User talk:Erik9

U POUR ADMIN, U UPDATE VANDAL COUNT, WHILE REAL ADMIN RVTS HAHAHAHAH!!!AH

Say after me...

No More Bush, phew!

File:Waxed pudenda.jpg

LOLZZ MAYBE YOUZ WANTS TO CHECK YUR PAGES BEFROE YOU PROTECT SUM????

PS I DROVE TO WORK JUST SO I COUDL MAKE THIS EDITS!!!! LOLLL>>>

I'm not that active these days, but I'm still around. Feel free to send me an extra poke here or via e-mail for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi).
E-mail: Special:Emailuser/Ned Scott

Archives • ℹ
1. 02/06 - 05/06 2. 06/06 3. 07/06 - 08/06 4. 08/06 - 09/06 5. 10/06 - 11/06 6. 11/06 - 01/07 7. 02/07 - 03/07 8. 04/07 - 05/07	9. 05/07 - early 08/07 10. 08/07 - 10/07 11. 11/07 - mid 02/08 12. mid 02/08 - mid 05/08 13. mid 05/08 - mid 07/08 14. mid 07/08 - 11/08 15. 12/08 - 05/09 16. 06/09 - 04/11 17. 05/11 - 06/18

Your bot request

Hi Erik9 I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 6 has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Could you please rename <Category:Labour law cases in the United Kingdom> to <Category:United Kingdom labour case law> and use your bot to fix the pages? Wikidea 15:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not possible, as Category:Labour law cases in the United Kingdom does not exist. Erik9 (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wanted you to move <Category:Labour case law in the United Kingdom> to <Category:United Kingdom labour case law>. Can you do this please? You seem to have put it there to begin with! Wikidea 13:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The category was renamed per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_27#Category:UK_labour_case_law. If you wish to have it renamed again, you are welcome to open a discussion at CFD. Erik9 (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Hi! Could you look at history of the Al Rosas page? If you look at the versions prior to Usinterlaw, they all contain properly cited information. VirtualSteve and Mfield both agreed to the content earlier but ever since the edit protection was removed, it has been reverted by other users. I think they could be people out to cover up the issues. I think this article should be reverted to the version by MZMcBride. What do you think? Jerome76 (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award
		For helping tag hundreds of unsourced BLPs, I grant you this token of appreciation. It's a great task for a bot, and it seems to be working great. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Erik9 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP

I noticed you have taken on the task to tag some unsourced BLPs for G10. Two things if I may say so: 1.) there is a template you can use, {{db-g10}}. No need to write the text manually. 2.) you should maybe try to go with the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. I could use a short Google News search to easily add sources to five articles you have tagged for G10 and you could have done so yourself, thus saving us both some time: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Your approach will delete some very notable articles with plenty of sources available, thus hurting Wikipedia much more than the articles that exist for years at a time. For example, Arno Funke is a German legend and has hundreds of sources, two of them written by the subject himself where he confesses everything. It took me at most 2-3 minutes to find sources for all those articles, time you have yourself if you have time to tag them for deletion. Regards SoWhy 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. While unsourced articles about living people of the form "X is a criminal..." are technically subject to speedy deletion per CSD G10, it does seem advisable to perform a short search for sources before tagging them for speedy deletion. Naturally, where sources are not readily available, the unsourced and potentially defamatory articles should not be retained for any substantial period of time. Erik9 (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to look for sources, but your not obliged. It's the obligation of the person adding the negative material to provide sources. Such editors feel free to add negative unsourced material, if they see others are following behind, adding in the sources. If they see the material can't be kept without sources, you'll find they'll add sources from the beginning, saving everybody time. I think what you did was entirely justified, but of course, if you wish to take extra time to search for and evaluate sources, that's also justifiable. --Rob (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the situation, Rob. Some of those articles were incomplete translations from other wikis, like de-wiki and sources existed there. It's utopia to believe that those editors, who created them years ago will now start adding sources. Remember, in 2005, sources was nothing Wikipedia was really concerned with and deleting those pages where sources can easily be added will lose us much of the material and work done before 2006/2007. This project is a wiki for the simple reason that others edit the material someone adds and fixes such errors. It works because of that. If we start deleting articles that do not meet the stringent sourcing policies in their first revision, we would not have even 1% of those articles that are now GA/FA. If searching for sources and adding them takes the same time as tagging for deletion, shouldn't the former be tried instead? Regards SoWhy 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

This came a little late, but I noticed you helped revert two vandalisms to my user page by a vandal. I just want to thank you for your good work. It's people like you who make wikipedia work. Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

re Warning on my talk page

I was under the impression that last warnings were given after other warnings, not as a preliminary. --NeoNerd 23:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. Your first vandalism warning was provided here. Erik9 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That was approaching three years ago. Last warnings are for use after a period of consistent vandalism. Two incidents over three years cannot reasonably be described as continuous vandalism.--NeoNerd 23:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of your entirely unsupported and ad hoc argument that vandalism warning levels are reset whenever acts of vandalism are separated in some substantive manner, I also considered the severity of your most recent act of vandalism in determining the appropriate warning level. Replacing an image of a living person, even one as extraordinarily unpopular as Fred Phelps, with a photograph of equine genitalia [6] is blatantly unacceptable, and will result in your being banned from editing Wikipedia if you continue. Consider yourself lucky that your account wasn't blocked indefinitely on the spot. Erik9 (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)