User talk:Trialsanderrors/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is my talk archive. To contact me, please post a message here

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

Here is a few handy tips for newcomers:

  • When you post something on a talk/discussion page, you can sign your name by using three tildes (" ~~~ ") for your username and four (" ~~~~ ") for your username and a timestamp.
  • If you ever find yourself with nothing to do on Wikipedia, have a look at the Community Portal, you'll find that there's always something happening.

If you ever have any questions, comments, or just want to say hi, don't hesitate to write to me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Happy editing and have a great day! :-) Akamad 07:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For all your hard work Macwiki 04:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
For all your hard work Macwiki 04:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary O McCarthy

Thank you for your help on 'Mary O. McCarthy'. User DaveThomas is really set on making the article bias(ed)? All of you are caring people and I wish you the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macwiki (talk • contribs)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on April 22, 2006 to Mary O. McCarthy

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 20:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the block rather than for an equal block of user DaveThomas as I've reversed various reverts on his part (it shouldn't matter that his reverts came in the form of edits). On my various efforts to discuss this and other issues, see the Talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked DT too. In fact I would have given you a somewhat shorter block except I felt DT deserved at least 12h and symmetry seemed to be required. Sorry. William M. Connolley 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That's ok. I don't think anyone other than DT wants to have this particular passage in the text, so both of our absences should cool down the discussion. Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 20:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

It would be helpful to other editors and to your own reputation if you would make more extensive use of edit summaries, and refrain from marking as minor edits things which involve the addition or deletion of encyclopedic content rather than formatting or administrative changes. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I turned the minor edit default off in my preferences. Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info you wanted

To report a 3RR violation, go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. (I didn't know either till I looked at someones contribution list) Macwiki 22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see if he comes back tonight. ~ trialsanderrors 04:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bartman

I've fixed the Bartman entry so that it's a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, even giving them pictures to further differenciate. Since Steve and the Simpsons character are unlikely to be confused any longer, can we remove the disambig line from their individual entries now? CovenantD 01:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, although I don't see why the effort. ~ trialsanderrors 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, there's just something... apples and oranges about the two. The only connection is the Bartman name so it seems right to handle it there. I can't imagine somebody typing in Steve Bartman when they want Bart Simpson, or visa versa, so the in-article disambig seems jarring. CovenantD
I typed in Bartman not remembering the guy's first name and ended up on the Bart Simpson page with no disambiguation. How it's dealt with, I don't care, but it should be dealt with. ~ trialsanderrors 01:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. Check it out Bartman CovenantD 01:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel laureates template

Hi! Updated the templates for Peace, Economics, Literature and Medicine. Maybe you can take a look and apply these to the others. I made it in such a way that a name is highlighted (bold font) when one is entered in that name's article.Joey80 08:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I responded here. ~ trialsanderrors 17:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on the Hæmophilia page

I noticed you reverted my changes on the page mentioned above. Those changes I made before I thought were uncontroversial, until I remembered that I had to get it moved first. And you supplied "a joke, yes?" as an oppose reason. I don't get it. Random the Scrambled 10:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Haemophilia ~ trialsanderrors 01:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for adding the move tag to United States

User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New format for Nobel templates

Hi! This is again in response to some previous comments that Nobel templates tend to be long. While I was browsing some templates (specifically, for the list of Popes), I encountered a good format which we can apply to the Nobel templates. I already did it in the Nobel Peace Prize. I separated the list in 25-year spans but included the link from one span to the next within the template. This means that only the 25-year span will appear in a laureate's page, instead of the entire list, while at the same time, links are still available for the entire list. I started the application to the Literature prize, and will be doing it for the Economics and Medicine. Hope you can help out in the Chemistry and Physics fields. Thanks! Joey80 03:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, in pages where you might encounter the template overlapping with pictures, wikicommons, wikiquotes, etc., we know that the template ends up being compromised (narrower horizontally, longer vertically). You can add this text: <br clear=all> before the template and the template will appear at the bottom of the picture, common, quote, etc., without the length and width being compromised. Joey80 03:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually I already posted about this in Template_talk:Nobel_Peace_Prize_Laureate. I consider the full list better. Popes uses both the full list and a succession box. Thanks for the clear all marker. ~ trialsanderrors 03:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese garden stuff

I am really glad to see someone caring about the naming of that article - often naming articles is just nitpicking but in this case it is a bit more important than that, I think. We seem to agree on the topic, now let's see what happens... // Habj 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staten Island

You forgot to do the Staten Island Template —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Done :-) Also Islands of New York City. ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 00:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Boroughs

Thanks but don't worry about it, I'll deal with it myself. I do feel that "Borough" is a more encyclopedic term than "The Five Boroughs," and that's why I'd prefer to do a T5B -> B(NYC) merge. — Larry V (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Staten Island

Thanks for updating the image used as an icon on the Template:Staten Island. The original pic didn't reflect anything about Staten Island. My ferry pic looked OK at first, but after I saw what I had saved at the smaller size, it looked awful. Your choice looks far better. Alansohn 07:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one more, which has nicer colors, but it doesn't resize well either. It just turns into an orange line on blue. ~ trialsanderrors 08:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York City

"(cur) (last) 22:29, 12 June 2006 Trialsanderrors (Rv to not fragment this too much. There are already Government and Education links in the template)"

While that's true, I don't see how that's fragmenting too much - Or one could make a template for "Government Departments". Either way, the DOE MUST be prominent somewhere. "Education" is a nice catch-all, but on city infoboxes I want specific links to the specific agency (or agencies, since many cities have multiple school districts). Same for library systems. I say it can be done without stretching it too far. WhisperToMe 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the DoE must be on there, as opposed to, say, the Department of Parks and Recreation or the Guggenheim Museum. Let's face it, NYC has a massive amount of notable institutions, and it seems better to me to keep the Nav template at the top level of links, and relegate more specific links to the bigger template on the NYC Portal. An alternative would be to create a Civic institutions of NYC list and link to it from the Nav template. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I created a new template - "New York City Government" - Really a list of city divisions WhisperToMe 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes of WP:V

Over in the EGS AfD, you wrote something. The vote is obviously going to result in a keep, and several editors (including the somewhat annoying "europeangraduateschool" account) have put in far too many digressions already. But I wanted to comment to you on something you wrote:

It's a bit of a common fallacy around here to point at other questionable articles in order to lend credence to the one at hand. If the HCC article is swiped from the school website, the entry schould at least be tagged with a POV tag. ... My point is quite simply: If you followed WP policies on using only reliable sources (no school website, no blog entries, no future publications), what would you be able to put in the article? AfD's are there to allow editors to establish that WP guidelines are fulfilled.

I absolutely do not think the Holyoke Community College article has any WP:NPOV issue, even though I do think it's almost certainly basically single-sourced to the school's own site. That's just not what a POV concern is, nor even a WP:V concern. I might be concerned if the page seemed like overly literal copying, per copyvio; but it's not that. I never edited the article, and only picked the example because it happens to be close. I think the exact same story applies to pretty much ever community college or minor 4-year college with an article on WP. Well, I deliberately avoided several even closer "high-prestige" schools, because I don't want the issue to be confused with status (FWIW, University of Massachusetts, Smith College, Mt. Holyoke College, Hampshire College and Amherst College make up the so-called Five-College Area, which is roughly where I live).

Without any specific evidence, here's what I'm almost sure happened: Someone (probably someone geographically close to it) noticed HCC did not have an article. Then that editor started a page, and opened up a window for the HCC official site. That editor copied over various details (as facts, not in precise wording): when it was founded, how many students, who's college president, etc. And basically, that's the stubby article we have now. Or maybe a few editors sort of collectively did the moral equivalent. You know what... there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It doesn't violate WP:V and it doesn't violate WP:NPOV. There is absolutely no WP policy or guideline that makes school websites fail WP:RS. Now if some particular fact was disputed by some editor, it would become incumbant to find some additional sources to support the statements; and sources outside the school website if it might be partisan about the disputed fact. WP:V isn't some ultra-pure command to multi-source every statement, it's more of a reactive system: when something is actually disputed, do some stuff; not "delete everything that might someday be disputed" or that might be disputable in principle. LotLE×talk 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I read WP:V is that it's ok to use "personal" webpages as primary sources with a couple of caveats: they shouldn't be self-serving, the info shouldn't be contested by reputable third parties, and the webpages shouldn't be sole source unless the source has professional or academic standing. I don't know much about HCC but it seems to me that those criteria are met, so maybe a POV tag isn't necessary. The problem with the EGS entry is that it's a bit self-aggrandizing, and it seems to be the sole source on many of the claims made in the entry. We can take DJ Spooky's word for it that he teaches four days a year at EGS, but a simple link on Peter Greenaway's webpage doesn't establish the kind of relationship the school alleges it has with him. The academic standing is also very shaky, given we can't find any independent sources that didn't swipe from the EGS webpage directly. I have to admit I'm baffled by this. It's clearly too widespread to be a hoax, clearly the EGS is a bit less than what User:Europeangraduateschool alleges it is, but even if you discount the overselling it should still be notable. I just don't understand why we can't find any useful media coverage on this. There is a whole segment of "edgy" publications out there that should be all over this. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, of course the EGS page is a bit self-aggrandizing. Well, actually I don't know who's aggrandizing here... it might well have been someone like a former student (rather than an "official representative") who added some of the overly breathless description. And the EGS website itself definitely has that "overselling" feel. But so what?! That fault is shared with thousands of other basically fine articles on organizations (loosely defined) where someone loosely affiliated gets carried away as editor. Or likewise with thousands of biographies written by fans of the bio'd figure. The EGS page is not even close to the worst case I've seen... of course the article should be improved, but that almost goes without saying (for just about any article).
I gave three unrelated sources that indicate EGS' academic status in the AfD discussion. Stuff like Greenaway's web link doesn't tell us anything that really helps in writing the article, but it establishes non-hoaxity (unless you presume Greenaway is "in on it"... which, well, starts to look like paranoid fantasy).
I agree it would be "nice to have" more factual, neutral external sources. But I don't find the relative difficulty of finding much very meaty on the web all that surprising. The same experience is pretty much one I have every day, where I want to find solid sources for facts that "really should" have some good source in plain evidence. Have you looked through all those 122,000 web pages yet? Maybe one of them has what you want... rather than carry on with a spurious AfD, spend the same time looking for better cites. LotLE×talk 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well if you read the discussion you'll see that User:Bwithh and I have done a fairly extensive online search, including Factiva, Lexis-Nexis and JSTOR even though it isn't really our job to establish unverifiability. Sorry I couldn't verify your October lead and the three links you offered simply don't cut it. About the 122,000 Google hits, "european graduate school" is a fairly generic term, and if you go to page 3 or 4 of the search results, the schools mentioned have nothing to do with this one. So I reject your claim that I haven't done my homework, especially given the comparative laziness of various other editors who claimed verifiability without ever bothering to establish it. Last time I checked "plausibility" is not a WP policy. ~ trialsanderrors 20:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paliath Achan

