User talk:Trialsanderrors/Brchive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Your proposal at DRV

So the idea your proposed in the Gangsterz DRV is that if a speedy candidate gets taken to DRV, one admin expressing an opinion to restore can trigger a trip to DRV, closing the discussion? Perhaps I was confused about what you were proposing.--Kchase T 07:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Trip to AfD, but yes. Essentially it gives admins the discretion to deny it if all those who view the deleted article believe it fails A7 or G11. Copyvio, attack and similar speedies should remain deleted until a consensus to overturn is reached. ~ trialsanderrors 07:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me, but getting a policy change approved here is like pulling teeth. Good luck.--Kchase T 07:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
With DRV, the problem in changing policy is mostly disinterest. Maybe one day I'm bold enough and implement it IAR... ~ trialsanderrors 07:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers Past undeletion

Hi, you said that the edit history was restored, but it wasn't, unless someone else deleted it again. Milchama 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is for me. Sometimes you have to press Control-F5 to clean out your browser cache. Logs tell me that no one deleted it since. ~ trialsanderrors 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] La Coka Nostra

Hi! You seem a very level headed and fair admin so I would like to approach you about a potential problem. The La Coka Nostra page was put up for AFD and the closing concensus was a merge. The merging of pertinant information was done and a redirect was made, however it seems an anon does not agree. I sense a revert war brewing between myself (who did merge and redirect per the closing AFD) and the anon which does not agree with the AFD. I have reverted the last changes made, however I was hoping an admin could semi-protect or protect the Coka from anon changes for a few days or so to discourage the Anon from disrupting Wikipedia. Thank you for your time! --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into this and protect/warn the editor if necessary. ~ trialsanderrors 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacNab Street Presbyterian Church, Hamilton, Ontario

Appeal has been made... BTW, have you ever been to Hamilton? Bacl-presby 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No reason to appeal this. I can userfy if you want to expand it. It's just that at the end of the AfD there was no claim of notability whatsoever in the article. If a claim can be made, no problem having an article on it. Re: Hamilton, sadly, no. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Samek

Hey Trialsanderrors, i noticed the Jesse Samek article was overturned and put up for AFD. The only thing is the article is not visible, it seems to have been deleted or not restored, do you know how it can get restored? --DJREJECTED 03:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looks like it was restored, but has a horrible picture posted. Anyway to get it off, since I don't know what template was used and don't want to modify it in possibly messing it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJREJECTED (talk • contribs) 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
Sorry, I was off the computer. The AfD is now listed, you can remove the picture by removing the line "Jessesamek.jpg" in the infobox. ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacDade Mall

Hello,

You participated in the deletion review of this article that a user (an admin, I think) has now unilaterally restored (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dead Malls for the explanation of his action). I'm writing to you in hopes you may have some idea as to what action should be taken in response to this choice by User:DavidLevinson. Please let me know what you think. Erechtheus 18:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I sent it to WP:DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
My thanks to you. Erechtheus 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems he's on a mall restoration drive. Some are reverted speedies or prods, so nothing procedurally wrong, although he's clearly using his admin bit to push a POV, but I'll see what I can do to revert the ones that were deleted by AfD decision. ~ trialsanderrors 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team Final Boss

The general consensus of the AfD was Keep. It seems you went against consensus and voiced your thoughts. I fully agree that Urbandictionary and such are not WP:RS, however USA Network and Major League Gaming are. It seems your deletionist view overlooked such sources. This team is the apex of video gaming world and most certainly needs to be kept in its current state. User Hanhchen also added additional citations and cleaned the article nicely. If you could please revert the redirect it would be appreciated. Valoem talk 22:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A. I'm not a deletionist and B. I didn't delete the article. I looked at the sources provided in relation to the claims and found them insufficient for a stand-alone article. A Strong Speedy Keep vote based on bogus sources is useless. As I said, take it to WP:DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 22:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I have found more independent sources per request I am going to go ahead and revert. http://www.gotfrag.com/halo/story/32181/ and http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/11209/MLG-Signs-FourMan-Halo-2-Team-for-1-Million-Contract/ and http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/bungie/the-1m-halo-2-clan-182861.php
I updated the article. I see no reason for WP:DRV since the article was not deleted. Anyways you can take a look at the new article with new sources and the removal of sources that were not reliable. Thanks :) Valoem talk 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll post it on DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 22:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PGNx Media

Trialsanderrors,

Thanks for taking the time to look at the article. What would it take to convince you of PGNx Media's notability? I'm confident that this can be provided, it is merely a matter of knowing what it is. Thanks for taking time out of your saturday to read my long comments and this message. Infomanager 23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't given the article a closer look, I close most of the DRV debates so I rarely weigh in with an opinion. If your claim is true that inclusion in RT is only one of the features of PGNx media then it'll probably recognized by the editors. If it's the only claim it might not be enough per Cokemachineglow. I disagreed with that opinion, but I accept that the consensus was against me. ~ trialsanderrors 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I have some hope now. If you have time later to take a look at the article, I will be indebted. Infomanager 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

You said:

  • "Don't administer in areas where you also edit is a very simple and consistent rule to follow."
  • "And it's also still wrong if it's anything less egregious, but shit like this is desysoppable behavior."

To me, the way you said it made it seem like you knew you were right, and that it was more than just an opinion. However, I really feel like our conversation started to became pointless after awhile, and I hope we can avoid things like that again in the future. Khoikhoi 23:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ~ trialsanderrors 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirchi - Chala Naatu Guru

Hi, just to let you know: someone just deleted the AfD header on this article so I warned them and reinstated it. They also left a cryptic message on the article talk page. I've left it on my watchlist just in case. Cheers. Bubba hotep 16:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that AfD certainly doesn't attract much attention. ~ trialsanderrors 20:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV of Category:Child Wikipedians

I admit it's been a while since I closed a drv, but I would have appreciated a note to let me know you've reopened it, I thought before we reverted an admin's decisions we ran it past the admin out of courtesy. I'm not looking to start the lamest wheel war in history, just ask that the niceties be observed. Had you pointed me to the policy in question, I would have undone my own stupid mistake and at least been allowed a modicum of looking like I knew what I was doing. Still, I'm sure my bruised ego matters little. Take it easy, and happy belated new year. Steve block Talk 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize but on the other hand I find it a bit troublesome when admins who are usually not to be seen on DRV close the controversial ones early. One of the purposes of DRV is to decide whether WP:IAR decisions were in fact acceptable applications of that rule, and that can only be credibly done if all rules are abided by during the review itself. I don't expect the result to change, but I don't want to see this being renominated solely because the review itself was challenged as out of process. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely sympathise, and apologise for having put you in that situation. It's a shame that there appear to be no go areas on Wikipedia now though. Still, my own damn fault for not being thorough enough. Cheers, Steve block Talk 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Along the same lines, this ended up being a perfect example of DRV not working. I won't mourn the loss of the category, but this is a perfect example of my issues with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion policy

Greetings- WP:UNDEL states that a sysop may undelete an article after five days. This is trivial, but I was wondering if that includes the day the article was proposed for deletion. For example, if the review began on the 1st, what is the first day a conclusion can be reached? 5th? 6th? Thanks! Infomanager 08:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless agreement is reached earlier, nomination time plus 120 hours. The Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active section lists the last six days, including today. I usually close the day listed on top of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent, so most reviews run a bit longer than 120 hours. ~ trialsanderrors 08:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Still trying to learn the finer details of the rules. Happy belated new years to you. Infomanager 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, one more thing. If a decision is overturned, there are two options (?): the article is permitted to stay or the article is listed at AfD. If the latter, will the article be unprotected so that changes can be made before the AfD process? Thanks! Infomanager 08:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about PGNx Media. I unprotected the article since in all likelihood it will be sent to AfD, so you can improve on it until then. Just if you're done editing I'll ask you put the {{subst:drv}} tag back on. I'll remove it when I close the debate. Happy New year to you too. ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will be editing it tomorrow afternoon and will add the tag back on then. Infomanager 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Changes were made and tag was added back to top. Thanks! Infomanager 04:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article protecting for deletion review

Hi, I saw you restored and article protected the FA Premier League goalscorers history for the run of the deletion review. Can you please to the same for Eredivisie 2006/2007 goalscorers and Eerste Divisie 2006/2007 goalscorers, at least temporary? This way I can save the information I created for personal usage. Currently I can not see the information and it would take hours to find my sources and create this all over for myself. Thanks, SportsAddicted | discuss 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Only those two? I'll take care of it later today. ~ trialsanderrors 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
All others would be fine for those who worked on those I guess, but for me those are the two I was working on and I'd like to have the information available. If it's decided not to have these where they were before I could still use the information for personal usage. Thanks a lot already, SportsAddicted | discuss 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's just wait how the DRV goes and I can restore or userfy at the end depending on outcome. ~ trialsanderrors 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me, thanks a lot. SportsAddicted | discuss 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this that you meant to do?

[1] I think this was "delete" outcome. - brenneman 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It was borderline, but since nobody put up a {{drv}} tag to announce the discussion I'm relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. In this case a gentle "ping" of the people who took part in the deletion review might be acceptable. When you've completed the nomination I'll do that, then. - brenneman 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It'll take me about 15 minutes. ~ trialsanderrors 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the comments

Thanks for the tips on editing about the Souled American et al. I'm fairly new to adding things to wikipedia and don't know all the rules/technicalities quite yet. Glad to see other people out there who care about Souled American, as well. As it happens, we're both UIUC graduates, too. Best wishes. --Nhennies 12:11, 4 January 2007

[edit] Child Wikipedians

I have responded to your closure of the DRV here. It seems that in your haste to badmouth me you left the realm of reality and entered the realm of fiction, and ended up calling me a process rapist for no good reason whatsoever. An apology would be nice. --Cyde Weys 03:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Category:Child Wikipedians. ~ trialsanderrors 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PGNx Media

Hi Trialsanderrors - I saw that you closed and overturned PGNx Media's deletion. However, the relisted at AfD link should link to a third nomination (it currently links to a second nomination) and I couldn't find "PGNx Media" in the articles for deletion page for January 5th. Thanks in advance. Infomanager 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was side-tracked. It's up now. ~ trialsanderrors 04:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosenthal article

Do you have access to that 1973 Rosenthal article online? My access doesn't go back that far. If you have a pdf could you e-mail me a copy? Cheers Pete.Hurd 07:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the mail. ~ trialsanderrors 07:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peace war game

Your unilateral REDIRECT to prisoner's dilemma, deleted historical linkages, analyses, references, and edits by others, but most importantly ignored the sense of discussions on the subject, particularly w.r.t. combining it with other game theory pages. The Peace War Game has direct implications for peace, war, foreign policy, economics, personal morality, etc. without wading through a lot of game theory. Please, leave it there. --Mbhiii 14:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on Talk:Chicken (game)#Peace war game and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory#Collaboration, with general agreement that the PWG is a Prisoner's Dilemma and should link there. Also, the Oz Shy reference in the article makes it clear that his example of a Peace War game was a Prisoner's Dilemma. We don't create two articles for the same thing just because they have different names. You might ask for outside opinions at WP:RFC/SCI or WP:3O, but in my book this is settled. ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Sock

