User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2012/December

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify, 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Penis
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

BBC "News" gets over-excited again
Hi Tom, I'm slightly exceeding our remit here, but would welcome your comments anyway.

This fantastic BBC News piece alleges that the author is "an expert witness for defence lawyers in court cases", which is certainly an area on which you could opine.

The article then goes on to say that "This often sees me forensically trawling through a defendant's hard disk or mobile phone in some corner of a police station". Now, while I am not a lawyer (defence or otherwise), nor have ever been inside a police station... I do tentatively believe that expert witnesses for the defence in "hacking cases" don't carry out their examinations of "hard disk or mobile phone" in corners of police stations.

What say you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes it seems very unlikely that they'd have been in a police station doing it. Most are not set up to handle such things, and the labs that are he wouldn't be allowed access. Usually they get sent copies of the forensic image. He gets even more excitable then with This is indeed a fast-paced world to be in; in my experience forensics is on the "excitement" scale somewhere near paint drying. :) --Errant (chat!) 08:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

AE
Personally, I'm hoping to avoid a case. I'd rather work things out with Future Perfect at Sunrise personally, but his response so far isn't promising. I'm not sure how much your concerns overlap with mine. At this point, I'm more concerned with FPS's actions at AE than anything. We need more admins at AE but not ones that jump the gun. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2012 (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) 13:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hasteur (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dudley Clarke - which battle(s) of El Alamein to link?
Hi ErrantX

I note the starry state of Dudley Clarke and your continuing glittering additions to the article, very nice.

One very minor thing - "==1942: El Alamein==

Main article: First Battle of El Alamein"

- now, DC's first involvement was indeed at the so-called "first battle of" (dreadful and frankly wrong name, but there it is), but Bertram, Cascade etc were "second battle of". The trouble is, the "1942: El Alamein" is a main section heading, so the "Main article:" link looks as if it applies to all the subsections, which it don't and ain't. Could have an extra subsection heading just above that link for "first battle of"? And there might need to be another "Main article" link for "second battle of" a bit further down. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked things a little, see what you think? --Errant (chat!) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's certainly better. I think Bertram probably belongs exclusively with El Alamein 2 rather than with Cascade? all the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cydia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cydia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I am new to Wikipedia. Do you have any advice for me about what I can do here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildwackerjacker (talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom Request
I should let you know you're being discussed here, in case you want to offer a statement. -SightWatcher (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Jasper Maskelyne
Hello again, ErrantX --- your addition to Maskelyne is valid but it makes a bit of a muddle of that paragraph - what are we trying to say? The key message about JM is surely that he's 95% joker and 5% anything else. It's plainly true that Clarke recruited and encouraged him, but that really needs saying in a brief section of its own, taking care, worse luck, to put it in the context of his general unreliability. The whole article needs fleshing out --- it was a piece of enthusiastic fanmail (lapping up his fictional autobiog), now it's a bit bare and staccato but at least truthful. Maybe you'd fancy tidying it up a bit? --- all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure where best to put it. I'm working through Mure's book to write an article about Noel Wild and that popped out to me as useful! I don't have any other notes yet on Maskelyne apart from the fact that he worked on the MI9 stuff for Clarke (making some devices, and lecturing at great length on their use - the implication being he was a bit of a bother ;)). Which fits with the sentence you added r.e. his devices :D And then I expanded on what you mention about him overegging this involvement by noting that Clarke encouraged such a state of affairs. I agree it is a bit unfinished; but I am not sure about the timeline (i.e. when he worked with Barkas et al. and when he was with MI9 - or if this was even at the same time) - perhaps splitting it out makes sense, I will have a look. More than anything I've just jotted down some detail, so if you think it needs moving around please go for it! :D --Errant (chat!) 12:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've done a quick reorg - we have Farnham 1940, Barkas Nov 1941, sacked Feb 1942. Do you know the precise date he was recruited by Clarke? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope; earliest reference in the sources I have is ~1941 and latest ~1942. --Errant (chat!) 17:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

