User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2011/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:ErrantX. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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) 08:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you still watching the above page? It had a propaganda attack today which I have reverted but I'm not on Wikipedia as often as I once was.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a little unavailable this week, but it is still on my watchlist :) I'll try and remember to keep an eye on it. --Errant (chat!) 08:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll try to monitor it too but work normally becomes busy early in the month.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 May 2011
- News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief
CommonsNotification problem
Please see this edit by your bot [1]. What happened on Commons is I uploaded the wrong file over the original by mistake - so revert/deleted to get rid of the wrong image.
Given that it was a deletion of an old version, the file is still there on Commons and viewable on en as it should be. Might be worth adding an extra line so admins deleting old versions don't trigger the bot?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah! Thanks for that, a case I'd never thought of. Will add a check to make sure the file is really gone before notifying! :) --Errant (chat!) 07:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- No problem :) I've also thought of another unusual case which bot may misbehave with. I've replaced File:Portland in Sydney 1942.jpg with File:NavalGuadalcanalPortland.jpg in USS Portland (CA-33). The files are exact duplicates, and I'll delete NavalGuadalcanalPortland.jpg in a bit. The assisting script will put a file redirect in place, and CommonsDelinker should replace the file. CommonsNotification shouldn't do a thing, as again the same image will be continuously displayed in article, but I'm not sure what it will do? (I can do deletion at a set time if you want)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Heya, actually right now it won't do anything. :) You are right, that is a situation that would confuse it. However, on the BRFA page for the bot it was suggested that because of commons delinker it is fairly redundant to notify article talk pages about deletion. So right now the bot is only notifying WP:AN when a very widely used file is deleted, per article notification is stopped. However; thanks for thinking of the problem! I have thought of a way to fix it, so if I do go back to deletion notifications it will be sorted. Cheers --Errant (chat!) 08:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. CommonsDelinker isn't perfect and can fail to remove the link in various cases. Delinker might fail in the following: Protected pages (of course), when the image is called via a template which doesn't use a normal file link - it calls for image=Foo.jpg for instance, and when the deleted file on Commons is not tagged for deletion but admin deletes on sight.
- Certainly notification of deletion being proposed is more important - tagging with speedy, no source/license/permission or a full deletion request. Speedy is possibly least important of those for notification, as the notification is unlikely to "save" the image, but does allow WP to find the replacement first. Given the glacial pace of Commons deletions, there should be plenty of time to find it ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, interesting problem. Especially the protected pages issue. I will add it as a feature request to the bug tracker (I can easily check for page protection, checking for usage in template shouldn't be too hard either) --Errant (chat!) 09:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Heya, actually right now it won't do anything. :) You are right, that is a situation that would confuse it. However, on the BRFA page for the bot it was suggested that because of commons delinker it is fairly redundant to notify article talk pages about deletion. So right now the bot is only notifying WP:AN when a very widely used file is deleted, per article notification is stopped. However; thanks for thinking of the problem! I have thought of a way to fix it, so if I do go back to deletion notifications it will be sorted. Cheers --Errant (chat!) 08:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- No problem :) I've also thought of another unusual case which bot may misbehave with. I've replaced File:Portland in Sydney 1942.jpg with File:NavalGuadalcanalPortland.jpg in USS Portland (CA-33). The files are exact duplicates, and I'll delete NavalGuadalcanalPortland.jpg in a bit. The assisting script will put a file redirect in place, and CommonsDelinker should replace the file. CommonsNotification shouldn't do a thing, as again the same image will be continuously displayed in article, but I'm not sure what it will do? (I can do deletion at a set time if you want)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 May 2011
- In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news
- WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games
- Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back
- Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?
Since I undid your admin action...