You opened this as a procedural thing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildCafe (2nd nomination). I just wanted your opinion on this: [2]. A user who's first act is to perform maintenance in a project and participate in a bunch of related AfDs? My warning bells are flashing.--Crossmr 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You can mark new users with {{spa|USERNAME}} behind their signature. That's an accepted notice to the discussion closer. If you have evidence that it's one person using different screennames, you can file a request for checkuser at WP:CHECK. (10 seconds later...) Actually, looking at a few of the users, you might have a case... ~ trialsanderrors 04:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually if you notice, Meehan says delete, joel says keep, and alcon says neutral. I remember reading a description somewhere on socks that indicated thats a type of behaviour sometimes associated with them. To play off each other. Though joel has now changed his mind to delete.--Crossmr 05:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm more looking at their overall contribution record. Came in around Dec 30-Jan 4, immediately blue-linked their user page (look at Alcorn's and Shatte's) and then set out to post on DRV's and AfD's, especially here. They vote "per" others (and each other) a lot. Clearly not the average sockpuppet. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
and all involved in PGNx Media from the looks of it and a couple of other particular AfDs. Notably Guildcafe and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Chronicles_of_Spellborn. I think thats a little bit too much of a coincidence.--Crossmr 06:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Using full names, tendency to add edit summaries in all small letters, fill in user pages immediately, gravitating around the same AfD's. Yeah that one looks like Sockpuppet Central. My bullshit detector just exploded. ~ trialsanderrors 06:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I just detailed which of the AfDs they are all involved in on AN/I. I'm going to dig a little deeper here. See if a puppet master doesn't become obvious.--Crossmr 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like, for the most part, what did was look at the AfD for videogames (all of those articles have that tag) and then vote in those articles. (Sorry was looking at What Links Here and thought I was signed in). Infomanager 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So what's your opinion on our discussion whether Tragedy of the Commons is a multi-player PD or a crowding game? Seems like Kevin has the sources but I claim you can't create non-pooling equilibria with a PD setup. ~ trialsanderrors 06:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean to respond to me? If so, I have no idea. I focus mainly on games I can play with a controller in hand.Infomanager 07:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you forgot that you posted "Infomanager is a 25 year old Economics doctoral student at Yale University" onto your user page. ~ trialsanderrors 07:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, with a thesis on urban fiscal policy. Please check my IP address. I realize how horrible it looks, but ask yourself, looking at how things are going did I need to resort to something like this? Infomanager 07:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that 4 of the 6 posting to overturn the DRV are suspect, yes. Even with a focus on another specific you should have some insight, and it wouldn't be the first time someone learned to use a proxy.--Crossmr 07:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Only two did actually. Please see my comment in the admin page. Infomanager 07:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well in that case you should be able to offer an opinion on our question, especially since it determines whether I'm willing to apply WP:AGF in your case. The evidence looks pretty damning. ~ trialsanderrors 07:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have not taken a class outside of my narrow field in years. I will work on an answer but you ahould know ahead of time that it will be basic. Infomanager 07:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I posted a comment. It truly isn' my field. However, if you want to discuss why government spending in poor urban areas is typically inefficient and why this hasn' stopped I would be delighted. Infomanager 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there's tons of articles in that field are waiting for your contributions. Someone needs to rewrite the CAFR article, that got deleted for spamming. ~ trialsanderrors 08:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. The lovely Comprehensive report. I will cook something up in the next few days (there are still a few websites that I've begun working on that I want to finish). And who knows, in a year or two when the thesis gets published, you may even see my name as a reference! Infomanager 08:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, could you userfy what was already there for me? Or was nothing salvageable? Infomanager 08:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio, spam, etc. We'll better keep that under wraps. ~ trialsanderrors 08:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, not only for assuming good faith now, but for answering my questions and making the process as smooth as it can be. Wikipedia is well-served by naming editors like you to be administrators. Infomanager 08:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PGNx Media

Hi- Although it may seem difficult to believe, it seems that my article has found itself in the middle of this sockpuppet mess. I hope that no harmn comed from it because their involvement is truly a coincidence.

Only two of the purported puppets contributed to the deletion review. They all seem to have contributed to the AfD but they alo also contributed to dozens of other videogame AfDs. Infomanager 07:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khalil Kalfat

Hi, Trialsanderrors. Considering the message you left me. I didn't say that I want the article to userfied under my user name. I only suggested that it should be userfied. So, I moved the article to User:Hamuksha/Khalil Kalfat because this user is the original creator of the article. I edited the article a little. It is now a good stub. I rechecked the external links and disabled the templates. --Meno25 08:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you were the one asking to userfy, so I thought it would be best to send it to you. But if you think you're done and it can go back into article space go right ahead. I'm not sure if Hamuksha is still active. ~ trialsanderrors 09:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfdAnons

I noticed that you added {{AfdAnons}} to the GuildCafe AfD page. This may have the effect of suggesting to a closing admin that users were asked to come post on the page. As far as I know, the increased activity on this AfD is only due to it being cross-listed on the "CVG Deletions" page, which has brought in users with comments on all sides. If there are single-purpose accounts posting on this AfD, I don't believe they came for any reason specific to this particular page (I also notice that one of the people who someone complained about, further up your page, was someone who voted 'delete' on this AfD, which is an atypical use of an SPA.) Tarinth 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That was just a provisory measure. The GuildCafe AfD is one of the recent AfD's infested by sockpuppets (see thread directly above and on WP:AN/I). I'll look more into it today but I didn't want to spend more time on it last night, so I slapped the AfdAnons tag on. ~ trialsanderrors 17:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ass to Mouth

Err - Thanks for your actions re the DRV, but I should point out that you've protected the wrong page (Anal-oral contact), which is where the immediately-post AfD page went to. :) I'm sure this will be easy to fix. Tevildo 07:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notifier, I hope it's fixed now. ~ trialsanderrors

[edit] Your oppose

The bureaucrat member of the bot approval group said there would be no flag on the account until after an RFA. I don't consider your proposal unreasonable, but the people in charge of the permissions have said it is not possible. Dragons flight 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your bot, and let's hope my vote remains only a protest vote since the work needs to be done, but I think "the people in charge" need to reconsider this. An RFA has to be the accumulation of individual experiences with the user (or bot), not the rubberstamping of the decision of a small group. ~ trialsanderrors 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monobook in category

It's certainly a bug in the software, but your monobook.js file ended up in Category:Articles_for_deletion [3]. The problem is probably the presence of the {{afd}} in it, which could be solved by replacing it with something like "{" + "{afd}}". I am telling you because that page keeps popping up in User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD, while it's clearly not an article for deletion. Tizio 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I cleaned it out. If I restore it, I'll take heed of your advice. ~ trialsanderrors 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] drv

Hi. Regarding this, how did you conclude that 4 overturn and 3 endorse concludes into keeping the article deleted? Thanks. --Striver - talk 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The nominator is usually considered the plaintiff, so your own later "vote" is not being considered separately. I added "without prejudice" to the closing statement in case this was not clear from the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goalscorers

No, this was all I need, thanks. Can I edit these now, or will they be deleted again soon, so I have to store them somewhere else? SportsAddicted | discuss 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized I did not listen to your request on top of your talk page, sorry for that. SportsAddicted | discuss 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, we can keep this here. The standard procedure is to delete useffied articles after a while. Userspace is not article space 2. My proposition is to create subpages to the individual team pages and to transclude them into the main article (say PSV Eindhoven/Goalscorers 2006-07 would be transcluded as {{PSV Eindhoven/Goalscorers 2006-07}} into the PSV Eindhoven article. You can then for yourself create a subpage on your user page that transcludes all goalscorer subpages of a league on one page. This has an encyclopedic purpose (you keep an eye on a series of similar subsections of related articles), and shouldn't create controversy. ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes that was what I was thinking, well at least the Userspace is not article space 2. The idea you are proposing sounds fair, but I don't exactly see what you are saying. You create a template of the goalscorers of each season of each club? Isn't that going to get even more trouble from several users you think? SportsAddicted | discuss 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No idea, you might want to bring it up at the soccer wikiproject. It's allso not technically in templatespace. You can transclude (auotmatically copy the full up-to-date text) of any page onto any other page, with some technical limitations. So if you list the goalscorers on a subpage of the PSV article you can just translcude the full text into the main article using the double squiggly brackets. They work like templates, but aren't in template space. ~ trialsanderrors 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I see, but then what is the difference of having Eredivisie 2006-07/Goalscorers or having PSV Eindhoven/Goalscorers 2006-07? Looks pretty similar to me, with the first one (the way it more or less was) having to create less articles. SportsAddicted | discuss 01:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I would guess that if you add the goalscorers to the PSV article people won't object as long as it kept up to date. A league-wide list, as we've seen does not have consensus. Wikipedia works in mysterious ways sometimes. It often matters more where you put the info that whether the info is acceptable. ~ trialsanderrors 02:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the main objections was that having these for every league of each and every season would be too much articles to create and affect the wikiservers. This would create even more articles if you're going to do it for every team in every league in every season. SportsAddicted | discuss 10:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD

Hello and thanks for your comment. I've left you a response here. Thanks, again. —Viriditas | Talk 06:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caldari

Thankyou for restoring Caldari. Fosnez 10:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Infomanager

Massive longtime sockpuppetting with commercial purposes is a grave violation. It is not, like, teenagers trying to bend rules of adults. This person must bear full responsibility for his acts. The article must stay deleted until independent request. `'mikka 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

Thanks for contributing to my RfA! Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. As I only gained a "mere" 117 supports I feel I only deserved a Category 3 support, but I hope that my actions will soon show me worthy of your trust. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] who moved my cheese

My most favorite thing from wikipedia discussions in a long time is your reference to the "Who moved my cheese" mindset of wikiprojects. --lquilter 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should add that to my long-planned WikiPhilosophy Dump subpage... ~ trialsanderrors 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afd2 and the anchor

The anchor needs to use {{{pg}}} and anchorencode: to work. I've left a note about this on Template talk:Afd2. --ais523 12:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ass to mouth

You seem to have created a dead link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass to mouth (2nd nomination) and I can find no record of the past discussion. What is going on? --JWSchmidt 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It means that whoever wants to renominate the article can do it, it was just not a community decision at DRV. The redlink is just there so people can see if/when it is renominated. ~ trialsanderrors 04:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it normal for there to be no archive of the past discussion? --JWSchmidt 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? DRV is fully archived, back to, I believe, 2003. ~ trialsanderrors 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Wikipedia:Esperanza

I've been in discussion with Carcharoth about ways forward from/away the deletion review. I've contacted the five admins mostly responsible for the deletions, and have gained approval from three so far, waiting on two, that if me and Carcharoth compile a list they would be happy to review their deletions of for me to review them. Note I was involved in the close too, but mainly in moves, I moved the collab and the calendar. Now in theory this is supposed to happen before the DRV is opened, from what I remember, but now it is open I'm not sure where to take it. Is it possible to set aside the review, assuming the two other admin's give approval to reviewing their deletions, and then once we have a list and have reviewed them as closing admins, if people are still unhappy could it be restarted, with a better list of articles. Appreciate your input on this. Steve block Talk 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, if there is an agreement between the involved parties that always overrides DRV. A DRV ruling is only the last resort if the parties can't come to an agreement. ~ trialsanderrors 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Does that include the review initiator? Steve block Talk 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd think so. I haven't looked at the DRV since I moved to a separate subpage, but it looks like a mess and anything that can be done to untangle this would be much appreciated. ~ trialsanderrors 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new child wikipedian category

Hi, Category:12 year old Wikipedians was created on 14:44, 3 January 2007 by User:M.Hassan-uz-Zaman, the only member of the category. I think this qualifies as a speedy delete as a recreation of Category:Child Wikipedians but in light of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Child Wikipedians I thought I should notify some more experienced wikipedians know. John Vandenberg 01:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like someone beat me to it... ~ trialsanderrors 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imposter of a living person

This is worse the any sockpuppet ever could be. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia. That editor has stolen my identity. I wish to remain private about this though. I clicked on the article about what links here at the Bruce Levine article and then that imposter user's page showed up. This is identity theft.

Can you email me from your utc account? My email address is my username at gmail. ~ trialsanderrors 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evan Sackett

I'm new to Wikipedia. Last week, I nominated Evan Sackett for deletion, for non-notability. The article was deleted yesterday (for COI and suspected sockpuppetry among other reasons), but is already back up. I tried to nominate the article for deletion again, but ran in to some technical difficulties. I put it on the AfD page but it just reverted the old discussion for deletion. I think it should be speedily deleted again... could you take a look? Thanks! Rockstar915 02:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll let someone else speedy delete it this time, so that it doesn't just stand as my own decision. Clearly, the new article asserts even less notability than the last one. ~ trialsanderrors 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cumberland, MD

The Further Links of Cumberland, MD page was made and link to the Cumberland, MD wiki page due to continued arguements with Metros232....those links pertain to Cumberland and Cumberland Metro but can not be added in the main article. SVRTVDude 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They cannot be branched out into a separate article either. Articles consisting of external links only are subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A3. I recommend coming to an agreement with Metros232 about which links can be included in the main Cumberland article. My guess is very few. ~ trialsanderrors 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
TandE, I wish I could come to an agreement with Metros232 and I have tried, but I can find no happy medium with him. That is why I bought it to everyone's attention so others may voice their opinion other than just one.

Rock on....SVRTVDude 10:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunny morning...

...when I read this, and made me spill my frappé! (rings any bell?) :-) NikoSilver 12:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undelete to user space?

