just this one notability issue. I help out on OTRS (which is the email response service for Wikipedia) and so many correspondents simply do not understand where all these notes, templates and warnings come from - or what they signify. Sometimes it is simply that they lack the competence to contribute (sad, but there's no point in mincing words). So, yeh, it is a really big problem. I this case the editor who has put together this article seems competent, able to express himself and to navigate the basics of Wikipedia, so I gave him the respect of treating him like any other competent editor.
 * With that said I don't think that saying "this editor is happiest working on articles that don't really meet our notability guidelines" is a good approach; it tends just to create more work in the long run, when there are backlogs they could be working on! I have a suspicion that a lot of articles of this sort (created by competent but reasonably new editors) is due to wanting to create an article and not really finding anything of substance to write about. I had this exact same problem - and in the process created some of these articles... which were then deleted (rightly). I think rather than relaxing the ideas of notable content we should try to help channel their creativity into other avenues; and eventually they will suddenly realise there are loads of things to write about that they come across and hear about every day.
 * In terms of "there are better things to be doing" - I kinda agree. But we already have a flood of stub article with minimal notability, poor quality writing, ad copy, non-netural tone. I chip into that pile when and however I can.. but it's a growing problem. --Errant (chat!) 14:22, 25 July 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. 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) 17:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Conway Scenic Railroad
It shows that you temporarily removed the edit from the Conway Scenic Railroad page; I ask that the edit be reinstated or the section about the dining car fire be removed. It serves no purpose, as there are many sites that talk about on going events at the railroad. This site should only provide general information about the railroad. Current events such as fires, derailments and the likes, is unnecessary for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm4266 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Attack
Hi, I am deliberately keeping this off the article talk page, but you know which article I am working on right now. It may well come under attack soon from some "awkward" India-origin editors who have been causing some issues in other areas (not all of which I am involved in). I have apparently besmirched the reputation of their hero etc & they are not happy. Keep your eye out if you have the time, please, otherwise I am likely to hit problems as it will be me against several on the revert front. They'll probably just take it back to how it was before I began editing it earlier this month. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how I found the article in the first place (from that discussion) :) I'll keep an eye out. --Errant (chat!) 13:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that I would glorify that whine of a thread with the "discussion" title. It should have been closed days ago, regardless of who agrees with whom. The "anti-India bias" claims made there have been spread across that many talk pages that I have lost track, and it is always the same people who bring it up. I nearly walked away from India-related articles at the weekend, and may do so yet if I get another death threat.. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your help needed at RFC/U for Willfults
Since you've dealt with Willfults in the past, I'd really appreciate your help over at Requests for comment/Willfults. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a while ago :) I will have a look sometime today - but I tend to try and stay away from religious topics at the moment. --Errant (chat!) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you been thanked yet this week?

 * Thanks! :) When I get back next week from taking 16 manic scouts on a camping trip I am planning to expand the functionality a bit more - some Commons people had some advice/input but I never got round to implementing it. --Errant (chat!) 08:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ITN
Hi I have nominated 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes for ITN. Please join the discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of file: Bugsy Siegel Crypt.jpg
I wish to contest the deletion of my personal photo: Bugsy Siegel Crypt.jpg. This photo was taken by me personally, as claimed on the photo page originally. I can provide the original of this photo as proof that it is mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gedstrom (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)