Here's the explanation. Courcelles 22:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, I got the wrong end of the stick because of how the edit history read. I deleted on the basis that if I had got the wrong idea it could easily be restored (on a better safe than sorry rational) :) thanks for the heads up --Errant (chat!) 22:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Could you take a look at User:MauchoEagle/draft and tell me your thoughts. mauchoeagle (c) 22:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Looks great. I'd suggest that rather than a new article (which would be a little short) it would fit best in the Real evidence article --Errant (chat!) 11:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Talkback: WP:VPR
Message added 07:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— SpikeToronto 07:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
user moonlichen
What do you think about this account.. Last log on eleven keep votes in AFD, not one seems policy based or even serious at all for that matter. Keep "if brunch is gay I don't wanna be straight"? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/MoonLichen - Off2riorob (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- An odd one for sure! There looks to be some level of constructive editing, so I left a note and will keep an eye. I see Chzz has already tried to raise issues... with minimal success. I suspect long term probably not going to work out, but we can only try :) --Errant (chat!) 10:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I remember the username from somewhere, thanks for leaving the note - I was going to but I thought better from an official - he's not making the wheels drop off anyways, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Errant. Would you close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Improving edit summary use? (The consensus is clear, so it shouldn't be difficult.) My request at WP:AN has been ignored. Also if you have the time, would you also close and summarize Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Minimize talk page templates and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll try to have a look through them later :) --Errant (chat!) 12:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Improving edit summary use. :) Cunard (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
DQ's RfA
Maybe I'm just being dense, but I can't for the life of me understand the first sentence of your comment here. Could you please clarify? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, it got a little jumbled. I was just trying to say I disagree with your comment that Most admin actions affect either content editors or the content itself, because that is not my observation/experience. --Errant (chat!) 07:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I'd argue that it's a question of degree. Deletion of articles, for example, gets rid of content (in most cases bad content, but the argument remains). Blocking an editor, particularly an established one, prevents them from working on content; blocking a vandal protects content. Protecting a mainspace page also affects content. For better or for worse, admins who spend any time at all around mainspace affect content. Now, leaving aside my own views for a minute...the main argument presented by those who believe admins should have content experience is that they are quicker to delete (because they don't appreciate the work that goes into an article, because they can't "empathize" with the content creator, insert psychology here), they're more likely to block an established editor for edit-warring to protect "their" content, they're less likely to appreciate the nuances of content discussions, etc. As I said at the RfA page, you may or may not agree with this argument, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (Sorry for the mini-essay!) Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, agreed, it is all about degrees of effect. DQ's current work is against vandals and socks - IMO, in the vast vast majority of cases that doesn't affect content or editors to any appreciable degree. Therefore, the area he wants to work in doesn't really require deep policy knowledge. What they do tend to need is extra (and experienced) "bums on seats". I agree, he wouldn't currently be able to do a competent job with work involving policy (not uncommon, one reason I rarely inhabit SPI is because I don't feel competent at judging cases). So for me it boils down to "will he stick to those areas" or will we end up with a future problem in other areas. Honestly; I can't make up my mind, hence no !vote :) --Errant (chat!) 12:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I'd argue that it's a question of degree. Deletion of articles, for example, gets rid of content (in most cases bad content, but the argument remains). Blocking an editor, particularly an established one, prevents them from working on content; blocking a vandal protects content. Protecting a mainspace page also affects content. For better or for worse, admins who spend any time at all around mainspace affect content. Now, leaving aside my own views for a minute...the main argument presented by those who believe admins should have content experience is that they are quicker to delete (because they don't appreciate the work that goes into an article, because they can't "empathize" with the content creator, insert psychology here), they're more likely to block an established editor for edit-warring to protect "their" content, they're less likely to appreciate the nuances of content discussions, etc. As I said at the RfA page, you may or may not agree with this argument, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (Sorry for the mini-essay!) Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Duane Johnson wiki page image removal
Hi my name is Duane Johnson and I uploaded an image of myself duanejohnson2.jpg that was linked to the wiki page but was recently deleted for copyright violation. Why is there a copyright violation if I own the rights to the image and agreed to that when I uploaded it to Commons and I am the subject of the wiki page? -Duaneivan← —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duaneivan (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi (have we interacted before? I've forgotten, sorry). This is a common problem with images uploaded to commons - where the images looks like a professional or copyrighted image and the source is unclear. It is no judgement on your character but Commons admins/editors have no idea if you really do own the rights to the image - this is one downside to allowing anyone to register! However, Commons has a process to resolve this. Please have a read of commons:COM:OTRS for an explanation; basically it asks that you prove ownership rights to the image and expressly release it for free use via an email (from a recognisable address). If you upload the image, tag it as OTRS pending and then send the email it will be handled in a timely manner. --Errant (chat!) 14:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Duane Johnson wiki page image removal
Thank you I will check on that I don't remember it asking for all of that when I first uploaded the image. - Duaneivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duaneivan (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
bot deletes without leaving enough time to file a contestation imho