You recently closed the afd for Further Links for Cumberland, Maryland (AFD). I was wondering if you could undelete it to my userspace? I have no connection to the article nor do I think it needs to return. I would just like to see if any of the links could be mined for inclusion in dmoz. I'd ask for it to be speedy deleted when I was done. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I snagged a hundred or so links from the article history. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I was wondering if you need it restored to transwiki. ~ trialsanderrors 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sock on DRV

Can you take a look at User:Alexander Cain; who has been commenting in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 17#rec.sport.pro-wrestling for two of his four edits. I suspect they may be a sockpuppet of the banned user that caused a recent AFD to be deleted. I certainly don't want to have the DRV lost to this issue, and you have more expertise than me. GRBerry 01:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll keep an eye on him. ~ trialsanderrors 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evan Sackett (again)

Sorry to keep bothering you, but just wanted to let you know that Evan Sackett (whose original article was deleted twice) has resurfaced, under the name C. Evan Sackett. I'm going to recommend speedy delete... Rockstar915 05:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. I might have to look into the sockpuppeteering issue too. Thanks for the heads-up. ~ trialsanderrors 05:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thanks so much! And absolutely, we should keep an eye on this guy. Though I have to give it to him -- he's persistent! Rockstar915 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Response

Thank you very much for the careful look at my last 1000 edits, and I appreciate the chance to clear up any misconceptions. Unfortunately, I am forced to concur with your findings - the last 1000 edits spans a little over a week, and I am afraid that my contributions over that time period have been almost uniformly janitorial. I can see a few refs added [4][5] and a clean up on an already well done AFC submission (Black River (Connecticut River)), and a ref cleanup on Hernando de Soto (economist). Those are cherry-picking, however, and I'm afraid that any attempt to pretend that I am a prolific article builder will fail. Removing vandalism reverts, gnomish activities, and *FD discussions over the last year, I would have perhaps 1500-2000 "builder" edits that come in massive fits and spurts (when I have days off from work, usually). If I can help cull the edits back a little farther, I would be delighted to do so - but I have no pretense to being a major contributor to original content, and I am in awe of those who are. Thanks again! Kuru talk 14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I moved to support. I still recommend putting the vandalfighting gun away once in a while and do some article editing. It'll be even harder as an admin. ~ trialsanderrors 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary Undeletion

Dear Trials, Would you be willing to temporarily undelete "RKO Industries" in order "To permit a deleted article to be transwikified or properly moved to a sister wiki-site."? Recycledagplastic 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the sister wiki? ~ trialsanderrors 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
wikidweb.com Recycledagplastic 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. I'll delete again tomorrow. ~ trialsanderrors 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank You Recycledagplastic 20:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
All finished... Thanks again. By the way, me being new to wiki, I don't know what the parenthesized green or red + and - numbers are next to contributor's names. Can you afford me an explanation or link to page which does? Recycledagplastic 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Is that on your watchlist? I think that's the number of letters added or removed in the last change. ~ trialsanderrors 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, on my watchlist. Thanks for the help. Regards, Recycledagplastic 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DRV/WP:EA

Regarding your closing comments on the DRV:

The consensus result of this discussion is that Mailer diablo's closure was proper and should be implemented. Most of the discussion seems to be about differing interpretations what the closure entailed, and how it was supposed to be implemented. The simplest way to resolve this, and it seems that this has finally happened, is always to ask the closing admin for clarification. So I hope the implementation proceeds civilly and collegially from now on, in the spirit that Esperanza tried to promote. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Trialsanderrors, with all due respect, the closing comments are quite vague from my perspective. How exactly should everyone involved in the DRV plan to implement the closure? I hope that we can resolve this matter as peacefully as possible, but there needs to be a clear course of action in implementing the closure. This was one of the problems on the WP:MFD, so I would request a bit of clarification on those comments.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you check with Mailer Diablo? ~ trialsanderrors 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll do that right now. I would also like to point out that I have been watching some deleted pages (the ones that were to be Messedrockerified) and there has been no evidence of implementations of the closure.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that halfway through the discussion some editors came to their senses and started to organize the pages so that they can be categorized and, if Mailer diablo approves, deleted/undeleted/redirected or whatever the decision for the individual page is. Page is here: User:Carcharoth/Esperanza MfD review. Once that's done I'm happy to help with the actual effort. But I'm not going to get involved in the dispute. My task was only to decided whether the closure was proper, and I couldn't find any editor who actually seriously challenged the closure, just repeated arguments on how to interpret it, akin to squabbling disciples of a dead philospher. Now last time I checked Mailer diablo was still alive and even if he's on wikibreak he still responds to inquiries. So the first two steps should be 1. Organize the pages so that everybody willing to help can easily help, and 2. Ask Mailer diablo for final adjustments or the Go command. Once that's done I don't even see much a dispute anymore. ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Since you are the closing admin of the DRV, I will inform you when our efforts are finished, so that you can evaluate our actions.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think my part is mostly done, which was to determine whether the MfD closure was proper. If I get involved in the future then only to help out where needed in the deletion/undeletion business. I certainly hope this doesn't come back to DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's inspiring me quite a bit...

...but to keep you posted on the "DRV is broken" project, I'll be starting it hardcore this weekend once there are 45 clear days worth of information to work off of. Of course, this specific one is slowly working out to be one of those instances where the brokenness is clear, if it closes the way I suspect it will. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you just got support from Bwithh on that one — not someone who's easily convinced of enc. notability. But I definitely like to hear about your findings. Btw, I was surprised recently that you said you would oppose my proposal that A7/G11/Prod deletions would be restored and passed on to AfD if at least one admit sees merit in it. Certainly the Lil' Sonic article is a case that would benefit from it. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll be honest - I'm not familiar with that proposal, which leads me to believe I misread something. It's been a very interesting couple weeks for me, link me up and I'll take another look? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Currently in draft stage at User:Trialsanderrors/DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 03:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about Congress

Would you be so kind as to go here and weigh in on the discussion? --Appraiser 15:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In a second... ~ trialsanderrors 18:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Test cases for Notability (science)

I noticed that you have added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smarandache-Wellin number to Wikipedia:Notability (science)/Test cases. It seems to me that the relevant sub-guideline for this AfD is actually Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), which applies not just to individual numbers, but also to "kinds of numbers and lists of numbers" as well. So I am not sure if this AfD is a good test case for Wikipedia:Notability (science). I am not sure that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euler prime is a good test case either, for the same reason. Not trying to be an interfering busybody here - it may be that I have misunderstood the purpose of the test cases, in which case perhaps you could put me straight ? Thanks. Gandalf61 12:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's also about testing whether WP:SCI comes up with similar results as other notability guidelines. Ideally, in borderline cases like this, notability guidelines should not contradict each other and if they do, we would probably have to tweak WP:SCI. Of course there's are cases where notability guidelines can come to a different result (a professor who is also a pornstar?), but in general they should express the same overarching principle. ~ trialsanderrors 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I was assuming that these test cases were meant to be evaluated under WP:SCI. So ... if an AfD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smarandache-Wellin number has been evaluated under WP:NUMBER, then how do you tell whether the result of the AfD would been the same under WP:SCI - or am I misunderstanding again ? Gandalf61 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the disclaimer at WP:SCI/TC says that WP:SCI is still heavily edited (or was as of about a week ago), so using it as a yardstick would be premature. Once it settles, and editors will become aware of its existence it might become more frequently used. As of how this is done, usually if a test case shows an interesting development it will be discussed at WT:SCI. ~ trialsanderrors 20:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animation

Trialsanderrors: Thanks for your vote. Please "E-mail this user" on my talk page and I'll send you my actual e-mail address. I'd like you see your screentoned version and hope you will e-mail it to me if it works out OK. Greg L 18:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userfied goalscorers articles

I saw you deleted the articles for good, but then I saw that you created Dutch leagues userfied goalscorer articles for Sports Addicted. Can articles like that be in fact created for them to be updated by the users? I understand I need an account, and I have one that I don't use but I could use, but first I'd change the username because it contains part of my name... By the way, it is me, 190... from the DRV. 201.240.6.253 15:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I can userfy, but mostly for use elsewhere. Userspace isn't the place to keep articles that were rejected for article space. ~ trialsanderrors 18:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know more about it, since those articles are useful to me. If they are userfied elsewhere, please let me know. I'm particularly interested in FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers, La Liga 2006-07 goalscorers, Serie A 2006-07 goalscorers and the already userfied Eredivisie 2006-07 goalscorers.201.240.6.253 18:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You'd have to create an account first though. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll be back with an acccount soon.190.40.71.214 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Really sorry for the delay, but I'm waiting for an account to be renamed because my username contains private information. As soon as it is renamed I'll be here. Thanks. 190.40.71.214 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's my account. Thanks. I'd only like the FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscoreres article userfied because it is the only one I'll be able to keep updated. And if there are other articles of other leagues userfied, I'd appreciate if you'd let me know where. Thanks again. PLfan 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I almost missed it. I'll take care of it today. ~ trialsanderrors 18:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So, will this be done? Thank you. PLfan 20:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there.will you be able to do it or not? And when? ant it. Thanks. PLfan 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Just did the Premiership one. Will do the others now. Just be aware that I will redelete them within a week or so. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to delete the Dutch ones now, cheers. SportsAddicted | discuss 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused... Are they going to be deleted soon? I wanted it userfied so I can keep up with it. If you will redelete them then I guess it was a little pointless doing so. Please give me more information about userfying articles because I'm confused. PLfan 16:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
See above: I can userfy, but mostly for use elsewhere. Userspace isn't the place to keep articles that were rejected for article space. ~ trialsanderrors 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
But the article wasn't deleted because of article space, but because it somehow fall under Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Then what is the point of userfying? Can't I as a user have a subpage where I keep the list of goalscorers for a football league, as many, many other users do with things such as countries visited, cities visited, etc.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PLfan (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long
Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey
May there be many summer mornings when
With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time

Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey
And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something
To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable
This is my assistance with anything I can help.

[edit] My RfA

While I acknowledge that you were partially correct in your reasons for objecting to my my RfA, I feel that you were also partially incorrect and misrepresented my contributions, particularly as to your underestimation of the number of edits I have made to the Image namespace (as edits to deleted images, like deleted articles, do not factor at all in a user's edit count). I would much appreciate it if you read and responded to my comment left beneath yours at my RfA. Thank you. Qwghlm 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to neutral per your diffs. I'll wait and see what others find. ~ trialsanderrors 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Your swift and considerate response is much appreciated. Qwghlm 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ProductWiki

I attempted to review the record of the January 19 DR of ProductWiki. I can not seem to find it although other DR records of that date can be found there. Please advise me where I can find it.Edivorce 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was relisted and is now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 25#ProductWiki. ~ trialsanderrors 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Edivorce 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24

I hope I didn't step on your toes at all with closing the Piotr Blass one - see my reasoning with the hide/show feature. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No no, I was hoping someone else would close it so I can comment in the AfD, which I just did. ~ trialsanderrors 10:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, it seems like all my recent boldness is turning to gold - or at least being accepted. Well, that's good to hear :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Raoul Wallenberg

I am trying to bring the article to FA status, but am stalled at GA. How can I bring more attention to the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What have you tried so far? It seems like requesting input at the relevant Wikiprojects (WII, Holocaust) and inviting former editors to have a second look at the article might be a good way to go. It doesn't seem like there is an edit conflict, just not enough attention. ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic query

Hey Trials, I was just wondering if there were any research papers or studies on Wikipedia out there which you might recommend as particularly interesting? I'm doing a little academic literature search on Wikipedia of my own at the moment (not in school or research at the moment... but might be going back, herm.) - there's a lot out there (WP:ACST) though quite often carried out by people who don't actually seem to use Wikipedia very much. (btw, what's your PhD in? I'm guessing Philosophy of Science?). Thanks very much for any tips! Bwithh 21:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In business & public policy, which is Berkeley's way of saying "economics at the business school". I can't say I ever came near a philosophical text. I'd say the best way to start is to look at blogs like crookedtimber.org and do a site search for wikipedia. I don't think there is any published research on Wikipedia, but I can imagine that lots of young academics try to write something on the topic. ~ trialsanderrors 21:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll check it out. (I guess I thought you were a philosophy of science guy from your science notability guideline in development...) Bwithh 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No, my interest in WP:SCI came from the AfD on the Falun Gong health benefits we participated in some time ago, and some similar cases. ~ trialsanderrors 04:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gantt chart software