I certainly can write an article about the activities of Paliath Achans as the PMs of Cochin. I recently got hold of a book about the history of the Kingdom of Cochin till the early 20th century which will certainly have a lot of material. The only problem is that it is 800+ pages long and doesn't even have a decent index. Tintin (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as a native speaker of Malayalam, I can assure you that Paliath Achan only means 'Achan of Paliam'. Tintin (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I recommend that you open a stub and use the information that is available online. There seem to be a number of government-related websites which are reliable sources, and then add on to the article while you read the book. I don't doubt your claims, it's just that personal claims are inerently verifiable. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll definitely do the article on Paliath Achan and then decide whether to merge/redirect/whatever from/with the Paliam article. Looks like the article will survive the AfD, so there is a little more time to do it decently. Tintin (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you should still try to augment the external links section in the Paliam article. I'm inclined to change my vote to keep myself, but not based on what I found so far or on the two links that are actually listed. ~ trialsanderrors 07:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Wilson

thanks for the heads up, I meant to do it myself, but didn't get around to it today. I've added my comments. Isarig 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CASH articles on EGS

Hey, for your interest, I put excerpts from CASH magazine on EGS on the EGS discussion page. Its in German (I ran it through Google Translator with mixed results). Turns out CASH asking questions about the institutional status of EGS too. Sorry about the delay, I got distracted <=P Bwithh 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this is great stuff. I feel somewhat vindicated in my suspicion. If you want I can translate the relevant passages on the talk pages and add some of it into the article.
What do you think about it? It kinda puts notability into question, although another AfD would certainly be fruitless. I also don't mind keeping the article as long as it tempers Schirrmacher's claims somewhat. ~ trialsanderrors 22:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paliath Achan

Okay with me. If, at a later point of time, the article becomes long enough, we can always seperate them again. Tintin (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack articles

It's a disgraceful attack article. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia that we can be used for such a purpose. But anyway, there's no reason for it to be anything other than a redirect. Guettarda 04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please let's keep this conversation on your talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. DO NOT use {{test2}} in cases like that. Guettarda 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. I warned you that reverting teeters on vandalism. Clearly the edit history has been restored, which shows that you're acting against established consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 04:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You falsely accused me of vandalism. Your false accusation was a clear PA. In addition, use of {{test}} for a non-newbie is a calculated insult. That is also a PA. Please stop your disruptive behaviour and personal attacks. Guettarda 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record I note that Guettarda removed my test2 from his talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I also want to make it very clear that at no point have I overridden community consensus, and I have also made very clear that I have no stake in the outcome of this process, other than that it should follow community consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 04:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed your personal attacks from my talk page, since you failed to remove it yourself. You should have removed it yourself. Lay off your nonsense. Guettarda 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You removed it before I even had the opportunity to. Cut the bullshit. ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Your personal attacks stood for 12 minutes - plenty of time for you to remove them. In fact, your edit history shows that you continued your personal attacks in that period. It wasn't like you were unable to edit Wikipedia in that interval. So no, it isn't bullshit. You had plenty of time to withdraw your personal attacks. In addition, your edit above [2] doesn't sound much like an apology for your personal attacks. Guettarda 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not removng Vand tags without reviewing policy. I'm still reviewing whether your PA claim has any merit. So far I can't find any. Posting a Vand tag after the removal of an AfD tag doesn't strike me as a personal attack. But maybe I find something that tells me differently. As for the choice of the tag, it seemed the most appropriate choice and wasn't meant as an insult on your non-newbie status. ~ trialsanderrors 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD blanking

It is not common, but is de facto policy to blank afd discussions if the subject (or someone else) feels that the discussion is offensive or may otherwise harm the subject of the deleted article. It is relative recent as a policy; it was introduced by Jimbo Wales this year and AFIK has meet no opposition whatsoever. It was announced on the mailing list, but I think it is not documented elsewhere. (Liberatore, 2006). 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request you delete one of your subpages

Please see my comment at [3] Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comment. But given the massive blind eye you turned on User:Guettarda's ongoing abusive behavior against me, I cannot consider you an authority on WP:CIVIL. Ideological agreement can never be an excuse for not calling an editor on borderline slanderous remarks. In any case, the term has long entered academic debate and is properly sourced as such. ~ trialsanderrors 16:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game theory stuff

Hi there - Thanks for all your work in {{Game theory}} it looks really great! I thought I would drop you a note and invite you to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory. We have a lot of open tasks listed there, which you're welcome to add to. I hope you can join us. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I added myself to the list. I'll also try a rewrite on Coord games on Sunday. ~ trialsanderrors 21:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Hey there... I've never done this before, I'm trying this avenue: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_CheckUser_information#User_accounts_FR-Altas.2C_Celto.2C_Forhonor.2C_IIIV.2C_XGustaX_on_English_Wikpedia Gsd2000 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser, but Wikimedia might work too. ~ trialsanderrors 17:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Much better! Thanks for that. Lets see what happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Outstanding_Requests Gsd2000 17:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll put it on my watchlist to see if more input is needed, but I think you covered it all. ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Found another one and added to the checkuser request - User:Cassius80 used to get round 3RR rule - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_people&action=history Gsd2000 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
BINGO - check this out - he's been rumbled before - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:24.60.161.63 Gsd2000 18:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I've also started this: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/XGustaX Gsd2000 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
High five, great detective work there. Sorry I was off the computer for the afternoon. Let's see if any of those turn anything up. ~ trialsanderrors 23:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I had already told you that was my IP Address. (XGustaX 01:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Kudos to you Trialsanderrors - it was your observation that gave me the lead. I've never done sockpuppet tracking before - I always (stupidly) assume people are honest in these votes. Gsd2000 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It still boggles my mind that someone would do this over such a trivial thing as having some random forgotten article deleted. Especially after being caught before. The really odd thing is that he continued after I posted my observation. Oh well... ~ trialsanderrors 01:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Totally. I was also boggled that this person believed that stating that the British Empire was the largest empire in history was POV. He kept changing it to "one of the world's largest empires" on the basis that was NPOV. That's bizarre on so many levels. Anyway, this saga represents everything I love and hate about Wikipedia. I hate the fact that a few morons decide to spoil it for everyone else, but I love the fact that said morons don't get away with their moronic antics for long. ps also, at least he's not as bad as this chap, User_talk:71.146.133.208, who is a vandal of the worst form. Gsd2000 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brede Arkless, Jim Perrin, UTC et al.

Many Thanks for your excellent work on Mrs B, and your solicitous remarks on my references for Perrin... Clearly I come from a (long [citation needed]) line of rough hewers not polishers!, (but I really don't see why we should _in general_ need 3 or 4 obits quoted when one contains the info - yes I was aware of the others, including the Telegraph one, because I tried to find a concensus on whether Arkless' maiden name was Boyle or Doyle. In this case though, I concede that weight of numbers (4 obits referenced!) appears to be carrying the day!).

Fortunately there's still quite a lot of trade for us less-skilled brethren out there :-) Thanks again for your patient work - hopefully you've saved Ms Boyle/Doyle for posterity :-) Bob aka Linuxlad 09:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need the whole 4 obits to write the article (although there seems to be some discrepancies to point out: did she cycle 150, 250 or 350 miles to the clinic?). I posted the sheer weight of evidence to sway the tough crowd at WP:AfD that what she did in life was truly remarkable. But what I also mentioned was that this has the makings of a featured article on the WP frontpage if someone puts the effort into it, and for that effort it's always good to have all the sources handy. All the best ~ trialsanderrors 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I see you've deleted the feminsit bit saying NO evidence. But from the late 70s she worked only with all-women teams I think, including working with Jill Lawrence who is an acknowleged feminist (though I doubt she has a degree in it :-))(see Perrin obit). Bob Linuxlad 17:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I don't see that we can keep it in the introline, given she wasn't active in feminist politics, feminist academics, etc. We still should establish her connection to the women's movement in climbing and to Jill Lawrence. But working with a feminist doesn't make anyone a feminist. ~ trialsanderrors 17:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(Too late) THis from Times obit...Firmly established as a professional guide with an international carnet and an admirable track record, Arkless began running climbing courses for women with Jill Lawrence, another formidable climber and feminist. (My italics). But agree your suggestion, keep out of intro line , but include work work fellow climber/feminiist Jill Lawrence... Linuxlad

[edit] Jeff Lindsay

  • You said Do we have a museum for deleted articles that display exactly what WP is not? This article is just begging to be the centerpiece of the traveling exhibition. Thank you so much, I couldn't have said it better myself. I've been trying to get this article deleted for a while, but the mormons have been insisting he's notable enough because he had a couple of articles listed in a religious magazine, and a horribly written website. Again thank you. --Riley 05:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems like the discussion is now moving towards his historic role in the field of sanitary paper products. ~ trialsanderrors 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You also forgot feminine hygene, too. --Riley 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the AfD of Jeff Lindsay. I learned a lot in the process, and I think the article is much better as a result.

FYI - The collected works of Hugh Nibley comprises 16 volumes, indicating a significant body of work. The fact that the article mentions his works are (almost) never cited in articles critical to Mormonism illustrate why it was so hard to find references to Lindsay's much smaller contributions. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the difference between Nibley and Lindsay is that Nibley was an academic and there is ample outside material on him we can work from, so we're not dependent on responses from his critics. Lindsay is an amateur researcher and as such has an intrinsically harder time establishing himself in an academic debate. But I'd like to return the thanks for keeping the discussion courteous despite my initial flip comment. ~ trialsanderrors 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, there is no comparison as far as qualifications are concerned. I was fortunate enough to hear Nibley speak at a conference. Something like trying to drink from a fire hose. ;^)
I understand now the difficulty of not having outside sources to draw from. As I mentioned, this is similar to analysis of certain video games. Most of the comments / discussions are either face-to-face, blogs, etc. What I have seen for video games is that those who monitor the pages are usually pretty effective of keeping the article well grounded. Of course, this becomes a much more difficult when you are talking about a live person who might try to sue if somebody says the wrong thing. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many thanks for the Barnstar!

And please accept my humble apologies for the delay in thanking you for the kind award - I have been neglectful of late of my messages page (and got used to ignoring the new message notice!), but I will be turning over a new leaf about that =). I've admired your well-reasoned arguments in afd too Bwithh 04:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome and thank you too. If you're looking for another AfD with some serious research issues and entertaining dialogue, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Lindsay (second nomination) is currently heavily contested. ~ trialsanderrors 06:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acnecruft

Hey, it's been ages since I've seen those FlameWarrior drawings! I wondered where they had gotten to. You just summed up that entire AfD with a single well-placed word. Excellent. Opabinia regalis 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That one was just blatant. I had to google for them but I just had the visual image of the nominator sitting in front of the computer defending his three-item list against the attacking deletionists... ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup Sponsorship AfD

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I’ve made some rather large additions to 2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship and would appreciate if you could take a look at them and possibly reconsider your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship. I thought it was a worthy topic, even though it had a wretched article, so I added information about revenue and the sponsorship process, the sponsor related controversies of this World Cup (tickets distribution, Budweiser in Germany, Mcdonalds at a sporting event), and took out the copyvios. Please take a look. Thanks! Vickser 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Great job, I took out the last remnants of spam flavor and changed my vote. ~ trialsanderrors 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time! Vickser 20:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TFd/Cfd for cyber girls

good idea. I see what that the tfd has already been done by another user. I'll try to do the cfd. =) Bwithh 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see User Luna Santins had already done the cfd... Bwithh 17:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you unearthed a whole subculture on WP. Here's more: List of Playboy NSS models. That's enough material to start their own Cheesypornpedia... ~ trialsanderrors 17:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fertility retreat

  • Close AfD on procedural grounds, should be relisted separately. and cleanup Randine Lewis (Amazon book rank: 5500), Delete the rest. Now what exaclty is the connection between her and those firms? ~ trialsanderrors 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Look at Talk:Fertility Retreat. The connection is the creator of the articles. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If that's all that connects them they shouldn't be bundled into one AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 08:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Happy to consider a different route, or to split them out. However people are clear about the nature of this AfD and that each article is an individual within it. If I have the procedure wrong please put it down to relative inexperience and let me know how to proceed. How does one deal with the issue of what appears to be a wikipublicist creating multiple articles that appear to be pure PR purposes and ensure that the trail of articles are linked by that common thread? Fiddle Faddle 09:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
          • You should list them separately and make a note that they are linked by same creator (e.g. "this AfD is related to Fidelity Retreat"). The articles themselves are too different to discuss in a single AfD. It just creates useless confusion to discuss their respective merits in the same spot. ~ trialsanderrors 09:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks. Do I do that now, or do I wait until this is closed by an admin? Fiddle Faddle 09:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
              • I think it's ok if you let this one run and branch out the others. ~ trialsanderrors 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Taking this to yr talk page to clarify thoughts without confusing this nom further. Will bring reuslts back here. Fiddle Faddle 10:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to move this here. It will aggravate others if we keep having a "private" chat on the AfD page. Grateful for your advice.