Hi, I' here because a bot deleted quite some images on the [€2_commemorative_coins] page and I can't understand how to contest it on the talk page of [€2_commemorative_coins] on the relevant chapter there: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:€2_commemorative_coins#File:Commemorative_coin_Belgium_2009_Braille.png_Nominated_for_speedy_Deletion It leads me to the page commons:COM:SPEEDY but I can't find any directions on how to contest either. Help and thx.--SvenAERTS (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Heya. The images have actually now been deleted from Commons. So there is no way to contest deletion now. The problem was that the coins are copyrighted, and images of them inherit that copyright. BTW most of the other images on the page are also up for deletion at Commons at this point and will almost certainly be gone at some point. If they were to be re-uploaded it would have to be locally here on Wikipedia, with a relevant non-free use rationale. The problem is that articles like this would end up with a lot of non-free image use, something that is discouraged. Debate over this issue is actually taking place right now - here --Errant (chat!) 12:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Quick question
Hi ErrantX, quick question. Was the close I performed here[2] correct? I was thinking, that in that particular matter, I should have added/included a resolved check (though for the life of me, I cannot recall how at the moment, and dont have my notes in front of me). Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Seemed fine to me :) Usually just the resolved tag is adequate for such things. But no harm in archiving. --Errant (chat!) 08:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Much thanks. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 09:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Email as you requested
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I hope you know what's going on with this. Thanks for looking into it. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for letting me know what the email was all about. There should be some way for them to tell us when they do something like this so they don't scare people like I was. Anyways, I think I unchecked the proper one to stop the emails from coming to me. Thank you very much and feel free to archive this if you would like to. I've been seriously thnking about finding a new hobby but you helping me as quickly as you did reminds me that there are wonderful, helpful editors here. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Non free images
I said I will back away from the shady area of Doctor Who/TV episodes and focus instead of software screenshots, which are clear cut cases. Didn't everybody listen to that? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend just accepting the topic ban and moving onto something else for a bit. Non-free images are an area that needs a careful approach and, from reading that thread, I don't think you are quite there yet. Note; I simply judged the consensus of the discussion and implemented the topic ban, so I can't speak for the participants in the thread. You would have to ask them. --Errant (chat!) 14:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- So perhaps you can restrict the topic ban to those "shady" images and leave the other ie software screenshots alone. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Tyw7, you're just digging your grave deeper to a community WP:COMPETENCE ban. Just accept it and move on. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I can't, sorry. The topic ban placed by the community is for all non-free images. If you want an exemption then present a solid case at WP:AN/I or WP:AN including reasons why you feel the same problems will not exist with you uploading software screenshots (which can very much be problematic!). But I rather suggest you take Stange Passerby's advice. --Errant (chat!) 14:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because I am the ONLY one updating the Norton Internet Security article and many of the non-famous software articles. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about for EXISTING images like File:ShakeitUp.png? I just wanted to add transpiracy to it. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why is a transparency needed - I really think you need to leave images alone for a bit. The wiki won't collapse just because some software screens are not updated. --Errant (chat!) 17:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about for EXISTING images like File:ShakeitUp.png? I just wanted to add transpiracy to it. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Because I am the ONLY one updating the Norton Internet Security article and many of the non-famous software articles. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- So perhaps you can restrict the topic ban to those "shady" images and leave the other ie software screenshots alone. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Errant. I know you pointed Tyw7 to WP:FFU, but are you sure that falls in the spirit of the non-free image work ban? I was under the impression that the community didn't want him dealing with non-free images at all for the time being, but perhaps I'm mistaken. 28bytes (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't entirely consider that from the outset. At the time I was still mildly of the belief that once he calmed down this issue would peter out.. and at least he would know about FFU for the future (it possibly being a way to ease back into images). But right now he is just rushing around things far too fast, and it is not going to end well --Errant (chat!) 17:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Anything you can do to rein him in before he does something else AN/I-worthy would be greatly appreciated. (I can see you're trying, above.) 28bytes (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Left a note about FFU on his talk. But am off out for a few hours now... best I can do for the moment :) --Errant (chat!) 18:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Errant. 28bytes (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about if I see a non-free image I want to change ie remove transpiracy? What's the best course of action? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 18:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- The best course of action is: leave it alone. You've been topic-banned from non-free images, find something else to work on. 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Free images are OK to work on right? And how long later in the future can I show that I am competant enough to work on it again? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe the topic ban was for non-free images only. However, I recommend you check with Sven first before any free image work you intend to do, to make sure he agrees that the image(s) you want to work with are indeed free. It can be a tricky area. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I believe the images I took are free images. Also, I would like a course of action/future plan of how I may get it unlifted. That way I can complete the "check marks" to get it lifted. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 18:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sven should be able to help you out with that; he has a lot of experience working with images. I think after 3 to 6 months of solid work with free images, people would probably be willing to consider lifting the ban. 28bytes (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- WHat do you mean free images people? Free images containing people or editors that work with free images? Also, how would that help prove NFCCC? I tend to upload all frees to Commons. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 18:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comma added for clarity. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- WHat do you mean free images people? Free images containing people or editors that work with free images? Also, how would that help prove NFCCC? I tend to upload all frees to Commons. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 18:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sven should be able to help you out with that; he has a lot of experience working with images. I think after 3 to 6 months of solid work with free images, people would probably be willing to consider lifting the ban. 28bytes (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I believe the images I took are free images. Also, I would like a course of action/future plan of how I may get it unlifted. That way I can complete the "check marks" to get it lifted. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 18:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe the topic ban was for non-free images only. However, I recommend you check with Sven first before any free image work you intend to do, to make sure he agrees that the image(s) you want to work with are indeed free. It can be a tricky area. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Free images are OK to work on right? And how long later in the future can I show that I am competant enough to work on it again? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- The best course of action is: leave it alone. You've been topic-banned from non-free images, find something else to work on. 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about if I see a non-free image I want to change ie remove transpiracy? What's the best course of action? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 18:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Errant. 28bytes (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Left a note about FFU on his talk. But am off out for a few hours now... best I can do for the moment :) --Errant (chat!) 18:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Anything you can do to rein him in before he does something else AN/I-worthy would be greatly appreciated. (I can see you're trying, above.) 28bytes (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
What I'm thinking is maybe a stage by stage roadmap towards the lifting of the topic ban. Maybe a page where both me and a mentor (perhaps you?) can carry out an accessment and countersign it? What do you think? I think that would be the best way forward. I have started User:Tyw7/topicban appeal. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- And I think the talk page needs to be sorting out as well :) --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2011
- WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute
- Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news
Protection
You semi-protected Nakba Day recently. The same problem is plaguing 2011 Nakba Day which was spun off from the main article. Cold yo semi-protect it from IP editing too? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Tiamuttalk 18:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- No probs :) --Errant (chat!) 18:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Contesting deletion of Images
The images -- Bison at Niobrara River Preserve.jpg and Niobrara scenic river.jpg -- have been proposed for deletion. These images were downloaded from the official site of the Niobrara National Scenic River, a division of the National Park Service. There is no indication that the images are anything other than an official USG photograph, and thus not under copyright protection. If the images are also on Flickr, perhaps the person who put them there has made a mistake in claiming rights to the image. Please do not delete without further investigation. The imagaes can be found at http://www.nps.gov/niob/photosmultimedia/photogallery.htm. Smallchief (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hey. Please note, first, that I am just the messenger :) My bot simply notifies you of what is going on at commons. Having looked into this there appears to be a significant problem with the FlickrReviewer bot - which is mis-tagging a lot of images! I suggest simply removing the tags at commons because it is clear that they are properly sourced. And perhaps ping the FlickrReviewer's owner about the problem. --Errant (chat!) 20:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I removed the tag on one of the photos at commons and the tag on the other one had already been removed. Hope that solves the problem. Smallchief (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
DSK
Hi apparently there are several of us watching DSK right now, in fact I was over at Anne Sinclair first due to some contentious stuff. I have posted to talk about religion and ethnicity (non-notable) and I agree that the whole specific charges section should go as per WP:NOTNEWS so I am going to BOLDLY delete that. I actually think the whole 2011 arrest and charges goes into far more detail than necessary for something that is breaking news and of which the facts have not been established, like detailing the maid's accusations and so on. Wouldn't it be sufficient to say "was arrested for an alleged sexual assault on a 32-year old hotel maid" in that part, for example? Fancy giving it a trim? CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hey. Well I largely agree, but in my experience trimming that far will be fairly difficult at this stage - it will meet a lot of resistance and the content naturally starts to grow. The best approach is usually just to keep it trimmed as we go along and re-assess in a few weeks. But if you want to give it a shot... :) --Errant (chat!) 22:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ho, are you a clever wiki editor, can you put an anchor from Religion II to Religion on the talk page, it's a bit late and I'm trying to keep an eye on Anne Sinclair where there is much of the same trolling to insert "Jewish" and "US-born"? Just an idea if it's in your I-can-fix-it box. Cheers. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Tried to do it... Is that what you meant? --Errant (chat!) 22:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Brilliant, I have not gone to check the code but it looks like you smalled your text and inserted a link, just checked, yup, hey, I didn't know there was a small template, anyway it works, great, thanks, see you round. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha, good trick, check this out at DSK, now where's my wikibroom? CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lookin' good ;) --Errant (chat!) 23:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Tried to do it... Is that what you meant? --Errant (chat!) 22:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ho, are you a clever wiki editor, can you put an anchor from Religion II to Religion on the talk page, it's a bit late and I'm trying to keep an eye on Anne Sinclair where there is much of the same trolling to insert "Jewish" and "US-born"? Just an idea if it's in your I-can-fix-it box. Cheers. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive username