Could you please restore a copy of the former article to somewhere in my userspace so that I can recreate the internal wiki links as appropriate? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I recreated it and set a redirect to Gantt chart. Content is reviewable here. ~ trialsanderrors 06:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think there's a valid article to be made with only internal links and intend to try to do so, but won't undo the redirect until/unless I've got more than a stub there. Georgewilliamherbert 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up: AFDs needing closing

[6], [7], [8] DogJesterExtra 02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Secretpromo4.PNG

We need to discuss a debate on the talk page (Image talk:Secretpromo4.PNG), since we're having an issue on usage on the Ayumi Hamasaki article. Bigtop 06:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I got the message on the image talk page. Would you rather keep this image or not? I put this image on the Secret (Ayumi Hamasaki album) article. Bigtop 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] relisting afds

Hi, when you relist AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeMediaOnline.org, please remember to remove them from the old day log, otherwise they still show up as open on that day, and can lead to confusion (see the history of this article and the AfD for an example). Thanks. --W.marsh 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I know, but missed out on that one. ~ trialsanderrors 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, [9]. ~ trialsanderrors 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sinister motives"

Perhaps you can please explain to me where your concern for AGF was when Sdedeo 1) Smeared a living person in the first sentence of the AfD, and, 2) When I was personally identified by name and accused of COI by the first editor to register a vote. It wasn't even that you remained silent; in fact you endorsed the behavior, my citation of Wikipedia policy to the contrary notwithstanding. This question is not rhetorical. I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply. Thank you. --Rgfolsom 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lack of civility and bad faith are two different things. I commented on the "crank", I think the terminology is out of line. I also disagree with the WP:VANITY, it's a shorthand we're no longer supposed to use. I'll notify the editor. Regarding your name, this should be brought up at the ArbCom case, although my reading there was it was not a contested issue. Regarding your WP:COI in the matter, I generally welcome contributions of editors with a vested interest to AfD discussions, since then we can be reasonably sure that all the evidence in favor of the claim to notability is on the table, so I don't see COI as an accusation. You should be clear that the vested interest puts you in a different role in the deletion discussion though. ~ trialsanderrors 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Hi there! Could you please check the whatlinkshere for double redirects when e.g. moving {{DRV bottom}}? Thanks. >Radiant< 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article being recreated

Hello. You once helped close an article on one "Allen Greenfield." After much debate, the article was deleted on the basis that the person it pertained to was "non noteworthy." The article is being recreated under the heading of "Allen H. Greenfield" and was recently recreated under the name of "T. Allen Greenfield" (but that entry was deleted and protected to prevent recreation.) Please advise me on what to do about this abuse of process. Eyes down, human. 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw, but I disagree -- given that the last article to be AFD'd was protected, I think it is the burden of the author to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review before reposting. NawlinWiki 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Awright, fine, I'll reinstate it and the AFD (grumble). NawlinWiki 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dogme ELT

The record shows that a deletion was made by the user Trialsanderrors [[10] The Stub was in full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines yet it was deleted. The stub was replaced as is warranted and the preciptous action taken the first time then became the sole purpose for second deletion. This circular reasoning does not comply with Wikipedia policy.

A Request for Arbitration has been made [[11]].

Please abstain from any further deletions of the Dogme ELT stub. Take your views ot the Dogme ETL Talk page if you wish to be involved in this matter. Malangthon 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong door. I'll send it to deletion review for you. ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socionomics

I just left a message on Jeff's talk page that I didn't realize the time-length it had been open. You apparently beat me to the reopening. JoshuaZ 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, no harm done. Sorry for being less clear. ~ trialsanderrors 01:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your comments here: [12]. You obviously put significant time into investigating the background and writing an effective comment. You've given me a much-needed morale boost :) Kla'quot 06:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that you're getting the run-around from a bunch of editors. Pretty much yesterday I decided I had to step in less because of the case but because of the shabby treatment you were given by a bunch of people who should be held to higher standards by their roles in this community. Well, let's see if apologies (or even requests for sources) are forthcoming, or if the three monkeys still reign supreme. trialsanderrors 06:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 blocked users

I had already blocked Veyron, Dannie now blocked as well. Thanks, NawlinWiki 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks back! ~ trialsanderrors 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SCI

The hardest part of this stuff is often throwing out well-intentioned, well-written content that is just, as you say, TLDR. I encourage you to keep going and keep stripping. Sdedeo (tips) 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please check the copyrights for the images on your user page

The two images (outside any user boxes) may not be legal for use on user pages. Both are marked with an obsolete copyright template. While that template appears to be a public domain template, the new version states the copyright should be checked. Depending on the results of that test, the images might be deleted. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. PD, but I gotta go through a bunch of pix on Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

What does "deletion endorsed" mean? Simply south 11:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It means a qualified majority of the editors thought the deletion was in order. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of literary works with eponymous heroines

Hi, I see you have "projectified" the above list. I'll write an introduction there explaining that although it can now be found under "WikiProject Novels" it includes of course all literary genres; there are lots of plays and some poems on the list.

I don't want to do anything untoward again, so may I ask you how I should go about the red links caused by the deletion of the list? Should I change each of them separately to point directly to the WikiProject Novels, or should I recreate the original page title and use it as a redirect page? Would any of the above be original research?

Thanks in advance, and all the best, <KF> 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I might be wrong on that, but I've seen discussions on speedy deletions of cross-namespace redirects, and they've all been upheld. It seems like changing the links manually seems like a better idea, and the number doesn't seem that large: links to heroines, links to heroes. ~ trialsanderrors 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit larger than that because some pages still link to the original Heroines in literature title, but I'll do what you are suggesting. Thanks a lot. <KF> 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that. ~ trialsanderrors 18:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young Hot Rod

This article was deleted and a DRV for it failed with a suggestion to create an article in userspace. I have since created a sourced article at User:Recury/Young Hot Rod. Let me know if I'm not talking to the right person about this or if the article is lacking somehow. Thanks. Recury 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the Vibe interview as a reference. I would recommend that you look for some more sources and add a bit more before posting it at WP:DRV. If the page is protected you need to submit it to DRV for review before it can be put back in article space. In this case, I'm missing a good claim to notability (no albums, awards, tours?) and 1 1/2 sources is a bit thin. You can submit it if you want, but as I said I'm not all too certain about its chances for success. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

A belated thanks for your thoughtful edit... I somehow didn't realize until just now when someone else mistakenly left me a vandalism warning for "vandalizing" my own user page around the same date as this edit. Bwithh 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the perks of being an admin. You can snoop around in deleted material... ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Balaskas

Thank you for your assistance on the Janet Balaskas article. I appreciate the effort you went to find some sources. Maustrauser 02:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oski-wa-wa

Dear Trials, You probably recognize me from the socionomics debate. I've been trying to stay fairly far away while things get resolved. Yes, it does get personal sometimes doesn't it? I came here to request you to clarify your "Keep, but ..." vote on the deletion. To me it's a bit confusing, but reads like "Delete, until shrimp learn to whistle"

While I was here I learned that we have a great deal in common. There's no need to go much into that, but I'd guess you spent a great deal of time in David Kinley Hall.

The WP:SCI project quite interests me, but I think it goes beyond just notability. There are some notable things that claim to be science, but are ignored by scientists, so a wikipedia article is very likely to be misleading, e.g. what's the chance of getting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal debunking socionomics?

As always, Smallbones 13:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Amended. I feel for the closing admin. Feel free to stop by at WT:SCI and elaborate on your concerns. I. L. L. ~ trialsanderrors 17:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campaigning

Hello Trialsanderrors! I chose to address this to you based on your involvement with WP:CANVASS. Although posted to a WikiProject and not to individual posters, this alert about a requested move meets the definition of "campaigning", in my opinion. No such alert has been made at Talk:Crusades. What are your thoughts on the matter? Olessi 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it and asked to editor to use neutral language. Informing a WikiProject is ok, issuing a call to arms is not. I also posted a note to the closing admin at the discussion itself. ~ trialsanderrors 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. Olessi 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

As I've noted at the deletion review for Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, the entire editing situation surrounding articles about Rachel Marsden is intolerable. I have tremendous respect for the ArbCom and am extremely reluctant to criticize people who volunteer to do a difficult job and make controversial decisions that will be second-guessed (as I'm doing here). However, I think the decision in the above-referenced case did not clarify the situation, but only muddied the waters further. As I explained at DRV, I see future, repeated recreation and deletion of articles related to Marsden under the princples set out in the ArbCom case.

I'm writing to Sam, Kla'quot, SlimVirgin and trialsanderrors to see if we can jointly submit a request for clarification on some points in these principles. I have a working page in my userspace at User:JChap2007/Marsden_ArbCom_request_for_clarification where I've started to work on some questions. Please feel free to add some if you want or propose different wording. JChap2007 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I added my questions. ~ trialsanderrors 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I suggested a wording change. See if you agree. JChap2007 23:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Accepted. I'll leave you free reign to reformulate my questions. ~ trialsanderrors 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity and Buddhism

There is a slow-burning edit war occurring at this page, which recently had an AfD that was closed (by you, based on the shorter version) with no consensus. I am an innocent bystander in the situation but it is clearly not getting better, and I thought I'd ask you for your opinion as to which version of the article is the more appropriate, short or long. Some of the votes in the last AfD, and your closing, indicated that the article should be given time to develop before rushing to judgment. However, no one can really be sure which version to try to improve with the current state of affairs. Dekimasuが... 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'll have a look at it later today. ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment (though to little effect). Dekimasuが... 04:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overclock DRV

I closed it because it was identical to another DRV on the same article that JzG speedily closed yesterday. I've gone ahead and reopened it. --Coredesat 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden

Could I ask you please to stop using your admin tools in relation to the Marsden controversy article? You undeleted it for deletion review, protected it, have undeleted the new title, and yet you're editing the article. We have to choose whether to approach these issues as admins or editors, but not both. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The totality of my edits amount to this. May I ask you to put a minimum amount of effort of acquainting yourself with the facts before you use your admin tools? The DRV was closed as no consensus and returned to AfD, as can be plainly seen from the AfD tag and nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 10:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I was about to reverse my deletion when you did it instead, without contacting me. It really doesn't matter how little of the article you edit; we're not supposed to get adminning and editing mixed up. All I'm requesting is that you bear that in mind for the future. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Mixing editorial and administrative actions is governed by prudence. There is no Chinese Wall between the two activities, as GRBerry demonstrated. ~ trialsanderrors 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for clarification for DRV of List of tall men

Hello,

The list of tall men article was the first and only one I've taken to DRV, so I'm not sure about the closing procedures. Could you just please present the rationale for endorsing deletion? I am not questioning your decision, but am curious as to how the decision is made. For instance, is closing determined just by the existence (or lack thereof) of consensus or are votes subject to valuation/de-valuation based on the quality of the arguments? The raw "vote" was 12-12 (including non-admins), when counting not just bolded votes but in-text comments as well (see below). Is voting limited only to administrators? If so, I could not confirm (based on user/talk pages and edit histories) a number of the contributors/voters on both sides admins (for instance, I am not, nor is User:JuJube).