If I take the following actions:

  1. remove Fios and Novas from this afd
  2. Mention in this AfD that the same creator also created F and N
  3. Leave Fertility and Randine Lewis in this one
  4. nominate F & N seperately
  5. Create totlally new afd1s in F&N
  6. on the F and the N AfD pages note Randine etc and the other article

Is that what you mean?

Fiddle Faddle 10:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just moved the prior discussion here too to keep disruption at a minimum. Keeping FR & RL together seems ok, the rest of the procedure as well. I'll repost my comment on RL in a second. ~ trialsanderrors 10:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Will await your completion and then start relisting. I think one of us should post the procedure above to say what is being done to avoid misunderstandings. You or me? Fiddle Faddle 10:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave that to you because I'm off to bed. You can point at my talk page though if you want. ~ trialsanderrors 10:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Tks for your advice. All has been done. Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The longevity of Japanese prime ministers and my disgusting lack of appreciation for human life

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Prime Ministers by longevity:

  • Keep. The article is completely accurate. And as for the comment comparing longevity of life to shoe sizes, may I say this: your immaturity and complete lack of appreciation for human life is rather disgusting. Further, the simple fact that similar lists have been compiled for Canadian and British prime ministers, and that neither list has come into question, shows a rather sad trait found occasionally on these forums. Just because the public official is not from an English-speaking country (i.e. Britain or America) does not mean that their life span is "unnecessary and indiscriminate." The fact that this article is even being considered for deletion is rather sad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.159.15.53 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Deletion review

Hi, on the page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 12 I can't help noticing that you're being somewhat nastier to other editors than is expected on Wikipedia. We have a Civility policy which we're all supposed to adhere to. The particular edit that worries me is:

  • 23:00, 13 July 2006 "Self-defeating arguments usually don't need to be countered, but since you brought it up again in some hopefully spurious moment of ego-overinflation it became part of this review process. Thanks for the entertainment though."

This seems to be quite firmly over the line of civility. Please don't do it again. --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Editorial comment, clearly not a personal attack as extensively discussed. ~ trialsanderrors 05:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree that it may be just on the hither side of the line of personal attack. But what I said, and I hope you'll consider this and take careful note, is that it's uncivil. You used extremely loaded language, you employed the unacceptable phrase "spurious moment of ego-overinflation" and you closed with an open insult: "Thanks for the entertainment though." This kind of comment is not an attempt to communicate with the person you're addressing, but rather an attempt to make him angry. That isn't allowed on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 05:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The "tftet" was in response to the rather funny exchange about fucking the process in which the user was involved. I'll happily clarify that. As for the rest, I think I'm perfectly in line, it was carefully worded as an editorial comment and amply explained. I also consider you too partisan to make an impartial call on this. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic totalitarianism AfD

I was not aware of the review. But I am not sure if one has to wait for a deletion review to be closed before listing an article again. Note that I used a different criteria for the 3rd nomination than for the 2nd nomination. Intangible 11:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Note sure what policy it's covered in, but I saw admins bring it up during review. Also, a relist after a deletion review has better chances of gaining the necessary support. I would vote at the review and wait until it is resolved. ~ trialsanderrors 11:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually the article has changed as well during the review, so it cannot be relisted as WP:OR now. Therefore "Non-noticeable" this time. Intangible 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kevin Zeese

Thanks for the explanation about a redirect technically being a keep. I want to see how the discussion finishes out, but I expect I'll then do what was suggested: revise the article, reverse the revert, and post a note on the talk/discussion page. John Broughton 13:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Looking at the article it seems to me that the best way to avoid another AfD's is by starting from the sources, i.e. write everything as "On June 14, 2002, The Little Rock Star Ledger mentioned Zeese in connection with...", etc. And probably relegate his campaign to a footnote, since that tripped a couple of people over. It seems from the Lexis-Nexis search that you have enough material to work with. ~ trialsanderrors 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't have Lexis-Nexis access, but I agree that if the campaign is all of one sentence in the article, plus a wikilink, then it's likely not to arouse controversy. My goal is to do just enough so that the article stays around and so that others who care more about the subject can add to it. John Broughton 22:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factiva run for economic totalitarianism

  • First of all - whoops and sorry because I totally didn't see your recommendation about the Jeff Lindsay afd until now. But thanks for the suggestion! I'm happy to run a factiva run for "economic totalitarianism. I came up with only 48 hits. Here's what I conclude from a quick browse through the very limited hits:

The term "economic totalitarianism" used to be only associated with the Soviet Union (plus Fascism) and there is a few hits describing other socialist or state-directed economic models in this way (e.g. India and Japan) but a new usage emerged with as part of (does the rhetoric or theory come first? don't know) accusing the neo-liberal Washington Consensus and more specifically, the International Monetary Fund as a vehicle for economic totalitarianism.

The earliest reference I can find is a June 1983 speech by leftist Venezuelan politician Carlos Andres Perez, when the then-onetime president was running again for election. Not that the Wikipedia article on Perez says he started using this term in the 1970s, referring to advocates of globalization as "genocide workers in the pay of economic totalitarianism". 12 or 25% of the search hits relate to Venezuela and Perez (spanning 1983 to 2000) - it appears to have been a favourite phrase of Perez (the WSJ describes him as a "charismatic orator") when he has been attacking the IMF / or talking about the developed world's economic oppression of the developing world. In 1988, Perez publicly describes the IMF as the expression of "an economic totalitarianism that kills, not with bombs or bullets, but with hunger". In 1989, having recently been elected president for a second time, he used the term in a speech to the the United Nations.

This description of neoliberal globalization as economic totalitarianism seems to have gained some currency amongst anti-globalists. An article in the Ecologist from May 1999 discusses Globalization as economic totalitarianism. An editorial in the Zambia Post from March 2006 describes Washington Consensus mandated reforms as "genocide in the pay of economic totalitarianism". A January 2005 column in BusinessWorld (a US business mag which oddly, seems to quite like printing lefty op-eds) attacks the IMF with the same phrase. None of these reference Perez. It's not clear that Perez originally coined this term, but he seems to have been a major popularizer of it.

However, I would note that "economic totalitarianism" is still used to describe Soviet or socialist models. BBC Monitoring of Ukranian and Chenchen media in 2005 and 2004 show political commentaries using the phrase in terms of the Soviet model. The Indian Express newspaper (August 2003) uses the phrase in an article describing India's socialist model.

I couldn't find anything which referenced Friedman. My opinion is that the phrase is too generic to really be a good candidate for significant coinage. So generic that I doubt that Friedman coined it. (I think Perez or someone else may have legitimately coined the phrase as a means of attacking the IMF though - this would be a usage quite opposed to Friedman's ideology). I mean, its like "political democracy" or "religious doctrine". Anyway, hope that helps!! =) Bwithh 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great stuff. Btw, some of the seven JSTOR finds are from the 1940s. So now I still don't know if econtot is a leftist critique against IMF meddling, a rightist-libertarian critique against government policies, a historical term combining two quite opposite economic systems, or a notion of a system that is totalitarian in the economic realm but not in the social/political realm. As it is, we're still better off working on that economic fish article... ~ trialsanderrors 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] delete

I was wondering why you have put Triangle Town Center up for deletion. Do you think it's a lie or something? It's just a mall. Squadoosh 12:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Malls are not by themselves notable. For most part they just simply have no defining features that make a mall in Topeka, Kansas different from one in Lexington, Kentucky. They might have a different history though and the best way to keep a mall article from getting deleted is to go into the news archives, find articles which discuss the mall, architectural features, controversies during the approval phase, etc. If you can find enough material that makes this mall unique, I'll happily switch my vote to keep. But from experience, this is rarely done and malls are routinely deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I'd like to ask that you go back to the AfD for Lumber Cartel and read my response to your objections. DS 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notifier, I repsonded there. See also my 5-10 rule for those kinds of articles. ~ trialsanderrors 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: DRV

Yes, I've taken that on board, from both AfDs. It's not going to happen again: I don't know what came over me. Many thanks and kind regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catamorphism

Just wanted to drop off a very quick note — I've asked the nominee a question to clarify their position on assuming good faith and on anonymous editors. Thought I would let you know in case the response would be of interest to you with regards to your vote on their RfA. Thanks. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll also respond to your other comment on the RfA. ~ trialsanderrors 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Don't think so, I created the template long time ago only because I didn't knew the other template. You may delete it if you wish. --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 20:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Better if you just put a db-owner on it. ~ trialsanderrors 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic totalitarianism

What do I recommend? My job is just to interpret consensus. Actually, I recommend you solicit consensus to redirect it to the author or the book until such time as someone decides to write an actual encyclopedia article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My work on this is done. If you think it's keepable so be it. ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kittie May Ellis, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.