Have you considered a username block on GegenIsrael? Someone else pointed this out a few days on their talk page but apparently didn't report it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm divided over it. Might report to UAA, but am probably a bit too involved to take action myself. Bed time fore me :) if it is not resolved in the morning I'll take a look --Errant (chat!) 00:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Natti natti! Drmies (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, posted to their userpage that they were offensive (username and attitude) this is a serious case of request a change/block but me too I'm off to bed, so, see you in the morning at ANI, lol, sorry we don't do that here, do we? (laugh, I mean) CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is an administrator's page, and that makes it a no-laugh zone, yes. Your comments to that editor may well be pearls before swine, but the thought is appreciated. Now be quiet--Errant is probably dreaming of deleting the main page. Sshh! Drmies (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Laughter is a blockable offence here... ya'know ;) I see the matter sorted itself out whilst I was asleep. --Errant (chat!) 08:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is an administrator's page, and that makes it a no-laugh zone, yes. Your comments to that editor may well be pearls before swine, but the thought is appreciated. Now be quiet--Errant is probably dreaming of deleting the main page. Sshh! Drmies (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, posted to their userpage that they were offensive (username and attitude) this is a serious case of request a change/block but me too I'm off to bed, so, see you in the morning at ANI, lol, sorry we don't do that here, do we? (laugh, I mean) CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Natti natti! Drmies (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
account status
Hi Errant. Please would you add auto-confirmed status and reviewer to this legitimate alternative account of mine as named on User:Off2riorob page and on this accounts userpage. Riorob watchlist2 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to confirm the request. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorted :) --Errant (chat!) 00:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks ErrantX - muito apreciado. Off2riorob (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations
This is fantastic! Nice piece of work. --John (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's still very much a work in progress, but a lot of my main thoughts are down there already :) Ignore the note at the top of the page; feel free to add your own points/thoughts as well if you like. I was planning to run it past yourself, Rob and a few others at some point too. --Errant (chat!) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again, just checking I hadn't been blocked for lolling on WP ;-). Good stuff this draft you're working on, I haven't finished reading it yet but as I go I'm doing some minor tweaks on word order or spelling. Anything more substantial, I will discuss on the talk page. Cheers. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about some examples? You already mention the MMK article; I was also involved in editing some of the 2010 World Cup stuff as it unfolded last year. Often, what seems (to some editors) like a huge deal at the time, generates no lasting coverage and can be trimmed from the article. Arguably it should never have been added in the first place. I'm thinking of some of the "controversies" that were added and then removed. It's more the norm than the exception. --John (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeh, that would be good. Feel free to add any examples you have come across! Also; I seem to remember I had similar problems back in '06 with the 2006 World Cup controversies article :P funny how little things can change! --Errant (chat!) 11:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about some examples? You already mention the MMK article; I was also involved in editing some of the 2010 World Cup stuff as it unfolded last year. Often, what seems (to some editors) like a huge deal at the time, generates no lasting coverage and can be trimmed from the article. Arguably it should never have been added in the first place. I'm thinking of some of the "controversies" that were added and then removed. It's more the norm than the exception. --John (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi again, just checking I hadn't been blocked for lolling on WP ;-). Good stuff this draft you're working on, I haven't finished reading it yet but as I go I'm doing some minor tweaks on word order or spelling. Anything more substantial, I will discuss on the talk page. Cheers. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello
First of all I love your user page It is wonderful :) I hope to someday be able to do mine as well. :) Secondly, can the documents from the court case its self be used? The issue was filed is in Feb 2011 and is stamped right upon it I am not sure how to send it to you for you to see what I am discussing. --Truth Mom (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you dealing with paper or with something in digital format? Wikid77 has a post on the talk page of MoMK concerning Italian state documents that may interest you. I'm interested in what you have...as Errant may be. You can email users a digital attachment. I know that you have a pdf from what I've seen of your posting on SuperMario's talk page. Is it in English or Italian?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)- Primary sourcing the date of the case seems absolutely fine. I'd have no issues as it meets the guidelines of WP:PRIMARY use. --Errant (chat!) 11:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
63 to 27 is not ˌōvərˈ(h)welmiNG, Very great in amount ie: elected by an overwhelming majority?
I tried putting a speedy deletion on the Roberto Baggio article indexed under Buddhism. No icon appeared. I must have done it wrong. Tell me how to do it right, please. I wrote this below and the preview put it at the top of the page??? <ARRust (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)>
i feel as if i may be the butt of some good hearted prank, if so, you got me! first i used the wrong words, now my words are somehow not supported by a 67 to 27 majority. what would be a better way to say it, a slightly larger majority? or maybe a "2 to 1" majority which despite being a generic term, risk becoming interpreted as plagiarism. what would you consider overwhelming, maybe 71 to 24? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- You mean 63-27 majority ;) Overwhelming... meh, it didn't strike as a particularly good way to summarise what the source said. The word removal was mostly secondary part of my edit correcting where you put completely the wrong % figure. 2:1 majority seems a good way to express it, more off-hand certainly and less of the advocacy connotations of "overwhelming". My interest in the article is minimal, however, my only interest in the Tea Party movement will be if by some fluke they actually come to power in America, which is a scary prospect. So perhaps it is better to raise the issue on the talk page there. --Errant (chat!) 14:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- nah, ill skip it, too many keystrokes wasted on a minor issue, if 2 to 1 isnt overwhelming, as reported by http://scaredmonkeys.com/2011/04/22/cbs-newsnew-york-times-poll-63-oppose-raising-debt-ceiling/ claims concerning this very polls, then i give up. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 May 2011
- News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news
- In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Could you please have a look at this?