Your clarification would be appreciated. Thank you, Black Falcon 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have another look at and let you know. ~ trialsanderrors 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you are relisting List of tall men and List of tall women. If so, please bundle the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of short men as well as List of short women. Pomte 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
No. I see differences in substance between the two types of lists. I added a mention of the parallel discussions though. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for relisting both articles together. Black Falcon 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: my talk page

Thanks for notifying me. By the way--- why is AfD called "the old chopping block"? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it appears that way at times... ~ trialsanderrors 07:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd DRV Status

On the February 3rd DRV page we have an active discussion for the article Evil_Inc.. It is unclosed, yet an admin has [13] the page "as per Deletion Review". That admin needs a trout, but as the review is thus far unanimous, I'll leave it your capable hands to decide which way the trout should adjust this admin's clues, and to administer. GRBerry 14:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I troutslapped the nominator because there was not even an assertion that the AfD was out of process. We don't need to run DRV's because of new info unless the article is protected from recreation. But I'll let Dragonfly know as well. ~ trialsanderrors 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's some confusion over the whole deal (particularly the DRV screen), which may or may not already be a wildfire. Since I myself am not quite clear on the whole matter, perhaps you could clear things up? Nifboy 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that there is pretty wide consensus at the deletion review that Evil Inc. is notable (printed in at least one newspaper), would you ignore all rules and close the DRV as ‘overturn deletion’ (which is probably what the people there meant)? I’m quite certain that if the process continues, the result will be the same, only louder and with more confusion. —xyzzyn 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No I won't because "overturn" implies an error by the closing admin which clearly isn't given or even asserted. I asked the nominator to withdraw. ~ trialsanderrors 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. —xyzzyn 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on The Inquirer article

Hey Trials, Dionyseus has opened a RFC over two or three issues regarding Everywhere Girl on Talk:The_Inquirer#Should_the_Everywhere_Girl_section_be_placed_so_high_in_the_article.2C_and_should_two_Wikipedias_be_mentioned.3F__Should_there_even_be_an_Everywhere_Girl_section.3FThe Inquirer talk page. I am only concerned with the inclusion of my and dionyseus's username in the article - mainly due to the bad precedent it sets. As you recently reverted inclusion of these names, perhaps you would like to comment in the RFC (I believe Dionyseus has already informed the other editors who were in favour of inclusion). Thanks! Bwithh 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xxxchurch

I've tagged this article for speedy deletion on the basis that it's a repost of an AfD'd article. If it has already survived a deletion review, then this should have been noted on its talk page. If it hasn't survived a deletion review, then it should go through that process prior to its recreation. Rklawton 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Xxxchurch. ~ trialsanderrors 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Rklawton 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Userfy

Hi Trialsanderrors,

Thank you for taking the time to comment and decide on the Reynolds DRV. I would very much appreciate if you could userfy it for me as you suggested. As always, any comments/suggestions/critiques would, also, be much appreciated. Cheers, Gregorthebug 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me again what article that was? ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's the Bryan Reynolds entry. Thanks, Gregorthebug 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Done: User:Gregorthebug/Bryan Reynolds. ~ trialsanderrors 20:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Gregorthebug 15:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trialsanderrors,

I have revised the entry on Reynolds in response to the criticisms and suggestions made by other wiki users. I was hoping that you could look at it and judge whether it looks okay now. This is what I did: removed the photos of Reynolds that were taken from his personal website and replaced them with a photo from a conference website; removed the images of his books -- although entries on academics often have these -- so that the entry would not look like an advertisement of any kind; reduced the comments on his books to one paragraph each and removed all the academic jargon.

Also, I did the following: removed all qualitative comments on his work, so that the ideas are expressed without bias; included a list of references that substantiates everything mentioned and can be easily checked; included a list of recent honours; reduced to the introductory paragraph and created a summary box.

Do you think it's ready to go back up? Thanks, Gregorthebug 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would send it to AfD, at least procedurally. There is a lot in there that creates the impression of self-promotion, and I'm not clear how many of the references are on Reynolds from independent sources. Call at AfD could go either way in my guess. ~ trialsanderrors 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Since most of the articles referenced are entirely about Reynolds’ work -- they are reviews of his books -- I have now indicated this. An earlier version of the entry included quotations from work on Reynolds. These were cut because one Wiki user commented that they made the entry seem too promotional. Do you think they should be re-entered? Gregorthebug 14:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (edit: forgot to sign the post)
The whole article has a bit of a promotional tinge to it, like something his department would put out for him as a press release. But AfD decides mostly based on notability, and that seems established. Maybe it'll give you some pointers on how to make the article more neutral. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trialsanderrors,

Following your suggestion, I put the entry up here for AfD. Someone responded, however, by saying that the article does not exist, and should rather be placed in the Deletion review. I'm a bit confused now. Is the deletion review the place to put it, or is the problem that the entry is a user page (and should made into an entry before being placed in the AfD)? Thanks, Gregorthebug 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. ~ trialsanderrors 20:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Game-theory-stub}}

Hi Trialsanderrors - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it is not named according to stub naming guidelines (Gametheory-stub would be correct, since we don't have any such stub type as theory-stub for it to be a subtype of). it's also not clear that it would reach the required threshold for a separate stub type. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't see it. Responded there. ~ trialsanderrors 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu

Do you mind having a look at this AfD for me? I know you have a lot of experience of AfD process and so I would appreciate your comments on this one. A non-admin closed the AfD as a speedy keep, which I know WP:CSK warns against. However, as I understood it even an improper close of AfD should be taken to WP:DRV. I therefore reverted an anon's reversion of Adrian's close. Jeffrey O. Gustafson then reverted my actions posting with the following notices and edit summaries: [14], [15]. I just wanted to clarify (a) if I did anything wrong and (b) if it is proper for admins to revert (potentially incorrect) non-admin closes. Thanks, WjBscribe 10:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See appropriate discussion at [[16]]. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebony Anpu AfD

Hello. You recently commented and/or voted on the AfD for the Ebony Anpu article here. FYI, the AfD has been reset because the discussion was not about the merits of the article, but instead about procedural issues. You are welcome to leave a new comment about whether or not the article should be included here, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu. In order to be as fair as possible to the article's creators and those who feel it should be deleted, all comments about Wikipedia deletion procedure as it relates to this specific AfD are being directed to the AfD's talk page, here. Thanks for your time, and sorry for the wikispam. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zzuuzz's RfA

Hey, you stated in your opposition that his answer to Question 2 wasn't good, so I figure I would let you know that he has now expanded on it. Hopefully you'll reconsider your opposition, but if not I guess that's fine. (I agree that his first version of Q2 was quite disappointing).--Wizardman 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've withdrawn my oppose and might look into the contribution record more closely later. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Twiggy promo.jpg

Thank you for undeleting Image:Twiggy promo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the copyright holder of the image. If you can provide verifiable copyright holder information, then you can add it to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jkelly 02:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My job is to determine consensus a DRV, which was that the need for deletion was not sufficiently established. For further information, I recommend following the leads at http://www.twiggylawson.co.uk/contact.html ~ trialsanderrors 02:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to uploading/undeleting media that we have no license to republish, I'd like to invite you to expand your thinking about what your job is; we're all obliged to make sure that our copyright and licensing policies are adhered to. As I'm sure you're aware, we're currently in the midst of doing some rethinking about our approach to unfree media, which may mean that it makes sense to wait and see what develops before doing a lot of decision-making here. That said, regardless of what happens, please don't republish copyrighted images here irrespective of licensing, without proper credit to the photographer and/or copyright holder. Jkelly
First, fair use is a licenceless form of publication, and it is clearly marked as such. Second, my job is to determine consensus among Wikipedians. You had your chance to present your PoV during the debate and it didn't find consensus. That happens all the time on Wikipedia. The consensus was that attribution to the official hompage was sufficient for restoration, hence my restoration. Third, the scope of DRV is solely to determine whether the need for discussion was exhausted, and consensus was that this issue requires further discussion at the original discussion forum: the image talk page. So please continue your argument there. EOC. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about this particular image. If someone actually bothers to track down copyright holder and authorship information and makes a valid Wikipedia:Fair use claim, that's fine. What I'm trying to convey is that your response to an uninformed vote was to undelete something that violates our copyright and licensing policies. I want to suggest that perhaps a less reflexive approach to handling such things in the future would be a benefit to the project. I'm further concerned by your response above -- your first point seems to suggest that you didn't read what I wrote, and your use of "PoV" seems to suggest that you treat copyright like an editorial content dispute. en: is increasingly having to deal with policies, such as WP:FUC and WP:BLP that take into account the impacts of web publishing in the real world, incorporate direction from the Foundation, and which do not have wide consensus as we usually understand that term, because a lot of people really hate having these constraints. I'm not asking for any kind of commitment here, I'd really just like you to do some thinking about this. Forget the image, would you undelete a WP:BLP violation if there were enough votes to do so? Jkelly 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
EOC means End of Communication, if that wasn't clear. Continue at → Image talk:Twiggy promo.jpg with whoever wants to discuss this with you. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I am reading this and scratching my head. We must have a proper source (the copyright holder, not simply a website where it can be found) for images claiming "fair use; this is policy. If the copyright holder is not credited (regardless of whether it is actually fair use in the article; I'm not taking a position on that), it should be deleted—regardless of what DRV says. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is this still being discussed here? DRV does not decide whether the image stays, it decides whether there is further need for discussion or whether the issue has been exhaustively addressed. Since there are in fact avenues to establish the provenance of the image (as I noted above) discussion has been passed back to the original deletion forum, i.e. the image talk page. PLEASE POST FURTHER COMMENTS THERE. ~ trialsanderrors 03:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Um, did I do something wrong? I don't see why you would just overwrite my closing just like that... Titoxd(?!?) 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Edit conflict. For some reason your closure made the discussion disappear, so I swapped my closure in. ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I realized I left the header in, which I fixed in the next edit... Titoxd(?!?) 05:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah I couldn't figure out what was going on, but since I've already finished my closure I just wapped it in. There's also a bit of a protocol in closing DRV's which you seem to be unaware of, e.g expressing the result in passive voice and linking to the contnuing debate. I don't recognize you as a frequent commenter at DRV, so I recommend sticking around a bit to see how the mechanics are done. ~ trialsanderrors 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I used to be a regular at DRV, so I know how the actual policy behind closures is, but I haven't actually edited there in a regular basis since... um, the userbox wars, approximately, and then when things got spun off into subpages, they just dropped off from my radar completely. I still have the page watchlisted, so I saw a request for help on the talk page, and decided to dust off the ol' broom. Titoxd(?!?) 06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh no problem, didn't mean to overturn your actual decision, since we came to the same conclusion in closing. ~ trialsanderrors 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Trialsanderrors/Brchive

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little help

Could I get a little help here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Harassment? WP:PAIN gets removed and users get harassed and no one seemingly wants to take the time to take care of it. As I pointed out the harassing comments have been going on on that talk page for awhile now and I'd like to see a third party remove it, as well there has been just unending vandalism of my user page and talk page because of it (I realize not much to do there besides revert, but a third party cleaning things up might get them to cool it a bit. Thanks for any help you can give.--Crossmr 03:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it. Sorry I'm not online as often these days. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
No worries, it had sat for hours, then when I left you a message someone else takes care of it ;) Seems someone was reading my mind, though the IP is back again. I've a fairly good idea who the IP is, but it seems he ditched his account in favour of just harassing with random IPs.--Crossmr 06:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I semi-protected the talk page for now. See how it goes. ~ trialsanderrors 06:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks man, appreciate it.--Crossmr 07:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I can almost guarentee this person is our IP Begley (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Trying to push in the same content that I discussed to death with an IP months ago that was determined just to be unsourced editorializing.--Crossmr 07:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll keep an eye on the situation. ~ trialsanderrors 07:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is the proof. Here he states he has a user name and is using his IP for abuse [17]. And here you can see the IP editing this article [18] Which is also being edited by Jake b (talk • contribs) who was the individuals whose off-topic comment I removed months ago on the Jame's kim Talk page. The harassment started immediately and other administrators were involved then. Obviously he has no interest in stopping, so I don't think I need to ask for what needs to be done.--Crossmr 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Kappa Nu

On your comment on the deletion review you stated that "Endorse deletion The Kimbrough source seems substantial enough to discuss this subject in context, but the context is Kappa Alpha Psi. Unless there are more substantive sources (especially sources that are independent of each other and don't draw on the same primary material), an encyclopedic discussion in a stand-alone article does not seem possible. " I also put down on Page 137 of African American Fraternities and Sororities: [19] as can be seen here

Alpha Kappa Nu
Alpha Kappa Nu

take a look at the image i sent for reference. If you cant view the link; sign up at to google and then you can view it on page 137 06:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I spent 20 minutes checking all the sources and the old versions of the article last night since no one else wanted to comment and this needs to be resolved one way or another. In my opinion the Kimbrough source was overlooked in the AfD, which made me consider asking for a rerun. But in the end the weight of the sources doesn't carry a full article but should get more consideration in the Kappa Alpha Psi article (an article which by itself needs independent sourcing). So if you're pursuing this out of encyclopedic interest and not because you have an agenda like some earlier editors I recommend growing the article organically: Start as a section in the Kappa Alpha Psi and, once the weight of sources allow for it, branch it out into a separate article. It's a historical remote topic, so I think it's possible to find more offline, but with the material we currently have I don't see a strong case for a stand-alone article, and I would expect it to be deleted in a new AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The book African American Fraternities and Sororities is not the Kimbrough book but actually another book. The photo quote is in case you weren't able to view it via google books. there are 3 notable primary sources (1) the kappa alpha psi history book. (2) the black greeks book, and (3) the african american fraternities and sororities. It's simply not kappa alpha psi; although they were one of the first to document Alpha Kappa Nu. Kappa Alpha Psi was originally Kappa Alpha Nu. The things that they have in common are that (1) they are founded at the same college (2) one was named after the other KAY was named after AKN and (3) they are black greeks. I don't think that it should simply be included in the Kappa Alpha Psi article, but can stand on it's own as the first black greek fraternity. FrozenApe