[edit] K. M. Ellis

Hi,

You said, "There are two deleted versions. One was deleted one day into the deletion review by User:Deathphoenix. The second one was created during the review and deleted by User:Xoloz after the review was closed. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)"

Yes, that's true. For the purposes of DRV closure and CSD G4, I assumed that the decision of DRV applied to the article as it was at the moment of DRV closure. I believe this is the typical thing to do, absent compelling reason to do otherwise. Hope you enjoy your break. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domestique

Sorry, I'm on wikibreak and didn't notice this earlier, but any chance you can review your decision on Talk:Cycling domestique? I created a dab page at Domestic to fulfill the wishes of the anonymous user and the comments by User:Vegaswikian seem to indicate that s/he didn't pay attention, as s/he calls for the creation of the article I wanted to be renamed. Even though there are other uses for domestique (it's French for domestic after all), I still don't see a compelling reason to not reserve the term for its most common use. (Wikitionary agrees) Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) is a pretty longstanding editor here (longer than me at least) so I'm loath to disregard his/her input. If you want to discuss the matter further with him/her, feel free, but the lack of support for this move is pretty clear from my bipartisan POV. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I left a message on his/her talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 18:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ESS & Bishop-Cannings theorem merge

hey Trialsanderrors, I think we already had a discussion, but I can't find it. I was wondering if you wanted to convince me to make the effort to merge, at Evolutionarily stable strategy#Merge Bishop-Cannings theorem? Pete.Hurd 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Hess

Thanks for the heads up. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Matthews Band tours

Hi, I, personally, don't see using a fan site as a source for things like this as a problem, since there's no POV involved, it's just dates and song lengths. I believe the majority of people who participated in the afd agree since no one else brought it up. If you disagree, you could use the {{fact}} template on parts you think need better citations (or just remove them, I think the article is crufty enough as it is), or tag the whole thing as unreferenced. Thanks. - Bobet 09:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

100px
Thanks so much for voting, Trialsanderrors!
Thanks so much for your support vote on my request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future!
—Mets501 (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dude, change it back

There's more than one famous Tim Cain in the world. See http://www.timcain.com/ -- Solberg 06:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have a WP article though. As soon as he has one, turning it back to a dab page is no problem. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It'll probably happen sooner or later-- Sons of Champlin is pretty famous from what I know. I'd rather set up a disambig page now then force some ugly monstrosity like this: Jason Anderson later. -- Solberg 07:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg
I don't see the Tim Cain connection, but if you want you can turn the Tim Cain article into a stub for the author and add dab headers to both. If it's only two Tims, we still don't need a dab page. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masturbation and bodybuilding

Hi, I didn't notice there was an AFD going on about the article, but I still don't think it'd deserve to stay. Even if it made any sense, it would still be OR, since it had nothing to do with the google scholar search results. The only votes in the AFD were to speedy. I think WP:SNOW applies here. - ulayiti (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samurai copyvios

If you think other articles are copyright violations, you should mark them with the {{copyvio}} tag and follow the copyright problems process. I wouldn't use AfD, unless you feel the articles should be deleted even if they WEREN'T copyright violations. However, I can't just go deleting a bunch of articles based on what you said. That's the thing that sucks about people making a mess on WP.. it takes a lot of effort to clean it up. Mangojuicetalk 05:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I that wasn't really my thrust. I left a note on the editor's talk page. Let's see how he responds. ~ trialsanderrors 05:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Verification of Creation

I am indeed very sorry to bother you, but I was wondering how one is to verify to others that they have created a certain article that is deserving of their credit. This certain article is Basilisk: The Kouga Ninja Scrolls, in which I at one time created a article named "Basilisk Kouga Ninpu Chou" which was the japanese name for the anime. However, someone copyed the information that I wrote from my article and pasted it within the Kouga Ninja Scrolls article making it appear that the creator of Ninja Scrolls wrote my information. Now I was wondering if there is any specific way I can show that I created it, such as saying "information listed below written by: Darin Fidika". The formation of the article is very similiar to my other articles that I have created such as Mystic Heroes and Otogi 2: Immortal Warriors. I thank you deeply if you could assist me in my cause.

-Darin Fidika

If the article was deleted (which it seems) you might want to request a "history only" undeletion at WP:DRV and make sure the history gets merged into the new article. ~ trialsanderrors 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You for your vote

Firstly I wish to thank you for your comments in my RfA. I would like to point out some points regarding my statement in AfD. I am aware of this policy where Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, according to this essay, it is stated that There is no official policy on notability. There is no absolute rule about this and this is very subjective as well. Moreover, looking at the sub-section 8 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it does not explicitly refer to the above-mentioned article. The article in question does not belong to the seven points under the sub-section. The article is not a travel guide, instruction manual or Internet guide. Anyway, I wish to thank you for your vote. Good luck for the future! --Siva1979Talk to me 09:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for noticing. Second, while I somewhat agree on the weak connection between WP:NOT and WP:N, at least 50% of AfD's these days are decided over editors' assessments of notability. So while it is perfectly ok to use this argument as a voting editor, I would have a problem with an administrator who uses it to close AfD's. Third, the list-of-seven under WP:NOT is not exhaustive. It allows editors to form their own opinions on what articles are indiscriminate collections of information. ~ trialsanderrors 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theta Beta Potata Deletion Review

T&R, i'm not sure if an a section on the punk house article would make much sense. There aren't any other houses that have their own sections so why should this one? Instead It would make more sense to have this article stand on its own. There are numerous news articles written about the Theta Beta Potata and the list of bands which played there is both pretty long and also includes many notable bands. This is makes the article notable because this was just a house in iowa/wisconsin and not some big-name venue. Granted this is not the only house venue of its kind but what else does a venue/punk house need to assert to claim notablility? Xsxex 17:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, first, the deletion review is usually there to discuss whether the closing administrator made a mistake. If there wasn't a mistake the closure will usually be confirmed, and in this case I see no reason why it shouldn't. Most editors opted for delete. If you think there should still be an article you can simply rewrite it, but make sure it is not just a copy of the old one, or it will get speedily deleted per WP:CSD. Also, if you want to write an article on it, you should first look for news sources (see WP:RS) that covered TBP, rather than write down your own experiences (see WP:NOR). I looked around and couldn't find any news sources, so I'm fairly certain any article on the house would get deleted again. That's why I suggested you write more in the Punk house article, but maybe you have access to news articles I don't know of. ~ trialsanderrors 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I did write an in depth article with a number of news sources from magazines and from periodicals. However this article was deleted by a an user unknown to me. I have now written this article 3 times and I dont feel like re-writing it for it only to be deleted. If I really should re-write it I will (and I'll remember to save the article on my own computer just in case this time) as for articles check out: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] etc.. etc.. Xsxex
Of those I'd say the Daily Iowan and Iowa State Daily article come closest to WP:RS, but the Iowa State is merely a passing mention and I can't access the Daily Iowan. More importantly, are you contesting a speedy delete that happened after the AfD? Often articles that have gone through an AfD are speedily deleted as reposts (same content), even though they are actually rewrites (new content on same subject). In that case you should point it out in the DRV and administrators can confirm that it wasn't merely a repost. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review sockpuppet question

A deletion review doesn't quite seem like the place to discuss whether or not I've had another accounts but, yeah, I've had more than one account, though I've never used them to support or even interact with each other and so I don't believe I violate the sockpuppet policy. Love, Coyote (t) 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This wasn't a sock question. There are legitimate reasons to switch accounts, but it's generally considered good behavior to disclose it. ~ trialsanderrors 23:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Love, Coyote (t) 13:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Breut Disparu.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Breut Disparu.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I included it in the Françoiz Breut article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Tinney drv

Thanks for the heads up. I think I'll just let others decide this one. She seemed pretty danged obscure to me at the time but maybe others know better. Cheers. --Fang Aili talk 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RfA/Consumed Crustacean

Thanks for the support. It passed, and I've become an administrator. Now I can deal with all sorts of uninteresting administrator chores. Yahoo. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teke's RfA thanks

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Bonomo

In that article's current AFD, you would suggest that you would consider changing your vote if the article were sourced. Please note I have now attempted to source it, there are many more potential sources to be used in both the first AFD and the deletion review, and that you're welcome to modify the article yourself. Thanks. Grindingteeth 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the Bluff article establishes verifiability in my opinion, which is why I voted overturn in the DRV. I don't see enough evidence for notabiity though, so I will continue to monitor the article and AfD. I noticed there are many sources on Bonomo and "ZeeJustin", but very few can be considered reliable. Thanks for notfying me. ~ trialsanderrors 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : AfD/Julie Costello

Done. :) - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toeic bridge

Hi,

Weirdly enough (I only know this because I happened across it the other day), WP's guideline for copyvios in article histories is relatively lax, Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. Taken together with the assertion of authorship made OTRS, I think the hist. undeletion is fairly safe, even if a little suspicious. If you find definite evidence, though, let me know. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Are you interested in adminship? You'd certainly make an excellent addition to the mop-team!

Well thanks for the trust first. I thought abut giving it another two or three months, as I'm not overly confident it would pass this time around. Unless you're getting tired of running the admin side of DRV alone, in that case we could give it a try. Although for myself I'm currently perfectly content doing the minor chores at DRV and taking care of the stuff that doesn't require admin attention. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV things

Hi,

I'm happy to see that you've got comfortable closing those things, because I can use the help. :) One small note, though: you don't need to archive format changes like Date Koji (at least I haven't been doing it), because we only need entries in "Recently Concluded" for matters that are really finished. If someone has trouble figuring out that sort of format change, my guess is that the bottom of the page is the last place they'll look. I also don't archive mistaken questions, by the way, unless they result in some change (administrative or editorial) to an article (redirect, etc.)

As for your other message this morning, I'll send an email about that tonight -- some things are better answered off-wiki. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I partly did it as note to self and in case there's "where is my request?" complaints from editors, you established a pattern I'm not going to try and change it. You want me to remove it? Awaiting your e-mail, trialsanderrors 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Email sent. No need to remove anything: that might provoke cries of "cabal conspiracy" or something! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This might not have gone through. I just e-mailed myself and no dice either. In any case, you can use my login at gmail. That should work. Sorry, ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yipes! Well, if it didn't go through, I think I'll have to rewrite from scratch, as WP doesn't save copies for us, AFAIK. Darn 'pedia! My penchant for the verbose had produced quite a long one too. :( Best wishes, Xoloz 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we can blame hotmail. Even though it lets 50+ spam mail through per day it seemingly deleted your and my mesages on sight. In any case I switched e-mail setup to gmail (and tested it), but you can just go with a regular e-mail to have a copy in your sent box. Sorry for that. ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Lakes Myth Society

Hi trialsanderrors. The AMG page that Bobet referred to said that they had two albums under the name "The Original Brothers and Sisters of Love" (albeit on an obscure indie label), which was pretty much the same band: [11], and I thought they barely met WP:NMG. When WP:NMG is met only in letter, I usually default to other arguments mentioned in the AfD to ascertain a sense of notability. Aside from the Google test, I didn't see anything either way in the AfD and, as such, I didn't think consensus was achieved. Had Mailer Diablo not already reposted this AfD once already, I would have reposted it.

Incidentally, I'd encourage you to reconsider your decision to defer applying for adminship. I'm very much in agreement with Xoloz that you'd do admirably with the mop, and I think your RfA would have a very good chance of succeeding now -- Samir धर्म 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't sure if the nominator was in favor of keeping, deleting or if it was a procedural nomination. The AMG link is definitely more elucidating than the Google hits discussion in the AfD. On admin, I might reconsider if Xoloz needs an aide with admin tools, but after my Wikibreak I've been trying to do more work in the article space. Of course I always find myself drawn back into WP space... ~ trialsanderrors 09:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] supermayan

Thanks for your note, on what?

Judging by the edit summary, you are "busy too" So what? Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Per this dif, you are a part of it too Keep it up amuse yourselves. Who cares? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. ~ trialsanderrors 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your part is. It will all come out in the difs. I'm sorry if you are not part of this puerile exercise.

I don't understand why you would warn him about a deleted, protected page. The stupid, moronic, shrill and idiotic warnings over my signature were edits by SuperMayan faking my signature. I reverted them. Frankly, so long as he contents himself with vandalizing his talk page at my expense, why should I care?

His contribs do not indicate anything beyond this. Why you felt the need to alert me to his supposedly being "at it again" when he is not is puzzling. We'll sort it all out. It's a big "who cares" to me. I apologize if I got the wrong idea about you. Chalk it up to fatigue. I do need my nap.