Hi, Errant. I have just discovered that Wikid77 has left this comment on RockSound's talk page. With respect, may I ask what you make of it? I am particularly displeased to see that he has branded both me and another user "hostile" and seems to suggest that I should be blocked for alleged disruption. I have recommended more than once before that he avoid using others' talk pages as a space to air unsubstantiated grievances about other editors and Wikipedia in general (one of many earlier examples here). SuperMarioMan 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Heya. Yes, that message gave me significant pause for thought this morning, as did a lot of his (similar) comments about editors over the last couple of days. To be frank; Wikid77, over the last few weeks,seems to be participating in just about every major "forum" I have interest in; he's been commenting about RFA reform, BLP policy and is involved with the DSK article. It is absolutely pure coincidence (him being there), but I simply can't deal with more of his commentary for the moment, which was why I had a bit of a moan yesterday. Basically; I might not be the best person to deal with it, and I don't really have the energy to try. Perhaps someone else (an uninvolved admin?) could take a look? To be honest, I think the best approach is an RFC/U, which I would be happy to certify (on the basis of, if I have to deal with this at least lets get it all out the way in one lump). --Errant (chat!) 13:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- When you guys start following his conversations like this and then start trying to take actions against these types of communications with third parties, it begins to validate his opinions and actions. SuperMario, I don't have significant issues with the way you generally edit, but your interest in editors who have divergent views from yours borders on bullying and stalking. Cody was just another example of this. When you follow people and point out things they do that you don't like on multiple articles on multiple forums, the outcome cannot be good. I suggest just sticking to the forums where you naturally see Wikid (namely, MOMK) and make sure he's behaving there.
- Also, seeing as in the past it was apparent that the goal of some editors on the MoMK was to get people banned by continuously instigating them, and that this strategy worked effectively, these actions can be interpreted as more sinister than you intend them. Fortunately, most of the old editors who have engaged in these practices are gone, but it is better not to take us down a road that leads back to there.
- I don't want to justify Wikid's post or his actions. I merely want to suggest a different course of action.LedRush (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Every venue in which I have read Wiki77's comments, or interacted with him in, are ones that I was there first. So no "following" involved. --Errant (chat!) 14:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Noted.LedRush (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, there was one place where my actions (prior to Wikid's involvement in the article) seemed to inspire a suggestion to rename the NOTNEWS policy & where he alluded to "POV pushers" in a way clearly directed at my actions... but I view that as fair game to reply. --Errant (chat!) 14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Noted.LedRush (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Every venue in which I have read Wiki77's comments, or interacted with him in, are ones that I was there first. So no "following" involved. --Errant (chat!) 14:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- SuperMario, I don't have significant issues with the way you generally edit, but your interest in editors who have divergent views from yours borders on bullying and stalking.. Thanks for that comparison, LedRush. Does leaving a comment such as the one that I linked seem like a sensible action, when multiple users (and not just me) have edited the talk page in question? Is it really necessary to suggest that other users have mental illnesses of some description (as I recall Wikid suggesting on other user talk pages in the past), that they are in some manner "abnormal", or that they are full of so-called "repressed rage"? Certainly I have had disagreements with more than one fellow editor while editing at this topic, but I do at least attempt to keep my arguments either policy- or guideline-based, and refrain from making assertions about the lives of other people that I am unable to substantiate. Wikid has demonstrated a pattern of coaching users that, almost without exception, has involved slurring the characters of other editors at almost any opportunity that arises. Incidentally, I have not actually called for any specific course of action to be taken - I would much prefer it if Wikid were to just stop being so outlandish when speculating about others. Given his most recent contributions to RockSound's talk page, however, I see little hope of that happening. SuperMarioMan 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- SuperMario, I think my post made it clear that I was not endorsing Wikid or his posts and was merely a suggestion that your current approach (and this thread) could be counterproductive.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can just about live with some of the speculation that Wikid leaves for other people to read, but this is just ridiculous. SuperMarioMan 11:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Thomas Morton (shipwright)
 | On 25 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Morton (shipwright), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 19th-century shipwright Thomas Morton invented the widely used patent slip because he couldn't afford a dry dock? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, could you check out these remarks against me by user Niteshift36, I might be overreacting but I find them to be offensive and a over the top response. See here.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for making that comment. I think we both just should ignore each other from now on. From my point of view that wont be very difficult. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes that's the best way. TBH the best solution to any dispute is simply to disengage, particularly if the matter is generally resolved. :) Good to see you back... be good this time! --Errant (chat!) 19:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks my Wikipedia-friend. I will be really really good;).--BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes that's the best way. TBH the best solution to any dispute is simply to disengage, particularly if the matter is generally resolved. :) Good to see you back... be good this time! --Errant (chat!) 19:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