I know. I looked at all sources, but I didn't find the AAF&S information weighty enough, and most likely based on the same primary evidence. ~ trialsanderrors 07:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The index shows 137, 138, and 153 as being pages where you can look at AAF&S, please take a look at all 3 pages. Here is another source Steppin' on the Blues: The Visible Rhythms of African American Dance [20] and Black Haze: Violence, Sacrifice, and Manhood in Black Greek-Letter Fraternities By Ricky L. Jones page 34 [21] .. Thanks FrozenApe 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you take what you have and write an article in user space using the WP:AMNESIA test, at User:FrozenApe/Alpha Kappa Nu? You should also sign with four tildes: ~~~~. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

why use four rather than five tildes? Also, the article will be started from scratch. I'm going to use the history to help avoid the same controversy that got the article deleted in the first place. Also history is good to know some sources that were used. FrozenApe 08:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So I can see who posts on my talk page. I would recommend to do without the article history, just stick to what the sources tell you, and avoid making exaggerated claims. ~ trialsanderrors 08:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fair coin

I've moved checking if a coin is fair back to that title (and the title perhaps could be improved) and created a new article titled fair coin. The latter topic is much broader than the narrower topic of checking if a coin is fair. Possibly fair coin should redirect to Bernoulli trial; I will think about that. One goes through graduate school reading incessantly about (metaophorically named) "fair coins" and one reads innumerable scholarly papers relying on the concept of "fair coins"; and the topic is not ONLY about statistical hypothesis testing treating only that one hypothesis. Michael Hardy 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved to talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Featured picture candidates/Silvereye - Zosterops lateralis

Thanks for your great detective work on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Silvereye - Zosterops lateralis. You'll see that one of the other pictures from the same source is now up for FP removal at Commons. --MichaelMaggs 23:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I added my comment there. Looks like the other nomination didn't make it either. ~ trialsanderrors 06:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marskell -- peripherally related question

I noticed you opposed this RfA candidate with the comment:

  • "Policies and policy interpretation have changed massively over the last six months."

Call me clueless, but I was unaware of big shifts -- anyplace I can go to get a quick read on what they've been? Does someone maintain a page of this sort of stuff? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy if there were a place where you could just read up on it somewhere, but essentially the only way to see the magnitude of changes is to look at the diffs between June and now (in particular WP:N). But more importantly what has changed is the interpretation of our policies, a lot of which happens at WP:DRV and then feeds back to the XfD forums. Numerical consensus, which used to hold sway has lost most of its power and sources have much more important now. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. It would be nice to have all this summarized but your workarounds make sense. --A. B. (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Picture
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Lt Mike Hunter 1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 08:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 08:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canned tomato

I've removed the PROD because I think the topic is significant enough and can also be sourced adequaytely. --Tikiwont 11:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job. No probs from my side. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lt Mike Hunter, aviator

No, it wasn't made clear that this was supposed to be a nomination of a set of pictures. I've just re-read your nomination statement and I'm afraid I still don't get that impression. Therefore I promoted the image I believed was more popular, which was the first one. Arjun and Lewk of Serthic both indicated that they supported only the first image. Raven4x4x 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hi, trialsanderrors, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm always glad to get an Unterstützung. :-) I'm honored at the trust the community has placed in me and hope my conduct as an administrator will justify that trust. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 08:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion Review

Questions: According to Trialsanderrors it was a precerderal nomination. According to what policy or guideline it was a precerderal nomination. I quote: So this is hopefully the final debate over whether the edited and renamed page meets the requirement to remain in project space. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion other that I strongly prefer not to see this back at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Where is the policy to back up what this administrator said? Trialsanderrors endorses deletion because of the comments it was largely a recreation of the same article but trialsanderrors previously stated: ...the text of the article changed considerably... in the MFD. This comment by trialsanderrors contradicts his/her decision to endorse deletion it was the same list when he/she believed otherwise. The deletion review was supposed to be a remedy for any errors in the AFD. The AFD votes was for speedy delete according to the closing admin. Additionally in the AFD an adiminstator stated: I quote: The result was Speedy delete as POV and largely reposted conent. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC). How could the result be speedy delete when the text of the article changed considerably?! Here is the old version before. Click at the top left for the current version. They are substantially different which did not meet the criteria for speedy delete. I suggest you undelete the article if you made an honest mistake. I have provided strong evidence the new and different list was largely a different article with substantial changes to the text. There was much confusion at the AFD and the deletion review process. This was understandable. Thanks. --QuackGuru 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Was this meant to be sent to Woohookitty? I recommend you revise this and make it readable before you post it on his/her talk page, because it is largely unreadable. ~ trialsanderrors 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I posted this on your talk page. I am requesting you undelete the article because of considerable changed to the text according to you. Additionally, I have asked you a few questions to answer which you have not done. Thanks. --QuackGuru 17:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Which article? Try to focus, rewrite it as a coherent request for information, and you provide the information I need to give you an answer. Babbling will get you nowhere. ~ trialsanderrors 17:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The name of the article was the List of articles related to scientific skepticism. You endorsed deletion but the text considerably changed according to you. It did not meet the criteria of speedy delete. According to what policy or guideline it was a precerderal nomination at the MFD. Since it did not meet the criteria for speedy delete I am requesting the article be undeleted. This is a simple to understand request. Thanks --QuackGuru 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I endorsed deletion because a vast majority of editors endorsed deletion. In my memory the procedural (note spelling) nomination at MFD was in relation to the list in project space. And the policy that governs DRV is WP:UNDEL. ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There arguements to endorse deletion were unsubstantiated according to you. You stated previously, the text of the article changed considerably. According to what specifc policy it was a procedural nomination at the MFD. Please explain specifically how did the list meet the criteria for speedy delete. --QuackGuru 18:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The reasoning by Woohookitty looks more like a WP:SNOW to me, based on strong consensus in the AfD to delete. ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I am talking about your reasons too. The snow ball effect was in regard to a recreation of the same article. This was NOT true. It was a different article. Do you think it was largely the same article or a different article? There was confusion. That was the reason for the deletion review. I will ask you again: There arguements to endorse deletion at the deletion review were unsubstantiated according to you. You stated previously, the text of the article changed considerably. Please explain your reasons to endorse delete when editors made comments it was the same article but according to you the text of the article changed considerably. According to what specifc policy it was a procedural nomination at the MFD. Thanks --QuackGuru 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion. If I had one I would've added it as an editor and not closed the review. I already gave you the policy: WP:UNDEL, which stipulates that reviews are closed based on qualified majorities. ~ trialsanderrors 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, the article did not meet the criteria for speedy delete. I recommend you look at the history to understand the facts. That is what the deletion review was for. Since you stated above you have no opinion, you have not thoroughly looked at the history to understand it did not meet the criteria for speedy delete. You stated previously at the MFD your opinion is that the text of the article changed considerably. < Was this your opinion you previously stated? Please help me understand by explaining in detail, according to what specifc policy it was a procedural nomination at the MFD. If you are unable to explain this then I will assume you nominated the list at the MFD for deletion because you wanted to delete it off of Wikipedia and you saw the deletion review and jumped in and endorsed deletion. This may be a strong case for the COI or incident noticeboard. Thanks --QuackGuru 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion against a strong consensus of editors. I saw the DRV and jumped in and closed it? Until a week or so ago I used to close 95% of deletion reviews. Feel free to bring it up at ANI if you want to get laughed off of it. This discussion is over. ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I have asked trialsanderrors to answers a few basic questions with responses that do not have any validity. Example: Please help me understand by explaining in detail, according to what specific policy it was a procedural nomination at the MFD. Trialsanderrors has REFUSED to answer this question and other questions. Trialsanderrors nominated the list for deletion at the MFD and later endorsed deletion at a deletion review without an opinion. The deletion review is for pointing out errors in the AFD. Since the list did not meet the criteria for speedy delete which was the reason for deletion is should have been overturned. Arguements from editors that do not make any sense is not a reasonable consensus. --QuackGuru 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still need help

I wish you hadn't archived there. I still need help and I'm still being harassed. I think this individual and the others involved have exhausted any possible good faith we can afford them [22], [23].--Crossmr 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I permanently semiprotected the talk page and removed some recent inflammatory comments. I noticed the anonymous editor was already blocked for incivility and vandalism. ~ trialsanderrors 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Btw, I accidentally semi-protected your talk page instead of the James Kim talk page. But if the harassment extends to your talk page (and looking at the edit history I see some offending comments) I can semi-protect that too. ~ trialsanderrors 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I mentioned before that I do occasionally help IPs and they do leave actual questions on my talk page, so I'll wait a bit before I make any decision on that. If he really gets at it there it may be something to explore.--Crossmr 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That block he has is expired, which shows how much good it did, as does this comment he just made [24].--Crossmr 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you happen to know if Feb 15th is too old to do a check user?--Crossmr 00:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No idea. Who are you thinking of? ~ trialsanderrors 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
24 and jake b both edited on the 15th (its the only time both accounts have been editing close together) I wondered if that is not too late to tell us if its the same user or not.Some of the things 24 has been saying and another article edit outside James kim makes me suspect that its the same person. I've also found out something else rather interesting which I'm just in the process of piecing together.--Crossmr 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say you should go for it and list it if you have the evidence. Worst case is that they tell you it's too late now. If you want you can email me. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Done, I've included a bunch of links and some info. Some feedback would be appreciated.--Crossmr 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this IP is going to pick up where the other one left off. Antandrus thought they might be the same person as he thought they were geographically close.[25].--Crossmr 13:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
And I think we'll go ahead with the semi protection. This individual has been known to vandalize both my user page and talk page, so perhaps a month on both?--Crossmr 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Let me know when you want it taken off. Default is 1 month. ~ trialsanderrors 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, as always I appreciate the help.--Crossmr 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This has been confirmed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jake_b. Unfortunately he hasn't edited recently to find out if he isn't also the 131 IP. I'm not quite sure what should be done with this, but since december his disruptive edits out number his beneficial edits about 10 to 1.--Crossmr 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I was gonna block him, but it looks like Inshanee already shot him down. ~ trialsanderrors 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The nose knows. Thanks again, hopefully this will put this all to bed, there are still some consensus issues on the article this all sprang from (mostly bolstered by IPs and accounts which have only made 1 or 2 edits since this all happened), but hopefully we can get those sorted out.--Crossmr 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously 131 intends to start stalking me anywhere I edit [26]. The IP address seems somewhat static. You might try a range block of the Air force base as well.--Crossmr 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I could get away with that. The only thing I see that might work is 3 hour blocks whenever he pops up anywhere. ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actors by series

Thanks. I've removed that CFD template; the nominations were actually for its subcategories (which are now renamed and untagged per bot). The work to be done would be to (1) tag those subcategories with {{Actors by series}} to indicate their purpose, (2) prune some of the subcats that still contain guest actors, and (3) consider whether some of those cats should be lists instead. I believe some people more knowledgeable on the subject than myself are already working on it, though. >Radiant< 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment

On whether you agree with this proposed principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Workshop#Purpose_of_Deletion_Review . I'm asking Xoloz to comment too. My M.O. these days is to quote you in order to look smart. Kla'quot 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus. I made a comment where I thought was appropriate, but this is far too convoluted for me, and I'm half-glad I missed out on it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It's quite the train wreck ;) By the way, good luck with the job hunting! Kla'quot 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pseudoscience

Hey Trials, I thought you might be interested in a (very small) debate about whether a body of research is, or is not, pseudoscience taking place over at Talk:Height and intelligence. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Commented there. ~ trialsanderrors (5'10") 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Pete.Hurd 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you have time

Hey man, I totally fluxed-up an attempt to create a 3rd AfD for Steve Nguyen. I don't know what I did to anger the transclusion gods, but if you have a spare minute, could you please fix my mess? Sorry, Pete.Hurd 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

got it, nevermind, sorry for disruption. Pete.Hurd 03:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Damn, I can't even watch the Simpsons without something breaking here... ~ trialsanderrors 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You think that's bad. I just rewound the first six minutes of Man Utd vs. Reading on my PVR in the vain (but I thought not unreasonable) hope that it would come out differently on replay. Pete.Hurd 04:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You should rewind the last 6 minutes and play them over and over if you want to change the outcome... ~ trialsanderrors 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Aha! right! of course, I'll get the hang of this technology stuff yet! Rock on. Pete.Hurd 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton Stands

Thanks for your support of the article. It blew me away that an entry on the company would be deleted as "non-notable". It blew me away further when I read the "endorse deletion" replies and reasoning (to cut the endorsers some slack). It blew my socks off to discover that the article had actually been speedy deleted, which takes two parties. No wonder it never turned up on my watchlist, and I only discovered the deletion months later. (I still wonder what needed "improving"?)