I do have a life outside of Wikiepdaia, and apart from making my tremors worse, this all has been quite boring to me. Once again, if I misjudged you I do apologize. Happy editing and Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you have the decency to put my attack warning back on and only revert the ones the user himself fabricated? Thank you. I don't what else I can recommend other than maybe stay away from WP for awhile if it gives you the tremors. ~ trialsanderrors 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh nevermind, he's been blocked already. ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been trying for some time to stop today, This was supposed to be a Wikibreak day. The pity is the time we both wasted on this because of his unconstructive edits. I would just as soon ignore him. :) Dlohcierekim 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading your above post you must've missed the (quite elaborate) attack page he created at Kross. [12] If pages get deleted they also disappear from the user contribution log, so it might've looked like he wasn't doing anything. ~ trialsanderrors 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drini and the CVU deletion

You, like so many other Wikipedians, seem to have felt that Drini's actions in the CVU deletion proccess were wholly inappropriate and did not follow policy. As a result, I'm forming an ad-hoc group of sorts composed of people interested in removing Drini. If you'd like to be involved, just drop me a note. ShortJason 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but no thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A RfA thank you from en:User:Xyrael

55px|left|WikiThanks rightI'd like to thank you Trialsanderrors for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8)             —Xyrael / 12:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winhunter's RfA thanks

left|100px

Hi Trialsanderrors, thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was closed as successful today with a finaly tally of (56/0/3). I will be very careful at first to avoid any mistakes. Please feel free to leave a message in my talk page if you have any comments/suggestions about me in the future. Once again, thank you! --WinHunter (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JPD's RfA

Thanks, Trialsanderrors, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Pointy objects indeed! Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Roni Lynn Deutch

Interesting link you found there regarding Roni Lynn Deutch. I will take a look and see if there is anything more in line with our guidelines for reliable sources. RFerreira 00:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the AfD, especially the Associated Press Archive - June 6, 2006 clip at the bottom of mathewguiver's list of newsclips. Sadly it focuses on the other firm involved in the lawsuit, so there isn't much there for RLD. Of course there's the possibility that it generated more news somewhere. ~ trialsanderrors 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erection index page deletion

In my opinion the erection index was mistakenly deleted and I intend to introduce an edited page to address concerns. Your comment on the deletion page does not make sense to me as detailed discussion of economic indexes rarely occurs in journalism. There may be arguments about sources and a need for better ones, but news collections are unlikely to yield many references.

Sorry this is awkward, but I think this is an important concept to document. I am moving forward with the dispute resolution process as documented. -- M0llusk 05:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You should bring it up at Deletion review if you think it was deleted in error. I'm happy to concede if more reliable sources are being introduced, but there weren't enough in the article, and based on what I could find I had to opt for deletion. Fwiw, a search on ScienceDirect also yielded zero hits. ~ trialsanderrors 05:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacDade Mall

I have no familiarity with the admin in question and no idea why this happened. To my knowledge, this is the first time I crossed paths with him. I thought it only right to leave this note in light of your comment at WP:DRV. Erechtheus 20:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think so. It just comes across as if. ~ trialsanderrors 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --RobthTalk 03:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding my RfA

I added a response to your oppose comments on my RfA page. I hope you will reconsider your decision after you read further. Thanks, and happy editing! --Nishkid64 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the moment I doubt it but I'm always willing to consider new evidence, especially with regard to your research acumen. If you close AfD's you will get a lot of bullshit thrown at you, blogs, blogs that looks like news sources, Google scores, etc. It's very important for an admin to understand the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, and I haven't found enough in your contribution history that gives me the confidence that you have enough familiarity with the problems in this area. In any case, it doesn't seem like my vote will affect the outcome of the RFA, so take it as an admonition for your future admin work. Good luck. ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6-Day war

Hi; I hope you don't mind; I relaced your REDIRECT with a {{speedy}}, as it was a self-admitted nonsense page.

I think it was a useful redirect as a possible spelling variant. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hey Trialsanderrors. Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nishkid64's RfA thanks

150px Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which closed successfully earlier today with a result of (60/9/4). Although, I encountered a few problems in my RfA, I have peacefully resolved my conflicts and made amends with the people involved. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free talk to me. I hope I will live up to your expectations. --Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?

by what substantiation is this based upon? other than arbitrary and intellect based gathering of sensory data input placed into fallible memory shards for partial retrieval later on, how can you possibly come to such a loosely knit conclusion? do you really think that or have you simply been convinced of this by faulty and unreliable evidence which when closely examined may actually lead you to quite the contrary conclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umeshghosh (talk • contribs)

It's based on knowledge of applicable copyright laws, especially the Fair Use Doctrine, and experience on how Wikipedia treats those articles. In any case, I'm not doing the deletions, so to get it deleted my assessment will eventually have to be confirmed by an administrator. You should also indicate which article you're talking about and not let me guess, and sign your talk page posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cowbell

Hi,

Well, the question really is whether it can be deleted now, or whether we should tag it with "orfud" for seven days and then CSD I5 it. Really, though, there is no conceivable use for it other than the one that the poll decided against. I guess adding "orfud" could serve as a method of announcing that the poll on the image talk will end in one week. To avoid another DRV, I suppose we might as well "jump through that hoop" in process. Sigh.

Congratulations on the A's success! I had a great year in baseball fandom, myself: My favorite NL team is the Cubs; my favorite AL, the Royals. I take antidepressants for a reason! :)

Mind you, I am a Bears fan in football, so I do have something to live for! Best wishes, Xoloz 08:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I started following baseball under the tutelage of a prof who was a diehard Cubs fan, so I still have a soft spot for them, but I know it's not easy. But then again, breakout seasons like the Bears this year make the years of suffering worthwhile. I might or might not be ready to admit my Pittsburgh Penguins fandom again, depending on how they start into the season. Oh, on the cowbell gif, I guess orfuding it seems the way to go, especially considering how long this is already ground up in the mills of WP process. Another five days won't make much of a difference. Cheers, trialsanderrors 09:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VT-10 DRV

Hi,

You made an excellent point regarding this, and are very probably completely correct regarding the copyright status of this article. Still, I'm going to close the debate as deletion endorsed based on the majority of the commenters -- even if the article isn't a copyvio, directly copying a public domain source is bad form at least, and qualifies the document for Wikisource, not Wikipedia, at worst. If I've overlooked something, let me know, but I'm going ahead with the closure. This closure will, one hopes, motivate an editor to write original text. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's ok, it was a consensus decision. Shouldn't be too hard to create new articles, we should just make sure they're not deleted under CSD:G4. ~ trialsanderrors 17:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marvin Kwitko

Hi, A few minutes ago you nominated my biography of Marvin Kwitko for deletion. I hadn't actually written any of at the time. I just jotted some stuff down quik to see how it would look with the page editor. I posted the real full biography now, and although its still missing references wich i promise are on the way, its a lot better now. Anyway, if you could go check it out now you'll see its much better, and I promise everything in there is true and will soon be referenced. Thanks a lot man. I totally understand why you nominated it when it was first written. --Beuh pudding 09:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, its me again... On the Marvin Kwitko page you posted in the "discussion" section two references saying how he pioneered laser eye surgery. I was wondering how I can put the <<ref.>> thing to those two articles? because as of now it says that i need citations, but its obvious that those two citations would be perfect, but I dont know how to reference to them. Maybe if you also had the website you got those articles from. I really appreciate the help you've given me so far and I think this citation is just what it needs to finalise the article. Thank you so much. Alex Dankoff. --Beuh pudding 05:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The website is Lexis-Nexis, a subscription-only news aggregator. Let me know where you want to put the refs and I add them to the article. Usually you just add a <ref> "source" </ref> tag at the spot of the footnote, and the "source" text will appear at the bottom under "References". ~ trialsanderrors 05:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. I fixed it all up now. I think the page looks great. I really appreciate everything. I think the page is pretty much finished at this point, unless you have any comments or you wanna let me know of anything I should change. Again, I cant express how thankful I am for everything you and everyone else did to help me make his article work. Thanks a lot. Alex D. --Beuh pudding 06:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to always be bothering you... But what do I do now to keep it from being deleted? Don't you have to remove the nomination? Thanks a lot, Alex. --Beuh pudding 06:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I took care of it. It would have been kept anyway since all editors voted keep, but there is no reason to keep this process going. Congratulations to a great start as a Wikipedia editor. If you want to continue editing the article, you should consider the following guidelines: First, the article still reads partly like an obituary, which is against policy per WP:NOT. Second, the article focuses more on curriculum vitae items (awards, publications) than encyclopedic relevance (medical accomplishments). Listing all publications even if they're out of print and minor awards is often seen as "overselling", and goes against out neutral point of view guideline. I'm no expert in the field, but the editors who contributed to the AfD and who frequent Talk:Ophthalmology seem to be willing to help you get the article in shape. All the best, trialsanderrors 07:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] K-1 WGP 2002

hey dude, it wasNt complete, i finished most of the stuff NOW, it will take Time to give and put in some more stuff. besides, it will also need edits from the public and other members. and if want to know what its all about, then its all explained in the K-1 article. could you please remove that tag. Too Cool 11:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

and dont know why you told me to, you know, put those # and * marks, but the way I did that article, That IS how we actually do the articles for all the wrestling, MMA and all fight events. Too Cool 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Heloo, i didnt get a response yet! --Too Cool 02:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, because article uses header tags instead of list tags, as it should. Header marks are for headers, not for emphasis. This is an encyclopedia, not a wrestling promo. ~ trialsanderrors 02:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
well, k-1 aint really wrestling, its kickboxing, and all the fight events are done in that style, i know what you mean though, you wanna keep things original, but i think you should (or could) remove that deletion tag on that article becuase i gave MY part of contributions, i listed all the matches and stuff, but this is a public encyclopedia (as we could say it) so, ive done my contributions but further contributions and info can be done by someone else, i aint really being paid to do all that, so no one cant expect me to work tirelessly for like 10 or 16 hours on the articles, though i do log on everyday for like 2 or 3, and occasionally even 4 hours everyday. so, im just requestin you to remove that deletion tag, if you want to, that is. so, bye now. --Too Cool 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it's ok to remove Prod tags yourself if you think you made the proper adjustments. Only speedy tags you should keep up and add a {{hangon}}. I'll take it down though. ~ trialsanderrors 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

120px Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope Talk 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crzrussian comment

I stand by it, though I don't mean to imply that anyone in particular would do such a thing just to cause disruption. Rather, I think people who oppose the RFA (especially strongly) might well feel that Crzrussian shouldn't be an admin even if the RFA succeeds, and could ask for a recall. It's more a comment on Crzrussian's judgement in still being open for recall. I'll make a note clarifying myself, I wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Mangojuicetalk 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Would you be interested in being nominated for WP:RFA? From what I see in your contributions, you are an extremely suitable candidate, and your only block should be long enough ago to not be a major issue. Or do you have any other corpses hidden in a closet somewhere that will be found during an RfA? Kusma (討論) 08:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the skeleton in my closet is that I'm currently on job search, so it's quite possible that my WP time will be cut down to zero pretty soon, and I'm not comfortable running for admin until I know I'll have some spare time to edit in the foreseeable future. But thanks for inquiring, I'm happy to see an inquiry coming from such a qualified editor. ~ trialsanderrors 09:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Good luck with your job search! If you do feel comfortable running for admin at some later time, just drop a note on my talk page and I'll work on a nomination statement. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 09:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I sure will, thanks again. ~ trialsanderrors 09:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfB With A Smile :)

       200px

[edit] Hi there!