TFAs and move protection
Hi there, if you add semi-protection to the TFA, please don't remove full move protection - it's there for a reason, as the history of James Tod shows. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies; Twinkle screwed up this morning and did the change wrong :S but as it expired at midnight tonight anyway I figured it wouldn't be an issue - I didn't realise it was feature today :) Can I recommend protecting the pages closer to the date of TFA and also noting the date of the TFA when doing the protection, cheers. --Errant (chat!) 16:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll bear that in mind, although I would have thought the entry I made in the protection log, the article's presence on the main page and TFA-editnotice appearing when you edited to add the protection template would have been enough to make you wonder why midnight tonight was chosen... BencherliteTalk 17:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Twinkle doesn't present the edit page screen, so it was not on view. I might ping the Twinkle developers and see if something can be added to avoid situations such as these. --Errant (chat!) 17:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was wondering whether move protection was still required for TFAs, so at least we've discovered it is - an unexpected bonus, and saves me having to conduct an experiment of my own! BencherliteTalk 17:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe good oh! Thanks for catching it so quick :) I'm a numpty. --Errant (chat!) 17:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hurricane Sandy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hurricane Sandy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Clevedon Pier
Thanks for your review of Clevedon Pier which has definitely helped to improve the article.&mdash; Rod talk 12:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Tod
Thanks for keeping an eye on things at James Tod during its recent big day. I am finally getting back up to speed and have left some notes here. Your thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Finite-difference time-domain method
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Finite-difference time-domain method. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Article
Hi Craddock1. Please chill out and take a step back for a moment. I have considered blocking you for a bit to stop the disruption you are causing, but I feel a final plea is a better bet for now. On Wikipedia we have an important guideline of "Comment on the content, not the editor". Your very first contribution to that AFD is to attack the nominator, and it has gone downhill from there. All you are really doing is undermining the AFD in a way which will not benefit you. Take a moment to step back, consider how you could marshal an argument to explain how the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and continue with a reasoned explanation in the deletion discussion. Continuing with your current behaviour will end up with you being blocked. --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Errant,

Thanks for your message and sorry if I seemed a bit frustrated,

It seems as if the nominator has tried to sabotage many articles on wikipedia talking to other admins and editors. The whole point is that the ADF should not even be there and yet it remains because the nominator has a 'higher standard within wikipedia' than me - which I find unfair.

If you read the comments in the AFD you will see they are mainly to keep or strong keep the article.

Nevertheless the nominator has tried to make things difficult by issuing a sockpuppet investigation despite me admitting my fault and promising not to do it again.

I hope you can close the AFD so we can move on.

Once again since i'm new to Wikipedia I hope you will not block me but please also see things from my point of view

Best,

Philip, London, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. AFD is a normal process on Wikipedia where the community figures out articles that fall into the grey area of notability - it is unlikely he is targetting you in any way, or holds any sort of grudge. Many articles are brought up for discussion each day. There are a wide array of opinions on that page and it does not rise to the level of what we call "snow" close, or a bad-faith nomination, that would allow early closure. So it will remain open for 7 days for the discussion to complete in full. As to the SPI; there has been a lot of new and little used accounts contributing to that discussion which is not usual. I've looked over the matter and have recommended a CheckUser look into the matter to ascertain that nothing problematic has been happening. What concerns me is that a lot of the contributions are from editors with little activity except on low-notability articles (some of which read like promotional pieces). There is a concern, for me at least, that there is some chance this could be part of a paid editing network and I want a CheckUser to make sure this is not the case. Again, this is all a normal part of WP processes and I wouldn't worry about it too much, especially if you are not part of such an enterprise! :) --Errant (chat!) 11:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Email
Happy New Year! Did you receive my email a few days ago? Cla68 (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Same to you. I just replied this morning :) Been letting the matter rest for a few days... --Errant (chat!) 14:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)