I'm hoping to add more (like pictures) to it soon, and if I turn up press references (besides the online one, which I had to wade through literally dozens of online catalog pages to find... and this still wasn't "notable"?!), those will go in as well. (If they don't get dismissed as "original research", since somebody had to ask about them.) I'm hoping someone else will add even more. – This one had the personnel at our local Sam Ash and Guitar Center rather surprised, even if nobody had seen a recent news story. Zephyrad 08:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a common misapplication of the new Notability guideline that bugs me. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use claims

I am having a bit of trouble on a redirect's talk page with User:Miaers, but when visiting his user talk, I separately contacted him about using a fair use image on his user page. He has left replies (User talk:Miaers and User talk:Dekimasu) indicating that he disagrees with me, and I just now glanced through his archive and saw that you've already recently had this conversation with him about the image Image:Chapman Hall.jpg. He's been reacting similarly at other pages, such as List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people, which I reverted once.

Since I've already had nearly a month of going over redirects and WP:DAB with him at Talk:University of Wisconsin, would you mind following up on this and talking to him a bit more about fair use? I don't want him to think that I'm following him around and attacking his edits. Sorry to take up your time. Dekimasuよ! 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave him another note. Thanks for reminding me, I had planned to follow up on it anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for relieving some portion of my Wikistress. Problems are ongoing at List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people, which I'd rather not revert anymore. In response to my explanation that a photo wasn't fair use for the article in question, he says it is being used for "publicity". Maybe I'm being too picky? Dekimasuよ! 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photoshop Query

I ran it through the bag of tricks I know to detect Photoshop tampering you said in a comment on FPC, and I wondered what exactly you meant, is it a plugin (if yes could you give me a link to download) or just a technique (could you describe it in detail) because I think I could make use of something like that just to check I havn't left any 'scars' in my images. thanks --Benjamint444 11:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I don't find the tricks very useful in fixing images, which is another art by itself, but I usually try to increase contrast or enhance borders. One trick is to create a separate layer in a bright color (e.g. bright red) and set it to color screen or color burn. In the case of the race car I also rotated the image into a position where the car is horizontal and checked if it would look "normal". ~ trialsanderrors 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • thanks --Benjamint444 01:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

[edit] Image:Chapman Hall.jpg

Hi there, I contacted the author of this photo, Allan Hong. He agreed to let me use this photo in Wikipedia. Could you please let me know what kind of license tag should I use? Miaers 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. In short, Allan should change the license for the picture to a free one. Saying we can use it on Wikipedia isn't sufficient. ~ trialsanderrors 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Cities in Turkish Kurdistan and Category:Villages in Turkish Kurdistan

I restored the categories after your successful challenge at WP:DRV. You have to re-populate them though or they might be subject to redeletion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Diyarbakır 13:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Q. How do I find out what was in the villages category? I don't believe I ever added anything to that one, so I can't re-apply my own edits... --Diyarbakır 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. ~ trialsanderrors 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Butting in, my guess would be that they probably were emptied by one of the participants in the CFD. So I'd suggest looking through their contribution histories. GRBerry 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This might help. ~ trialsanderrors 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So the deletion was overturned because of improper depopulation during a CFD and others have to root through the bad actors' "contributions" in order to fix it... --Diyarbakır 09:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how to force the "bad actor" to undo his actions. Not knowing much about the case I'm also held to assume good faith editing first. ~ trialsanderrors 09:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hi! Just popping round to say thanks for your support at my RfA. Great turnout and a humbling level of support. Thanks again. :) Bubba hotep 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fazal Mohammed

I tried to find some when it was prod'd, but I can't find anything online - not that it means an awful lot, especially in the case of someone who died in the 40s. But I am looking again. Guettarda 03:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for nominating it! KFP (talk | contribs) 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re The O2 → Millennium Dome

Hi trialsanderrors,

...I started a request to move The O2 back to Millennium Dome under common name rule. Since you originally asked to move it to The O2, you might want to offer your opinion.

Just spotted that I did support that move; I guess I must've been feeling "official" that day, as I'd agree that it usually seems to be called the "Millenium Dome". (From what I happen to've read more recently, however, maybe it will soon become something along the lines of "Casino Royale"...? ...!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Kernow (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haeckel's arachnids

Why did you do a brightness correction in your edit? As far as I can tell there was nothing wrong with the brightness. It was just the border that needed editing. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I retouched the whole background since the page has very sketchy color pattern, not only in the corners. The actual drawings of the spiders are untouched. ~ trialsanderrors 09:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! KFP (talk | contribs) 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political user categories

Hi- can you tell me what the process is for recommending the elimination of political user categories? (Actually, my preference would be to set up a format like [[Category:Interest-Communism]], which would extend to more than just politics. Collaboration is germane to encyclopedia editing; promotion of one's views or talents or qualities is not. Anyway, any tip about where to start such an initiative appreciated! -Pete 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just informed the editor who offered to group nominate all political user categories that I undeleted the fascist one. The correct forum for it is WP:UCfD, I don't really know more about it since I rarely deal with user categories. I'd have to read the instructions myself. ~ trialsanderrors 02:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No need, that link is plenty! Thank you. -Pete 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration

Just to let you know that I have begun a "Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration" in which you will be involved. --Iantresman 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How so? I don't see how I am involved in this. ~ trialsanderrors 23:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peace war game revisited

Noticed these? [27] [28]? Pete.Hurd 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone being persistent, huh? Can't say I'm bugged by this, as long as it's being pointed out that it's an iPD (not sure where the "varition" comes in though). ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, on closer (but deeply sleep-deprived) inspection, it's a bit odd, but I can't see anything factually incorrect. Pete.Hurd 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I see no evidence that this was actually played as PWG. From what I can tell this is the retelling of the Axelrod simulations under a different name. But I'll just declare this outside my domain and leave it for the folks writing the War article to figure out. ~ trialsanderrors 20:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Graduate School

TaE .. My apologies if I am not leaving this comment in the proper place. I am writing because a Abou didee (talk • contribs) seems to be violating WP:point regarding the article European Graduate School and the user Europeangraduateschool - much the same as user Santa Sangre did about one year ago. His malicious modifications span at least WP English and French (particularly the Baudrillard articles). According to the AfD re: European Graduate School. Because the history recorded that you provided some level headed comment in that instance, I am wondering if you would look into this current matter. It may be that the Europeangraduateschool (talk • contribs) needs some censure, but I think Abou Didee may have gone overboard. Thank you and Peace. Talk:European_Graduate_School. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.140.22 (talk • contribs).

I'll have a look at it. ~ trialsanderrors 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent comment on Talk:European_Graduate_School. Unfortunately Abou Didee has continued his behaviour not only on that talk page but also Talk:Jean_Baudrillard. Would you please consider providing some neutral comment once again .. and/or suggest what is an appropriate next step (I and a few others have already solicited other neutral commentary and it seems not to have helped). Thank You. 68.160.140.22 03:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for such a rapid response to the above request. It simply seems that when I write it inflames the situation. I take responsibilty for that, tho it is not my intention. Both you and Metamagician3000 carry necessary authority, legitimacy and weild it with neutrality. I respect you both for such skill and tact. Peace to You. 68.160.140.22 05:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response on Baudrillard's links, it's a bit heated at the moment, I'll concentrate on Black Empowerment articles first Black Economic Empowerment, and then put some energy into Baudrillard. Perhaps you'll be interested in the article, it's very biased at the moment, especially the "effects" section Black Economic Empowerment#Effects, I'm trying to fix it, but especially the talk pages are full of.. well... propaganda.. and I should actually be working...Goodlucca 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Milwaukee Art Museum 1 (Mulad).jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Milwaukee Art Museum 1 (Mulad).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for nominating it! KFP (talk | contribs) 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for closing these! ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi Trialsanderrors. Thank you for supporting my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 13:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comedians

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I award you the barnstar for your great Sense of humor which you showed regarding this diff and its following comments ....--Cometstyles 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S..That really made my gloomy day more Bright..Keep up the Good Job..--Cometstyles 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just had to laugh myself re-reading the RFA. It looks like it's catching on. Thanks for the BS. ~ trialsanderrors 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Articulate Reasoning

I notice that you closed the the DRV on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_9#North_America_.28Americas.29 without any explaination of your reasons for decision. In the future, please provide a brief elaboration of your reasoning when closing. A sentence or two would be just fine. Not providing any elaboration makes the actions of admins appear lawless and is harmful to the community. Warm Regards. Edivorce 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not common at DRV unless the result is close enough or the case is convoluted enough that a comment is required. This one appeared convoluted at the outset, but once you get through the personal stuff between a small group of commenters the endorsement was clear and I had no reason to discard their reasoning. ~ trialsanderrors 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Illustration Punica granatum2.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Illustration Punica granatum2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for nominating it! KFP (talk | contribs) 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV Bot

Hi - a bot request was made which specified to contact you for details, so I am doing :). I'll be happy to write and run such a log making bot for DRV. I've just got one or two questions:

  1. Where shold the log pages go (ie - what are their titles)?
  2. What templates should go at the top of each log page?
  3. Is the bot to *just* create the monthly and daily archive pages at midnight (UTC), or are there any other tasks you want in it?

Thanks, Martinp23 07:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Martin, thanks for getting in touch with me. I'm trying to make this as organized as possible.
  • The current format of the daily logs is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 6, of the monthly logs is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March. If it's easier for you you can switch to ISO format 2007-03-06 and 2007-03. It seems to be catching on.
  • The bot should create tomorrow's daily log page. Currently there is a preloaded form at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Next day for this. If you go to edit you can see the generic headers.
  • I'm currently creating the monthly logs by hand and archive by hand. If you edit the March log you can see the format. Days are listed from 31 to 1 (this goes for all twelve months), and for every archived day I move the comment arrow --> up one day. The is currently no generic page to create the next monthly archive but I can create it if it helps.
  • The current system archives the daily logs once all reviews are closed. This isn't really necessary. The WP:DRV front page contains 11 days (6 current, 5 recent). So it would be ok to archive the daily log that drops off the front page.
  • The most complicated task would be to strip the discussions from the monthly archives so that they only appear in the daily archives. I have to write an example code for this which will include some <noinclude> and <includeonly> tags.

~ trialsanderrors 07:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I've just got the code written to make a new daily listing page at midnight, and on the first day of every month make a new monthly listing. For the final part of the task - completing the monthly listing - I should be able to program the bot to create its own summary of each day, providing a link and result. For this stage, I would be helpful if you could continue as before with uncommenting substed days, and the bot can then know that the uncommented page is complete, and so put the summary on the archive page. Does this make sense, and work for you? Finally, are there any other tasks you would like the bot to do in this vein? I'll put a BRFA in now, and we should be ready for testing within four days, when the bot will be able to create new pages - bearing in mind that the change in date format could cause some problems, is there a preferred date for the commencement of bot tasks? Martinp23 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If you look at User:Trialsanderrors/AfD there are examples for my intended way of archiving without the need to write new summaries. In essence, it works as follows:
  • Standard daily header
  • <includeonly> Click on the date link above to review the following discussions </includeonly>
  • Standard review header: Foo — Deletion endorsed — User:Foobar 11:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • <noinclude> Discussion </noinclude>
  • Discussion footer
So in essence the bot should create the "Click on the date link" line and add a number of noinclude tags. Does this make sense? I have no preferred date, whatever works for you. Thanks for working on this. ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I just archived the March 1 log. See the difference between Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 1 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March.
This is done via adding the following <noinclude> tags between discussions:
Discussion 1
 |-
 | style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
 |}</noinclude>
 <noinclude>{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
 |-
 ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |</noinclude>
 * '''[[Bonney Eberndu]]''' – {{{2|Deletion endorsed}}} – [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC) <!--01:09, 7 March 2007  UTC)--><noinclude>
 |-
 | style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
 |-
Discussion 2
and similarly at the top of the first and bottom of the last discussion. The bot should also add the line
 ;<includeonly><small>Click on the date link above to review the following discussions:</small></includeonly>
<noinclude>
below the date header, and strip out multiple lines between discussions. Is that doable? ~ trialsanderrors 02:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep - it looks doable to me. Would you like me to start the bot trials at the start of April, to make the transition to ISO date format easier, or doesn't it matter? I may be able to do testing on the test wiki beforehand, if needed. Thanks, Martinp23 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh OK. April is fine with me. There's also a short discussion at WT:DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Btw, I just noticed the second time stamp in html comment tags: <!--01:09, 7 March 2007 UTC)-->. I replaced it with a simple <!--*--> to mark the end of the closing statement. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AzaToth 2 double vote

You have both a support and neutral vote on the RfA—with the same timestamp nonetheless. Not sure which you meant to be your real position. —Doug Bell talk 13:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had already logged a support when I read the exchange about canvassing and forgot to remove it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/StMarysChurch

Hi, thanks for your vote on my picture. I would just like to point out that the image has an extended caption on the image page summary. I have however attempted to write a better image caption for the peer review. Please revisit and improve it if you want, as I am relatively unsure about what exactly is needed in an image caption and would appreciate any help to get the picture to featured status. Thank you. LordHarris 00:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ETA

Hey. This template is a pretty good idea; however, can you WP:SUBST it? gren グレン 01:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it, but it would put three lines of text into the nomination. Maybe I can subst it in closed noms. ~ trialsanderrors 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural History of South Asia mailing list

This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [29] .