Hi there trialsanderrors! I just saw your recent contribution to Earle Martin's RfA and I was wondering if you'd be willing to remove the link to the university article from your comment. It can easily be construed as a thinly veiled attack at both the nominator and those supporting. I think that we need to assume good faith for a candidate who has been contributing for nearly four years. Also, while I don't think that I could ever get offended by something like this, the jab at the supporters is quite visible. I wanted to approach you on your talk page, away from the RfA so as not to "call you out" for something which I imagine was in a joking manner. Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a smileyface just in case... ~ trialsanderrors 19:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

120px Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed on October 17, 2006 with a tally of 53/6/0. I am equally elated and humbled by my new capacity as administrator of Wikipedia, and I send my heartfelt thanks for your unflinching support. If you need me for anything, just ask me! With gratitude, 210physicq (c) 04:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA thanks

100px| Hi, Trialsanderrors! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Coredesat 15:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I've noted your comment about AfD. While I was quite active on those discussions during my early months as a Wikipedian, things have changed over there and I'd need to get the swing of the new procedures before using admin powers in that area. It's something I've considered rejoining, and as time and other Wikipedia pursuits allow I may return. My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HeartattaCk

I believe the decision to delete this article was made in error, so I have asked for a deletion review. Since you were involved in the AfD on this, I wanted to inform you so that you might weigh in. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Depression

Hey T&E, we may wanna have a general disambiguation page for "No Depression" (I thought we did already), in addition to the UT album and the magazine, the term is synonymous with "Alternative country", The phrase actually can be traced back through American roots music to a song the Carter Family sang, "No Depression in Heaven". Some folks in Americana/alt.country point to this fact.

Nice job on the UT template by the way. -MrFizyx 18:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is one: No Depression (disambiguation). It might also be worthwhile starting a page on the song itself. ~ trialsanderrors 18:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, done. -MrFizyx 06:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Talk: No Depression in Heaven. ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Q4

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that MCB responded to Q4 on his RfA.

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MCB.

Thanks. Nishkid64 21:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ???

You are have waaaay too much time on your hands. Whispering 21:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979Talk to me 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Patriot

Gurgle. Unfortunately my factiva hits may tip over this afd, although I do believe myself that this coverage is trivial. If you like, I can paste the Factiva articles on the California Patriot on your talk page. Bwithh 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to. If there's enough material the article can stay, although the advertising bent should probably be countered by some of the Daily Californian articles. ~ trialsanderrors 02:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, here you go... Bwithh 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the CNN interview refers to the Daily Patriot making "national headlines" over the 9/11 anniversary plans at Berkeley. The only national (there's some other local /regional) coverage I can find though is a Bill O'Reilly interview - also included below. Maybe the story got mentioned on news network bulletins which aren't covered by Factiva... but none of the national newspapers seem to have picked that story up - at least not with reference to the Daily Patriot anyway Bwithh 13:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved to /CalPatriot. ~ trialsanderrors 18:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Usually, "national headlines" = right wing rant radio. There's no shortage of left wing buffoonery at Cal, but we also got a whole horde of political commentators bent on showing that the subversive commie spirit is still alive and well in Berkeley. It's pretty annoying, on both sides. ~ trialsanderrors 18:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hey trailsanderrors,

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed unanimously with a final tally of 38/0/0. I appreciate your trust, and will do my best to uphold it. Don't hesitate to let me know if you ever need anything. — TKD::Talk 05:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA!

        100px       Trialsanderrors, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support! --plange 22:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC) 75px

[edit] Music Psychology and the ONLY Reference Possible for the Article

Hi Trails and Errors. You dropped by and saw what I had put up and labeled it "self-promotion" ... This is not so. I am not the professor. If you want to, you could speak to me to verify I have no male gonads and that I have no Austrian accent. The reason I put this up is because there are can be no references at all that can be cited, for the professor is a qualified source. This illustrious professor (as verified by the info I put up) is not notable enough to merit his own webpage, so how else am I to "reference" the article? This man did not use any footnotes because HE is the expert. Do you see the problem? How would you suggest I deal with this?

By the way, I have a letter into him and I hope he can drop again some time soon. I asked him to leave an affirmation that the entire article was his and that it was there with his complete permission, under Wiki rules. But again, HOW can I "reference" the article if you do not let me "reference" the article? This entire topic could be put up for deletion if you do not allow me to "reference" this article. And the professor is the ONLY reference - and you can't simply put in a link to his webpage. That is NOT sufficient to "prove" that he is an eminent and most qualified authority. People need to SEE his CV, see his research and publications so they can be assured that the man knows what he's talking about.

Professor Parncutt is not looking for self-promotion or HE would have raised his own flag. But he did not. He did not even "sign" or put a single link up. So you see how things are and you see the dilemma. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kiwi: First, I think the article you're talking about is Music psychology (small p). Second, the section I removed sounded like self-promotion. I apologize for the edit summary if this wasn't the case. Nevertheless, there is no reason to leave the passage in. References for this article should be about the notability of music psychology as a field (and I don't see any problems there, the number of journals and degree progams speak to that), not about a single researcher in the field. Looking at his CV I concur that he is not indiviually notable, but that's only my own opinion and you're free to write an article on him. But if we both agree that he is not notable then I don't see how references of his qualifications make the case for the article on music psychology. ~ trialsanderrors 20:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"References for this article should be about the notability of music psychology as a field (and I don't see any problems there, the number of journals and degree progams speak to that), not about a single researcher in the field."
But you see, he has been in the field, a researcher for decades, widely published, tons of research. He IS a major researcher. Asking him to reference someone is like asking Freud or Einstein, having written a very short few paragraphs on what is very basic things about a deep and paper, to try to find someone else who agrees with him.
Now, in the case of someone coming along with the expertise to add to the topic (as editing always goes), then there will be other sources added based on others who know and understand the field. What the professor has done is give adequate resources so that the dedicated learner can learn more. THEN he will be "only one of more than one" of the references for the article. He will be the referance. Now, how that will be handled is uncertain, but perhaps to his intermediate page that does not not at all point to the article, but does provide links to research and publications. As I said, I am not trying to suggest that he is the only person qualified to write or comment upon this topic. Actually, he has put forward only the barest of introductions. There is tons more to be done.
How would you feel if we moved him down to "See also" with links to all the relevant pages, article and qualifications. And no, there is no current need for a page. Unless further editors end up quoting him a lot and prove him more notable than I imagined. --A green Kiwi in learning mode
I don't know if that's true, but if he's the Einstein of music psychology you should write an article on him and add him under the leading researchers in Music psychology. ~ trialsanderrors 22:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Did you send me a message or something about my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachsa (talk • contribs)

That wasn't me but your article has been deleted as a recreation of a previously deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenis and WP:CSD. ~ trialsanderrors 05:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for expressing an interest in my recent RfA. As a followup, I wanted to let you know that unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate that you took the time to monitor the discussion, and I paid close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand everyone's concerns and issues. My current plans are to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfD thanks and help request

Hi, I want to thank you for your assistance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBA Rankings. An issue has arisen, however, since I redirected the article back to MBA per consensus.

The person who originally copied that article from the MBA article and inserted the copyvio rankings (which you deleted), has reverted my redirection, and has also edited the AfD after it was closed. He would like the AfD discussion reopened because he apparently doesn't log in frequently and didn't get a chance to respond. I have no desire to shut him out... so how do I go about re-opening the discussion? Or is it appropriate?

I don't think it's appropriate to move the debate over to the Talk:Master of Business Administration page, because few people ever look at it; a greater consensus would be achieved by having it reappear in the AfD listings. -Amatulic 15:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved the comment to Talk:Master of Business Administration for now. I'm not all that happy with reopening the AfD for a non-deletion decision. If you want outsiders to look at it, you can ask at Wikipedia:Third opinion, or simply set up a straw poll at the talk page and inform the Business and Economics project. ~ trialsanderrors 18:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent advice, thanks. I wasn't aware of that third opinion page. I notice that User:Daviegold has already submitted something to Wikipedia:Third opinion, but he misrepresented the situation somewhat, so I have just modified it to be more NPOV. I think it's unfortunate that I withdrew the nom and the AfD discussion was closed before Daviegold had a chance to comment, but even with his comments I still think we acheived consensus to redirect. -Amatulic 01:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. I put the article on my watch list and might chime in later if needed. ~ trialsanderrors 02:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I see you did. It's clear to me we have a copyvio issue, according to the Financial Times terms of use I just quoted in Talk:Master of Business Administration. If you disagree, please weigh in as needed. I'm bowing out for the day before I write something I regret later. -Amatulic 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

120px Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --MCB 06:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not a new user

Trialsanderrors, I'm not a new user; I've edited Wikipedia before (as my userpage says!) SunStar Net 10:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the laugh

"Largest Pez-related online forum = best soccer player in Greenland." Best line I've seen in a while. Fan-1967 16:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I can't take authorship for this. It's a stone-old line from Mad cartoon, about the fact that Princess Di was the most attractive member of the British royal family. ~ trialsanderrors 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Equix

Article restored, and I created the AfD page. Feel free to edit the page and add the arguments that User:Gzuckier used. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equix. Nishkid64 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I notified him so he can post it if he wants. I'm just gonna remove the DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 23:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor_Ziebarth

I noticed your edit to Trevor_Ziebarth. It definantly isn't a personal attack, it's about a television character. I aggree the page should go however, as it contains no meaningful information. RichMac 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I took it as one based on the user's name, User:Zeebarf. I removed the attack warning. ~ trialsanderrors 04:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fut.Perf. RfA

Ha ha! You said Perfect Support at Nightfall and made me almost spill my drink! :-) •NikoSilver• 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So how often do you drink while WP'ing, Niko? ;-> Septentrionalis 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It was a soda (that's why I didn't mind spilling it). I drink alcohol only when I have to co-edit an article with someone like you! :-p •NikoSilver• 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't figured out yet whether Wikipedia drives me to drink or whether drinking drives me to edit Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 21:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of economic thought

I replied to your comments at some length. I'm not actually lobbying strongly for the change, but your points were interesting. Septentrionalis 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I responded there. ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Huemer AfD

You didn't subst the relist template I substed it for you. Whispering 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for your support of my recent RfA. If you ever need any help or just want someone to tak ea look at an article, just let me know. BTW, the A's are bound to win it all soon enough. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA time?

Hi,

It's been a bit since we've discussed your adminship, and in the meantime, you've continued to contribute excellently all around. I'm not sure if you're waiting on another nominator, or you have your own reasons for further delay, but I think it's becoming rather depressing that you're not an admin -- Wikipedia needs you! :) If you're still ready to go, I'll type up the nomination this evening. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think I should run now. The "non-controversial" closures at DRV have dried up significantly and I see you carry most of the weight there. So if you want me to share the burden I'd be up for it. Thanks for checking back! ~ trialsanderrors 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I would support that! -MrFizyx 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Xoloz would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Xoloz to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trialsanderrors. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Feel free mercilessly to revise my nominator's statement; I fully trust you to put words in my mouth :), and I'll leave the posting on the RfA page to you, once you've done the necessary steps. Enjoy RfA fun! Xoloz 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Answered, and unless you see some major fauxpas I'm ready to throw it to the sharks... ~ trialsanderrors 19:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
As I'd expect, it looks perfect to me! :) I have every expectation that the crowd will be more like tabby cats than sharks in your case. ;) Xoloz 19:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, it's life bait now... ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well from the way it's going now, from Strongest Support to Strong Support to Support to Suport, we'll be at Spt in no time... ~ trialsanderrors 21:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] small favor

Hey Mike, I was wondering of you could help me out with getting votes for expanding an article I started a while back. My old US Australia relations article is currently being considered for expansion by the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. To vote, go here and scroll to the bottom.


