User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2012/March

Possible deletion image of Celebrate Your Life
I have checked the filepage of it,there is permission by the author,rest I do not know what to do.May you help in this regard.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi ErrantX, as I am not familair to images,so please assist me relating article Celebrate Your Life's image which might be soon deleted.
 * Hi, sorry I didn't reply to this before. I am guessing the image was a book cover? Unfortunately Commons can't accept those sort of images because they are copyrighted. You may be able to upload a low-resolution copy *locally* here to Wikipedia under the "fair use" provisions of US law. You can see more about that process at WP:FUR --Errant (chat!) 10:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quantum mind
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quantum mind. 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) 08:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Rinat Akhmetov
Hello,

thank you very much for your message at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; would you give me an advice what else can be done in order to fix the article? --Orekhova (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey. Well the key to a BLP is having rock solid sources for anything controversial - with a quick scan there seemed to be a lot of content sourced to dubious places (some marked as such - and I see you did a lot of that marking). I'd be inclined to rework much of that material, particularly if the sourcing is inadequate. Things marked "neutrality disputed" I would recommend rewording as well. Feel free to be quite bold - BLP doesn't give us carte blanche to make indiscriminate changes, but it does require problematic and unsaveable content to be purged. Phrases like Following the mysterious October 1995 bombing assassination of former team president Akhat Bragin; are incredibly leading, for example, and need reworking. I do mean to try and look at the article at some point to help - but I ran out of time the other night :) -Errant (chat!) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments! Some time ago I've already tried to do some re-phrase work, and I even kept the criminal references, just naming them properly - assumptions should remain assumptions; but Львівське prefers to do what he/she does. Anyway, your assistance is highly appreciated! --Orekhova (talk) 11:54, 5 March 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) 13:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Scentura and sock accounts
Hi. I just want to take a moment to express my appreciation to you for your having taken the time and effort to investigate the controversy discussed at AN/I over apparent COI editing that has been ongoing with respect to our Scentura article. More specifically, I appreciate the topic ban you issued for the NickBrunson account re that article. As you know from that discussion, I have no involvement or intrinsic interest in the article, but I was very pleased to see the system work the way it should re COI whitewashing. Thank you for making that happen. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries! As you said; it was a clear cut case. SPI is likely enough (now, at least) to handle the disruptive COI editors on that article - but I saw no harm in giving the editors who help protect it another tool against disruption :) I watchlisted the article too, more eyes and all that. --Errant (chat!) 09:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries
Thank you for the rest. N o f o rmation Talk  11:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No probs :) I see you're feeling disillusioned at the moment; a break could be good. It always refreshes me. Also; per my "standard offer", feel free to send me a ranty email. A couple of other editors do that and sometimes it helps! The caveat is that doing so means I might send you one now and again. ;) Peace. --Errant (chat!) 11:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify March Mini Drive
Delivered by benzband  ( talk ) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify 18:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Big Bang
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Big Bang. 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) 09:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much
Re: top ban proposal. 

I appreciate you taking the time to comment. It is nice that as far as pyramid schemes, there is at least one thing all wikpedians can agree on. Calendar2 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). 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) 10:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

hii
realy i want to talk with u i 'm a fan girl i'm just wanna 2 know u i'm an egyptian girl i don't know why i want to know u closely if u don;t mind i want that if u want to a realy good egyptian friend reply the msg i'll be waitin 4 u--41.196.226.47 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)mayada
 * This is not Facebook.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly the oddest message I've got from WP yet :) --Errant (chat!) 04:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair use deletion
In regards to, I have uploaded a more appropriate cover version. Next time, please just ask me to fix the issue beforehand instead of deleting and assuming I need to have fair use explained to me. Thanks, Steven Walling &bull; talk   23:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I am not sure where that aggressiveness is coming from. I deleted the image because we had a perfectly reasonable OTRS request from the copyright holder, I saw no possibility of it passing NFCC and you seemed to be currently AFK. Then I left you a note on the issue - certainly not explaining fair use, but specifying which part of the policy made the image problematic... I'm not sure what else you would want me to do. I don't know why you take that as an affront - it was a mistake, but hardly a big deal. :) --Errant (chat!) 08:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Sain kamal khan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Thank you for your note.Image under notice is absolutely free from any copy right and in public domain. Actually I am not technically very sound, so this lapse occurred.I seek ur help in this regard.M.A.Harifal. 12:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Muhammad Akbar (talk • contribs)