Thanks Atulsnischal 12:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for deletion

Hey Trials, I accidentally created Talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive1 instead of User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive1 while finally getting around to archiving my talk page. Can you delete the mainspace article, or do I have to submit a request to some *fD list? Cheers, Pete.Hurd 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, that's a {{db-user}}. No need to run this through FoofD. ~ trialsanderrors 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha! thanks! I'll know better next time, Cheers. Pete.Hurd 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Manzanar calisthenics 0016u.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Manzanar calisthenics 0016u.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for nominating it! KFP (talk | contribs) 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ trialsanderrors 01:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing DRV discussions

Good evening, Trials. I've copied your instructions for closing DRV discussions over to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. When you have a minute, would you please make sure I got it right? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for fixing my last two DRV listings. I never remember from one time to the next what to do to list categories correctly. Who would be a good person to suggest an update to the instructions to include separate copy/paste lines for articles and categories? Otto4711 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They're really too rare to create separate instructions. Probably 90% of reviews are for articles. Usually if the nominator doesn't do it himself between the four or five DRV regulars it's usually fixed within an hour or so. The only things that need to be changed is to replace {{la|:Category:Foo}} with {{lc|Foo}} and copy-and-paste the CfD over the AfD link. ~ trialsanderrors 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration

I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emcee T article recreated (?)

I suspect that EMCEE T (MC T) is a recreation of the article above which you deleted in January. I found the other spelling (Emcee T) when I attempted to move the EMCEE T (MC T) article to properly name it. Could you take a look?--DO11.10 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems like a duplicate article created while the deletion review was ongoing. I guess we have to be on the lookout for other duplicates. ~ trialsanderrors 02:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I write for a Bay Area magazine in the Bay Area (YAYAREA.biz) and I am curious why Emcee T's page got deleted (twice)? I want to use the wikipedia as a source for an upcoming issue. Thank you. Jerome J.

You can e-mail me and I'll send you the text. The deletion was endorsed by the community earlier this year. ~ trialsanderrors 23:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Haeckel Arachnida.jpg
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Haeckel Arachnida.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! KFP (talk | contribs) 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why not to upload it over the old one; it's hard to imagine a situation where editors would prefer the old one, and it will bypass a lot of mess replacing the instances where it is used.--ragesoss 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've replaced Image:Haeckel Arachnida 2.jpg with Image:Haeckel Arachnida.jpg where appropriate. Thanks for notifying. And thank you for the barnstar as well! --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I missed a few. Should be ok now... --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I was about to take care of the rest but got distracted. Thanks for doing that too. Sucks that it seems you're stuck with closing all the FPC's. ~ trialsanderrors 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latitude and wealth

Thanks, DRV acknowledged. Looks like mandate is clear at this point, hence I'll leave the matter as it is. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in! Left some comments on the DRV page. Sincerely, Novickas 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For your entertainment

Seen [this]?

Awesome. I should award myself a barnstar for being your meat puppet. ~ trialsanderrors 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey yeah! We could sign it John Nash, or John Maynard Smith. Rock on, Pete.Hurd 21:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
One of John Nash's alter egos, maybe? ~ trialsanderrors 22:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Spot on! William Parcher it is then! Cheers, Pete.Hurd 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
LMFAO, excellent! Pete.Hurd 13:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You should. It is great fun. ROFL. I love the way you spoof the user name. I feel that it is a clear breach of etiquette and indicates some form of meatpuppetery. I shall soon start the case against you. - Curious GregorTALK

[edit] New article on Steve Omohundro

I found some new information on Steve Omohundro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) that was not brough up in the original AFD discussion - 17 publications and a US patent - and thought this significant enough to warrant restoring the article. After restoring it, I made enough edits that I feel it's a new article rather than a restoration (it would have been easier to start from scratch than to restore), so I have removed the CFD tag. However, I wanted to invite you to take a look at the article as you participated in the original AFD discussion. --Zippy 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the last version was deleted for copyvio, so that's not restorable. On the notability issue, 17 publications isn't all that much when compared to the normal standard for academics, so that's what an AfD would have to decide. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Omohundro (2nd nomination). ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hey Thanx I really appreciate you moving the deleted BRITTANICA article into my user space, so it didn't get lost forever. Thankie! Sue Rangell[citation needed] 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .htaccess

In the AfD for the .htaccess article [30] you wrote that you were redirecting the article until someone was willing to clean it up. If you could give me the article text, I might be able to clean it up and repost it. I think this is especially important in light of the close 'vote' (7 to keep, 6 to merge/delete): there is clearly interest in keeping the article around. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Still in the edit history. Stay away from the copyvio version though... ~ trialsanderrors 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize it was still there. Thanks! CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myg0t

FYI: I have overturned your speedy closure of this DRV based on a number of reasons that I have outlined there. My hope is that this DRV can focus on the merits of the case and not on the bureaucratic procedurals. I would not have done this if a real conversation on the mertis of the evidence had not started and I don't think it's ever a good idea to squelch a consensus building exercise when it's not clear what the outcome might be. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page, my email or here. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the history of the request, posted by Guy. This site is being posted every two weeks, with more or less the same flimsy sources. Repeat nominations without new sources in the hope that one day they'll get inattentive voters to ok the sources without looking at them is strongly discouraged. It's disruptive. ~ trialsanderrors 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The sources are not "flimsy", and "more or less the same" does not mean you get to discount the new sources that are introduced. I feel that the previous DRV did not accurately portray the merits for restoring the article, for many reasons, not the least of which being that it didn't include sources that were included in the newer DRV. Regardless, the idea of speedily closing a DRV based on the precedent of another DRV which was ALSO speedily closed is completely illogical. The DRV filed two weeks ago cannot be used as a precedent because it was not allowed to complete, and so didn't accurately represent the consensus of the wikipedia community. The past three DRV's (including this one) have all been speedily closed because of a failed DRV half a year ago. The self-referencing precedents and subsequent speedy closures have become so prevalent that an actual consensus hasn't been reached in at least six months. Accordingly, I request that this DRV be allowed to continue in order to properly form a consensus. cacophony ◄► 03:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I posted, if you think the sources are strong enough to support an encyclopedic article, write up a stub in user space and present it at DRV. In that case the DRV will run a full five days. ~ trialsanderrors 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


  • So now my edits are vandalism now? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Seriously. I don't recognize your name. I just had a look at your contributions and find maybe ten edits to DRV over the last four months. And the first thing you do is overturn my closure? The second thing you do is ignore the directive not to modify a closed discussion and move text out of the box into no man's land? And you're trying to make a case that you have no intention to turn this into a circus? Well then let's start with the simple first step on how to not turn this into a circus: Ask the closer why it was closed early and if it's ok to overturn and let it run for five days. I'm ok if any of the other regular closers overturn me without consulting, but from someone who has no experience at DRV you can't expect that I treat this as a serious attempt to resolve an issue unless you give me a reason to. You're disrupting DRV to make a point when you could've gotten an answer quicker and more civilly. ~ trialsanderrors 03:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I hold much of the blame for the current situation as I contacted J.smith on IRC in an effort to resolve the issue. Taking your advice, then, I'd like you to overturn the speedy closure and let it run for at least five days, for two reasons;
  • There has been no consensus on the issue in six months, during which time new sources of notability have been discovered.
  • A legitimate discussion on the issue has already started by many members of Wikipedia
I also think it a bad idea to create an article in userspace before filing for DRV for two reasons;
  • Time and effort may be put into creating an article which may ultimately be wasted if the DRV fails
  • Creating the article in articlespace would allow other editors unaware of this discussion to contribute to the article. If I create the article myself, it may be denied by DRV because I personally may not create a good article. If, however, the article is opened on articlespace, the article produced by the Wikipedia community at large may be better than that which I could myself produce alone.
Accordingly, I am requesting the right to create this article before actually creating it, and thus humbly requesting that the DRV be reopened for a minimum of five days.
Regards, cacophony ◄► 04:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a very good idea to request that an article be created in user space once the namespace for the article is protected. And the reason for this is to make sure processes don't get bogged down by repeat nominations based on evidence that has been viewed and rejected before. In the same manner you say it's wasteful to create an article that might fail at DRV it's wasteful to use DRV to establish again that the article fails policy. At one point the burden of effort has to shift to the editor who wants to create the article, and for myg0t that point was a long time ago. Also, it's extremely easy to create an article from available sources, if the sources are substantial enough:
X is a Y best known for Z.
Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3
This article is a stub
is a perfectly valid article iff the references support X, Y and Z. I've never spent more than 30 minutes starting an article, and none of my articles has ever been deleted or even listed at AfD, because I follow that scheme. ~ trialsanderrors 04:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It don't matter that you didn't recognize my name. You treated me like a vandal without even considering how incivil it was.
I overturned your closure because 4 people wanted to overturn the deletion when you closed it as endorse. The discussion was happening and you squelched it. Thats the problem I have with how you did things and that is why I overturned your choice.
How about this: I unprotect the space and this user spends a few days building a new article. We then procedurally nominate it for deletion and note it at the pump, etc, to request wider community input. If it gets deleted then we have proven the consensus from 2005 hasn't changed. If it leads to a keep then the consensus has changed.
---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it matters, because I'm not going around reverting closures at Featured Articles or Page Move Requests. I recognize that those are out of my domain, and if I have any issues with a closure I check with the closing admin, and barring egregious behavior I defer to their judgment since I accept that they're the ones with the detailed process knowledge. And as long as you don't accept that in my domain but instead complain that I rolled back your disruption rather than manually revert it I'm not paying any attention to the rest of your arguments. You have done nothing to establish yourself as someone whose judgment is to be taken seriously, and your ongoing disregard for your own lack of respect doesn't help your case either. This conversation is over. ~ trialsanderrors 20:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I'm glad you've clarified your true thoughts on the matter. Your domain, 'eh? Process&bureaucracy above everything else? I have never before been this embarrassed to be part of this project as I right now. Conversation over? Fine. I'll drop this since I don't care about the article all that much, but you need to take some time to ponder the spirit and meaning behind WP:OWN. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
And you need to ponder the spirit and meaning behind WP:COMPETENCE. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Ok, I'll keep that in mind, thanks. I just automatically used the same method I use on other deletion processes, but it doesn't really work on DRV. I see it may be difficult to have those templates function in the same way; but perhaps it should give an error message if you type

{{drv top}} overturn. ~~~~

>Radiant< 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to check the AfD templates if I can figure out how to code the error messages, but yeah, good suggestion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Trialsanderrors for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Curious GregorSynthesis for all 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed by me as blatantly frivolous; case page subsequently deleted by Persian Poet Gal; filing party blocked for disruption. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Not sure if it was necessary to delete the case. But at least it gave me a good chuckle with my morning coffee. ~ trialsanderrors 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/i/User_talk%7ETrialsanderrors_Brchive_02e1.html"