Thanks man! Sharkface217 05:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

90px|left
Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!


[edit] Thank you for your support!

left|none|300px|Se la face ay pale, la cause est...

23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now,
it's because of the amazing support
during my recent request for adminship
and because of all those new shiny buttons.

And if in the future
my use of them should not always be perfect
please don't hesitate to shout at me
any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

[edit] RfA thanks

140px Hi Trialsanderrors, and thanks for your participation at the recent RfA, which did not succeed. For those of you who expressed their support, your kind words and your trust are sincerely appreciated. For those who were opposed --especially those who offered their constructive criticism-- please accept this message as assurance that equally sincere efforts, aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of representations within the Wikipedia, will continue. Striving for improved collaboration and consensus will also continue, with all of your insights in mind, while applying NPOV ideals as fairly and reasonably as possible. Ombudsman 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Trialsanderrors, thanks much for your support to my RFA. And (redundant) best wishes for yours:) I think you will make a great admin! -- Lost(talk) 19:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice non-essay

I like your non-essay and I've added it to my stash of wise words. Thanks! — Saxifrage ✎ 08:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed it still describes WP:NN as an essay... ~ trialsanderrors 09:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

90px|left|My brand-spankin' new mop!

My RfA done
I hope to wield my mop well
(Her name is Vera)

I appreciate
The support you have shown me
(I hope I don't suck)

Anyway, I just
wanted to drop you a line
(damn, haikus are hard)

I appreciate this opportunity to control and sensor the internet and remove peoples freedoms serve the Wikipedia community. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

left|175px
Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!

Thank you so much, Trialsanderrors, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I also vow to respond to the concerns you presented on my RfA. I will try to be more involved in article building henceforth. Regards.--Húsönd 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

You're now an admin. The community has placed it's confidence in you and I'm sure you'll do fine. Re-read the policies as needed and ask for advice if you're unsure. Be conservative with the tools, but also dig in to help out with the backlogs. Again, congrats - Taxman Talk 20:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done on such a resounding result on your RfA! Please ask if you have any questions and good luck with the mop! Regards, (aeropagitica) 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Congrats! --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 01:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, congratulations. "With great power, there must also come -- great responsibility!!" Bwithh 05:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well done! -- Samir धर्म 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me, too, Trials. All the best with your adminship. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, brilliant message :) Good work, and all the best. riana_dzasta 06:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian ※ Talk 06:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! Don't forget, {{User wikipedia/Administrator}} and {{administrator}} are waiting :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
And my apologies about taking six edits to get this right - "Show Preview" isn't working in opera for me at the moment...
Done... ~ trialsanderrors 07:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on the promotion. Also, your RfA thanks template was much more interesting than most  :-) --NMChico24 08:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Ditto that. And that was a very cool msg you wrote :) (Radiant) 09:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Congrats You are very welcome. And thanks for the most imaginative RfA yhanks ever. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crap

I just swung by WP:RfA to finally get around to showing mysupport for your nom, but I had missed out. Well, congrats anyway. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion. Even though I jumped around so much on the RfA, I think you'll do a fine job. - Mike | Talk 05:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

Hey, I was wondering what's the significance of the Mike Hunter air force officer photos on the user page? I noticed it's not assigned to any article but quite a few user pages are showing them... Bwithh 06:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ooooh... never mind, I worked out why. Bwithh 06:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the posse

Don't be tempted to become a wicked rouge admin too quickly :-) Guy 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe... Congrats. Nice close on Schmeltz. Aggressive, but in my favor, so who am I to complain, right? So tell me, how do you know about Starik Hottabych? Pretty hardcore stuff, unless you and I are compatriots. - crz crztalk 11:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to check for talk pages when you're deleting articles. I found some you left lying around. Cheers. - crz crztalk 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh thnks. I'm still getting the hang of the process. Just had to go over my deletions from yesterday and clean up after myself. On Starik Hottabych, no that was just something I found when looking for "flying carpet". ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for congratulating me. I congratulate you as well, make good use of the tools and happy editing/mopping! :-) Regards.--Húsönd 13:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing AfD Prathap C. Reddy

Did you forget something?? The AfD notice was still on the article page... I'm clearing it now while I tidy up. --Mereda 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the only thing I forgot... Thanks! ~ trialsanderrors 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winning strategy

I'm bothered by my total ignorance of the concept of "winning strategy". I havn't gotten into the office to check, but if it appears in the index of any standard game theory text, then it's further evidence that my memory has totally gone, and I'll just cringe in embarassment. I get the feeling that it's a concept used in Combinatorial Game Theory (in which case I won't feel bad). At the very least, the article needs a rewrite. I'll look into it later on today. Pete.Hurd 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Congratulations on the mop. Rock on Pete.Hurd 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I had the same feeling and starting checking indices (no dice), but I kinda remember reading about it in graph theory and computational complexity. If this is what this is about — we know that there is a "winning strategy" for checkers but none for chess — we can ditch it from the game theory navbox. On the article itself: AfD? Bring it up at our science discussion? Stubify? It's pretty unreadable to me right now. Now checking for the fallout of my first mop session... ~ trialsanderrors 18:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA thanks

I didn't vote on your RfA (at least I don't think I did), but I saw your thanks on another admin's talk page, and it made me smile at a time when I really needed some amusement. So I want to share that smile with you. {{subst:smile2|Ginkgo100 talk · e@|18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Admin tools

140px|mop
The mop		 Congratulations on becoming an admin!

Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care:

All the best! - Quadell

 250px|mop
The flamethrower

[edit] Re: Squick

Weird, I remember seeing your name as the admin who relisted it, knowing that it was originally listed on the 9th... oh well. I've gone ahead and reversed my actions. But to avoid this, be sure to de-transclude an AfD from the old page when you relist it. Otherwise you run the risk of exactly what just happened happening. --W.marsh 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't think that'll be a recurring issue. Thanks for detranscluding. ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of file sharing applications

I'm thinking of taking this to AfD but I don't know under what section of WP:NOT or some other policy it's a comparison guide not really a computer game guide and it's not really indiscriminate. However I do not believe it belongs on Wikipedia so I was wondering if you had any ideas. Whispering 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd. I just noticed this earlier today. It belongs on wiki.etree.org, but how to sell it? I think WP:NOT an instruction manual comes closest. ~ trialsanderrors 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like that was already up for AfD (it was buried on the talk page) but it didn't really have any convincing keep arguments. Mostly because ILikeit, but it didn't have any delete arguments either. Whispering 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Maybe it might get a few delete !votes, but I don't see it actually getting deleted. The only way to get this off Wikipedia might be to show that it duplicates content that's hosted elsewhere. ~ trialsanderrors 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I suppose we could just work on getting the unsourced, NN programs off the Wiki. And deal with the rest later. Whispering

[edit] Closing AfD's

Firstly, nice work taking out all the shit at AfD. Secondly, it was probably just a minor mistake, but make sure you use {{ab}} at the bottom when closing debates.[13] As I mentioned, given that you've closed every other one fine, it was probably just an error, but I thought you'd like to know anyways. Cheers, and keep up the good work, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I need an Afdclosebot. ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fok?

I'm with you on that one. The more I read about Chinese, the more confusing the language seems. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about WP:COI and Dogme article

How are the contributions made by ScottThornbury on the deleted Dogme ELT article not conflicts of interest? It appeared to me that his contributions were propagandistic or "campaigning" and self-promoting (since he is an admitted member of the movement). – Chris53516 (Talk) 16:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see now which references you were talking about. The ones he left in at the end, the supposedly "eminent" ones, wouldn't be against COI since anyone, even someone with COI, can point to independent, reliable sources. The ones he added in first were authored by him though, so the COI is that he might want to promote his position in the movement. I removed the remark now. ~ trialsanderrors 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I thought perhaps I didn't understand the COI policy. – Chris53516 (Talk) 18:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese sex terms

Exactly how did you reach the conclusion that there was no consensus? There was a clear and substantial majority in favour of deletion. Exploding Boy 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the link? ~ trialsanderrors 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found it and added a rationale. Please in the future have the courtesy and link to the article you have questions on. ~ trialsanderrors 22:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Registered Student Organizations at UMass Amherst AfD

You forgot the {{ab}} at the end I did it for you. Whispering 01:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that the [Top] marker had disappeared. ~ trialsanderrors 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your "RFA thanks" note

Based upon the text of this, it's a shame that WP:DEATHRAYS is now deleted. - 152.91.9.144 06:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I had actually considered the polar opposite... ~ trialsanderrors 07:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Czolgosz & The Vanzettis

I don't understand. I staetd that it is a localized band and that they only operated from 93 until 99. Why then would there be Google hits? Go to Sound Idea in Brandon, Florida and you can buy any one their albums.

I was a fan and felt there should be something on here.Largely indeterminable 08:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything that would pass as a reliable source (meaning, no myspace, blog or fanpage)? The problem here is that there is absolutely nothing on them or their label. ~ trialsanderrors 08:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Gibraltarians

Why is it AfD disruption? If it was, it was in good faith, since I am not very familiar with this procedure. I took heed of the criticism, deleted the page, changed the name and rewrote it from scratch. I don't understand why you changed your mind and endorse deletion... Thanks. --Burgas00 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was in bad faith, just rather hapless. In any case, I looked at the deleted versions and agree that your edits don't amount to a "rewrite from scratch" and your conduct at AfD doesn't give you grounds to ask for overturning. ~ trialsanderrors 01:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Templates

It looks wonderful! You're a genius! :) What are the templates you use? Best wishes, Xoloz 18:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you took the reigns just in time, as I am coming down with the flu, I fear. I did think of one thing regarding the templates: assuming no one objects to them (and who would, they're great!), you might want to wait till Dec. 1 to implement them, just for cosmetic consistency on the different log pages. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll need some more time to develop. I also have to talk to some of the CSS/Java experts first. I'm thinking testing at DRV in December and if it works we could branch it out to the other XfD's in January. Oh, and get well soon, and not only so that you can go back to closing DRV's... ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV suggestion

Great idea, trialsanderrors! I would hope there is some consensus for it! --SunStar Net 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Chiodos

I'm a little curious to know what "I wonder if The Heartless Control Everything" is a song about Wikipedia" means, if you wouldn't mind shedding some light on that. Thank you for closing the AfD by the way, as the consensus had clearly been established. - Che Nuevara 06:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit of an in-joke, it's pretty frequent that we're being accused of being heartless control freaks by outsiders when we put articles up for deletion. Oh I also merged the reissue into the album article, the rest I'll leave up to you. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks again, I'll get on that. Peace! - Che Nuevara 15:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity

I am responding here because I've already said more on the RfA than I wanted to, and don't wish to make any further comments there regarding my bio. People are free to make up their own minds based on the statements I've already made. I am not trying to influence your choice to support, oppose or remain neutral on my RfA by responding here. This is only about the comments you made regarding my creation of my bio and entirely divorced from the fact that the comments were made on my RfA. Pretend you made those comments on my talk page and treat my comments here in that context.