June 2011 Wikification Drive
 | Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's June Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by about 900 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts June 1, but you can still sign up! |
Sumsum2010·T·C 04:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
A suggestion for the commons notification bot
Is there any way to set up this fella so that it posts to talk pages when an image is nominated for deletion, rather than once it has been deleted? This would alert the editors of those articles to go express their opinion on commons. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 11:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Heya. Yes this is on my todo list (and the code is partially written) but I couldn't phsyc myself up to coding it in the last week. I've set aside bank holiday monday to get it working :) --Errant (chat!) 11:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Awesome! Can't wait to see it in action. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 11:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Change Username
Hello! I have already asked for a new username but now I cannot find my request. Could you help me please? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marios Tofi (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- The change has already happened. Please log out, and then log in using your new username ("Musicholic") and your current password. --Errant (chat!) 13:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
How can I clean up the history of everything in my account? Like on my talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicholic (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you click to edit the page and then delete everything, then save it, that should work :) --Errant (chat!) 14:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Possible egging on of another user
Since you're familiar with the Knox-Kercher article regulars, what is your take on a post such as this ? Cody was blocked for some fairly vile ANI comments about people being shot in the head, but is appears that Wikid77 is encouraging the behavior, telling Cody that it isn't his fault that was goaded and trapped into saying all of that, followed by some peculiar ideas on how to get rid of their perceived wiki-opponents.
I was involved in a rather nasty ArbCom a few years ago, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, where one of the underlying problems was experienced editors goading newcomers into a "it's us against the evil censors" mindset. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- {{ygm}} :) --Errant (chat!) 14:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- He makes the disgusting suggestion that the block is somehow the fault of Dayewalker, and that Cody is a mere hapless "victim" of the oppressive Wikipedia "system". I am in rather little doubt as to who he is referring to when he makes the suggestion that, "Instead, Wikipedia needs some kind of automatic revert-counter, so that a long-term editor who deletes text from an article, almost every day, gets an automatic time-out (for perhaps 2 weeks) where they cannot edit the article ..." I would be able to laugh off all that nonsensical rambling were parts of it not so callously offensive. SuperMarioMan 14:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- {{ygm}} too (forgot to tell you earlier). The comment concerns me also, and I think we are fast approach a point where we need to have an RFC/U. Wikid77 isn't going to listen to me, sadly, I think any bridges between use were burned some time ago. --Errant (chat!) 14:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with the proposal of an RFC/U. Quite simply, I'm furious. It is partly this persistence in directing childish slurs at anyone that he dislikes that brought Wikid to the point of an indefinite topic ban from MoMK about eight months ago. Also, check out this bizarre non-response to my request that he retract his previous remarks (that is, when he made little secret of his opinion that I should be blocked). I'll check my email. I am sincerely grateful to you for all your patience, Errant. Thank you. SuperMarioMan 15:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- You make some excellent points in that email. Yes, let's all try that from now on. Thanks. SuperMarioMan 15:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- {{ygm}} too (forgot to tell you earlier). The comment concerns me also, and I think we are fast approach a point where we need to have an RFC/U. Wikid77 isn't going to listen to me, sadly, I think any bridges between use were burned some time ago. --Errant (chat!) 14:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- He makes the disgusting suggestion that the block is somehow the fault of Dayewalker, and that Cody is a mere hapless "victim" of the oppressive Wikipedia "system". I am in rather little doubt as to who he is referring to when he makes the suggestion that, "Instead, Wikipedia needs some kind of automatic revert-counter, so that a long-term editor who deletes text from an article, almost every day, gets an automatic time-out (for perhaps 2 weeks) where they cannot edit the article ..." I would be able to laugh off all that nonsensical rambling were parts of it not so callously offensive. SuperMarioMan 14:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tarc & SMM here and am concerned about the chipshots that the experienced editors are firing at one another and how that is being translated by newcomers. I refrained from yesterday's melee but wasn't surprised to see a block forthcoming. I now have serious concerns over what I perceive as goading.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Damn...right on time. See what I mean?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)- It doesn't bode well for the future. Furthermore, his argument is complete nonsense, as any review of the comments that he made at ANI will indicate to any sensible user. His comments were utterly indefensible. SuperMarioMan 16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Holiday