AN
Howdy Errant. When you get a minute, the AN thread you commented in could use your input. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I did kinda saunter into that debacle didn't I :) I commented - my preference here is to try a common sense discretionary approach, and close it quickly. --Errant (chat!) 22:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd have preferred something more symmetrical, but I'll defer to your judgment. 28bytes (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm; symmetrical, how so? I'm a bit tired at the moment, so I might have misfired (which I thought the second I hit save TBH). I aimed for the middle but, to be honest, it's probably easier just to get consensus on your proposal. --Errant (chat!) 23:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit unfair to make Prioryman go through an RfCU to get DC from badgering him off-site. I'd prefer we just say to DC "stop badgering him off-site." 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True; we don't necessarily have a well defined way of sanctioning that, though. Or at least the community hasn't been very good at it in the past. If a modified IBAN goes into play and DC mentions prioryman off-wiki, for which he is then blocked, I expect it will simply generate more dramaz. Without a really firm and broad community view on this I don't see that it will actually work. --Errant (chat!) 23:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm underthinking it, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. DC's pretty visible off-site, it's not like there'd be any great detective work involved in noticing whether he's continuing to poke at PM or not. The idea of an interaction ban in which implicit permission is given for off-wiki poking just seems kind of pointless to me. 28bytes (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about simply asking DC to cease interacting with me off-wiki from accounts that he controls? It seems to me that if he genuinely wants to disengage he wouldn't want to interact off-wiki - wouldn't you agree? Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, I am simply not going to agree to anything that attempts to limit my off-wiki activities. Nor should anyone else. I'm not even going to get into why it is a bad idea - we all know it's not going to fly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem, DC, is that you're increasingly giving the impression that you're here more to fight battles with other editors than to do useful work building and maintaining the encyclopedia. That you refuse to even consider disengaging from commenting on Prioryman offsite strengthens this impression. 28bytes (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not mistake my refusal to entertain a ridiculous ban for something that it is not. I guess when I make a fairly innocuous post on AN about an issue which has come up recently and is quite simply solved, I don't feel like I'm fighting a battle. I feel like I'm making a procedural request that will improve the administration of Wikipedia, which is just as important as correcting italics in articles. For ErrantX's sake, why don't we let this play out on AN instead of here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you noticed my italics! Always happy to help. But sure, let's wait for ErrantX to return. I'm sure he's already dreading what he'll find here when he logs in in the morning. 28bytes (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't blame him for dreading it but, for the record, thanks Errant for your thoughtful approach to this issue. Prioryman (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, both parties have now consented to a total interaction ban so please feel free to go ahead and implement it. Prioryman (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. One procedural question if I may: given that DC has adamantly refused anything that limits his off-wiki activities, it seems distinctly likely that he intends to continue going after me off-wiki. What is my recourse in that event? An RFC/U would quite rightly not be allowed under the interaction ban and would be useless anyway, as it would turn into a circus. Prioryman (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that the terms of the interaction ban be changed to exclude dispute resolution processes, so that you may file an RFC/U, Prioryman? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, lets just leave it as is and let things rest. Prioryman; in terms of your question my first comment would be that the easiest way to resolve it is ignore WR, realistically we can't force people not to comment on each other off-wiki. And simply making negative comments isn't likely ever to be sanctioned here. Failing that, for example if what you are concerned about amounts to more than just comments, I suggest Arbcom is, again, the easiest place to raise this. They have dealt with such things before. And can we consider this matter underlined and ended with, at least for the moment. --Errant (chat!) 18:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Usage share of web browsers
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Usage share of web browsers. 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) 11:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heat
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Heat. 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) 17:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Arthur Koestler.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Hi, one of my pages, Assassinations in fiction, received this note in February.

The note's links are all generic.

It says to check here, Deletion requests January 2012, but does not say whether that is.

I didn't add this image to the page; I'm a text guy, not an image guy.

The bot should be elucidating the ignorant, such as myself.

Varlaam (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)