I'm heading off for a camping trip till Monday :) so not going to be about. If anyone wants a job St Deny's Church, Sleaford needs a coypedit (and if you can find some sources the modern history needs working on). --Errant (chat!) 19:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit request link
Hi, Errant! You seem like the most likely suspect; would you have a look? Thanks, and good on you for making the suggestion. If you need to reply you can do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
User:ErrantX/defaultsummaries.js
Hi, I'm working on User:ErrantX/defaultsummaries.js and I'm wondering how hard it would be to detect the page's namespace, so that the "talk" summaries are only shown on talk pages (and those summaries are hidden when it's not a talk page). Also, what are the chances of getting two dropdowns for articles - one for minor edits, one for major? Rd232 talk 00:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and this is a bummer: it doesn't work on section-editing. Rd232 talk 00:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well I managed the first point myself. But I've no idea about the other two, and whilst twin dropdowns may not even be a good idea, the lack of section-editing is a bit of a problem. Rd232 talk 08:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, what do you mean "section-editing" - it seems to work for me when editing sections :S r,e, two drop downs - one solution could be to watch the "minor edit" checkbox and swap the available summaries based on whether it is ticked or not. Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 08:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I click on an "edit" link in a section title, there's no dropdown. Two dropdowns - that could work but people wouldn't get that without trying it. I was more thinking the other way - selecting a "minor edit" summary would ideally check the minor edit checkbox. I think two dropdowns next to each other could work, it's just a question of how much of a pain it is to code it. Rd232 talk 09:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- No real pain to code two dropdowns, I will have a go at that later. r.e. the edit section - that works for me :S which browser are you using? What other scripts/gadgets are you using? --Errant (chat!) 09:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Firefox and Chrome, on Windows 7 and XP - same in all. It's probably something with another script - I have a lot. I'll check it out at some point, but if it's fine for you, then I guess there's no need to worry. Rd232 talk 11:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you have chance; in Chrome right click on the page anywhere and click "Inspect Element" in the menu. Then when the new box appears click the "Consol" tab. Reload the page (with that box open) and check for red errors appearing in the console. That might narrow it down --Errant (chat!) 13:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Firefox and Chrome, on Windows 7 and XP - same in all. It's probably something with another script - I have a lot. I'll check it out at some point, but if it's fine for you, then I guess there's no need to worry. Rd232 talk 11:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- No real pain to code two dropdowns, I will have a go at that later. r.e. the edit section - that works for me :S which browser are you using? What other scripts/gadgets are you using? --Errant (chat!) 09:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I click on an "edit" link in a section title, there's no dropdown. Two dropdowns - that could work but people wouldn't get that without trying it. I was more thinking the other way - selecting a "minor edit" summary would ideally check the minor edit checkbox. I think two dropdowns next to each other could work, it's just a question of how much of a pain it is to code it. Rd232 talk 09:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, what do you mean "section-editing" - it seems to work for me when editing sections :S r,e, two drop downs - one solution could be to watch the "minor edit" checkbox and swap the available summaries based on whether it is ticked or not. Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 08:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well FWIW, it says "Uncaught ReferenceError: GM_log is not defined / Uncaught TypeError: Cannot call method 'addClass' of null". But I'm getting errors like that from viewing a page as well. I'll have to strip some scripts out and see what happens with the console. I'll let you know if/when I get round to that (don't hold your breath). PS RL is exploding for me, and I'm trying (once again) to respect the notice at the top of my user talk page. So if you can push forward this edit summary dropdown (WP:VPR when the tech seems ready) and get it actually implemented, that would be great. Rd232 talk 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeh no problems. I'll try and look at it over the next few days & take it forward. Hope RL sorts itself out for you :) Cheers --Errant (chat!) 17:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is on my radar to get sorted come monday, after I've caught up and answered the new election candidate questions it will be my top priority. --Errant (chat!) 15:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Candidate statement
I'm glad all the quote, explicit or implicit, that you used in your candidate statement have fixed Chinese translations: "knowledge is power", and crucial "cornerstone" (which comes from the Bible)... otherwise I really would've struggled to translate them! Deryck C. 14:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- If there is anything that was too awkward to translate let me know, I don't mind working something out with you that makes more sense to Chinese readers :) Thanks for all the translation legwork. --Errant (chat!) 14:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Ezrdr (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Ezrdr (talk) 20:45, 29 May 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) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 May 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news
- In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Royal Railway
- Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism
- Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired
- Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?