The reason I am writing this is that you have made an unsupported assertion regarding my motivation (that I created the article as a vanity piece) and have made two contradictory and incorrect statements of fact (first that I made a claim of notability, and second that I made no assertion of notability). You also state that I provided no sources for my information, which while correct, is incomplete and creates a false impression. Collectively, whether intended or not, these statements malign my character. I'd like to clear that up.

First some context: here is the original version of the article I created. DURING the AfD I was encouraged by the person that initiated the AfD to add additional information to the bio in order to establish notability. I declined and stated that the bio should be considered on the basis of the information in the bio—that if it wasn't deemed notable based on that, then it should be deleted. AFTER the AfD was closed, at the urging of the person that initiated it, I added this.

At the time I created the article, Doug Bell was discussed in three of the four existing articles on the games that I was involved in creating, with red links from at least two of them.

WP:AUTO

Even though I was unaware of WP:AUTO at the time I created the article, I'm going to assert that the creation of my bio does not violate any Wikipedia policy. WP:AUTO is a guideline that while it strongly discourages people from creating or editing articles about themselves, also says:

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

The specific concerns in WP:AUTO are:

  1. Puffery, or undue positive bias
  2. Verifiability
  3. Original research
  4. Validation of notability

I'll address those separately.

Validation of notability:

The validation of notability in this case is simply that entirely independent of me, somebody both mentioned me and linked to the nonexistant bio on me.

Puffery, or undue positive bias:

I added the following facts to the original version that weren't already in the encyclopedia:

  1. My date of birth
  2. The book on game programming I coauthored
  3. Basic employment history with FTL Games
  4. Some additional detail regarding my role on each game that is included in the game credits

Additionally, I added the following assertion of notability: He is best known for his role as the lead designer and programmer for the Dungeon Master series of computer games from FTL Games.

The only possible claim for puffery here is the assertion of notability. Note however, that I'm not making any absolute claims of notability, but rather a simple relative claim that I'm more well-known for Dungeon Master than for anything else I might be known for. That makes the potential puffery rating of this statement fairly low, if any.

Verifiability:

The fact that I played the role I did in creating the games can be verified by the material included with the games themselves. If you would like to add a reference to the games as a source for these statements, be my guest, but it would be outside the practice on similar bios to reference the games for these simple statements of fact. Likewise, bios on authors do not need to cite the authored book as the source of the fact of authorship. Employment information is not generally consider controversial, and I can point to hundreds, if not thousands, of well-sourced bios on WP that do not source employment information. I suppose I could dig up a reference to my birth certificate as a source for my date of birth, but again, it is not common practice on bios to source basic uncontested facts such as these.

So that only leaves my relative statement regarding notability. While it would be preferable to source this claim, (and there is probably a way to do this) this statement really amounts to a generalization of many independently verifiable facts.

Original research

Again, only the statement regarding what I'm most known for is questionable here. I suppose that's an interesting question of whether it would be original research to read 10 articles on a subject and then make a statement regarding the consensus (i.e. "most known") of the articles. That's essentially what this statement amounts to.

Back to your statements

vanity article You have not supported this claim in any way. I assert that a) there is no puffery or self-aggrandizement in the article I created; and b) that the need and motivation for creating the article was established by existing links and references in independently created articles. I further claim that it is not a vanity piece as evidence by the spartan nature of the article. I've provided support for my statements above.

claim that he's notable Well since you didn't source this statement, I have to make an assumption here that it is the reference to the Category:Notable Wikipedians on my user page. If you are referring to some other claim of notability, please point me to it. As I explained in my comments on the RfA, I didn't add the article to the category, nor did I name the category. I only referred to the category as a matter of fact, not as a claim of actual notability.

an article that neither asserts notability This is correct. The assertion of notability is made by the articles that reference the bio. I didn't think it was my place to add any further assertion of notability beyond that, so I didn't. Somehow I suspect I would have gotten slammed if I had made an assertion of notability here, so I guess I was damned either way.

nor offers much in terms of sources First, as I discuss above, there isn't much to source in what I added. The book and the games serve as their own source for the information related to them. The rest is generally uncontested information. I would point out that the article on me has exactly as many sources as the article on James Gosling. One last point is to repeat I was intentionally creating a stub. It was never my intent to write the whole article on myself, only to get rid of the red links.

By calling the article a vanity piece, making an incorrect statement about my claim of notability, and by adding the claim that I provide no sources you are creating the an false impression of the actual nature of the article I did create. You persist with this despite the explaination I provided regarding it's creation. Whether you decide to support, oppose or remain neutral on the RfA is your business and I have no quarrel with it, but I do resent the tainted impression you create regarding the bio I created.

Thank you for reading this, —Doug Bell talk•contrib 12:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Doug: I'll respond at length this afternoon, for now I've struck the word "vanity' which seems to be the bone of contention, and tagged the Gosling article with a {{sources}} tag. ~ trialsanderrors 19:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, now regarding your comments: For one, I apologize for causing you undue stress over a difference in interpretations. I accept that if interpretatins differ the more benevolent should win out, which is why I struck the vanity from my comment on your RFA. Now, about what I consider a vanity article: First, I'm not engaging in speculation over motivation, I can only work with what is in the article. And your article, at any time, boiled down to the following claims: "X wrote book Y" and "X was professionally engaged in Z". Those are not claims to notability, they are claims of fact. The first is probably verifiable by checking out a library website and the second via documentation from your employer. Claims of notability, in this context would be "X wrote book Y which has been reviewed by the NY Times", or "X wrote book Y which received the Best in Show Award in 2006". The difference between the former and the latter is that the latter makes a claim that your activity has been noticed by an independent, reliable source. If you spend some time at Special:Newpages or at [{WP:DRV]] you'll see that unsupported claims of fact routinely get tagged and deleted as WP:CSD A7, and the deletion is routinely held up in review. Your article, as it stands is the type that appears in pay-for-inclusion Who-is-Who directory, or in my somewhat flippant parlance, a vanity entry. This does not mean I ascribe sinister motives to your creating it when you were new to Wikipedia, but I have problems that in the seven months since you joined, you didn't pick up on the need for sourcing or the difference between a claim of fact and a claim of notability.
On your concern that adding sources might be construed as more vanity, WP:AUTO proposes the alternative that you offer sources on the talk page for other editors to review, or you could, like James Dignan just did, start another AFD and pose the question to the community whether the sources you have are in fact sufficient to make you notable. I think initiating this would alleviate anybody's concern that you might have vain motives to write an article on yourself.
What I find much much disconcerting now is your claim above, that the James Gosling article being unsourced somehow lets you off the hook. Pointing at the failing of other articles is never a an argument in favor of the article you defend. It just invites mediocrity creep and as such has been refuted at AfD's over and over. I'm worried that you are planning to close AfD's if you actually still buy into its validity, That, much more than your contributions to Doug Bell article nine months ago, would make me oppose your RFA, because it shows a lack of tacit knowledge about the AfD process. I won't take it to your RFA though, as I said I don't have any intention to derail it, but it's something to consider when you pick up admin duties. Thanks for taking this here and creating an opportunity to explain our differences in interpretation. ~ trialsanderrors 05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I appreciate you taking the time to provide a detailed account of your reasoning. If you look at the article Dungeon Master (computer game), which may at some point be fleshed into a more complete article as it has been tagged as a "high-priority" article for improvement and inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0, you will see that I could make claims as you state above regarding my notability via the notability of the games I was involved in creating. I decidely will not make the additions to the article on myself because I believe that WP:AUTO is an important guideline—besides, it would also require that I make judgements about the relative value of the awards Dungeon Master won because it surely wouldn't be appropriate to list all of them in my bio. The point being, just because the article about me hasn't been fleshed out doesn't mean it falls in the category of a "pay-for-inclusion Who-is-Who directory" article.
What I find much much disconcerting now is your claim above, that the James Gosling article being unsourced somehow lets you off the hook. The only point I'm making is that there are many unsourced articles here, and that doesn't somehow taint the purpose of the article. But it was probably not a useful point to be making, so let me instead ask what information I added you think needs to be sourced? I already made my case above for why I think you have created an improper impression about the lack of sources because the information I provided didn't require sources, and instead of responding to that, you quibble with my admittedly poor equivalence argument. Further, I didn't include descriptions of my notability because I think that's a conflict of interest, as stated in WP:AUTO.
...but I have problems that in the seven months since you joined, you didn't pick up on the need for sourcing or the difference between a claim of fact and a claim of notability and I think initiating this would alleviate anybody's concern that you might have vain motives to write an article on yourself. I DIDN'T WRITE AN ARTICLE, I CREATED A STUB! I find it hard to believe that you're going to continue to give me a hard time about this instead of recognizing that despite being unaware of the policy against creating and editing articles about yourself, that I managed to do so while staying within the guidelines of that policy based purely on my own personal integrity and views regarding vanity and conflicts of interest. Instead, you are now making me responsible for fleshing out the stub on me, which is a conflict of interest. Are you saying that you've never created an unsourced stub that you left for someone else to flesh out? Are you saying that creating such a stub is something that reflects poorly on my judgement? I can't tell.
All I can say at this point is that I'm not planning on embellishing the article on me, period. That's either for others to do, or if the article doesn't belong here, then that's for other to decide and delete it. I was only trying to help out in my misguided ways as a new editor here when I created the stub. I was very deliberate in doing it in a way that avoided me making any judgements regarding how to view my notability or lack thereof, and was deliberate in only adding the minimum, uncontestable facts that were directly related to the articles that mentioned me. I actually thought that I was conscientious in doing so, but if you don't agree, that's your perogative. Thanks for taking the time to explain your views. I hope if I am made an admin that I won't disappoint you. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

left|225px
Thank you for the Support

I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Trialsanderrors, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macau categories

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_November_4&diff=87956847&oldid=87310295 It has been addressed by CFD. As a result of CFD three categories have to be undeleted, therefore VFUD. - Privacy 19:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

link? ~ trialsanderrors 00:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_27, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_November_4&diff=87310295&oldid=87956847 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_October_22&diff=84058290&oldid=84054368. - Privacy 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I know the ones from Deletion Review. You're telling me to do something that happened at CFD, which I don't frequent. ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As a result of CFD three categories have to be undeleted. Therefore I went back to VFUD to request for undeletion. - Privacy 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the wrong place. If the decision at CFD was to undelete you should ask the admin who closed the debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kbdank71&diff=89306894&oldid=89260596. - Privacy 21:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving active discussions

It's not generally considered good form to archive active discussions from your talk page. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't really much for me to respond to. We have differences in interpretations which we clarified, I don't see any need for further action from my side, and you pretty much made clear that you're not planning to take action either. There's nothing left for me to do than to wish you good luck on your RFA and future admin actitivities. ~ trialsanderrors 20:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bicycle Day

Well, I can't say I'm entirely pleased with this. I missed the part where you were just going to close the discussion one day in and go with a redirect. I still believe it deserves its own article, and a strong majority agreed with me at the time you closed it. What should we do? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit history is back now. You can dig it out and try to turn it into a real article, which of course might be subject to an AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointment

I have to say that this kind of thing is an example of what makes me want to leave this project. Opposing a qualified and eager candidate, and calling out a "lapse in judgment" for something as inane as grabbing a userbox from somewhere just seems silly to me. I certainly haven't checked the fair use status of every image in every userbox on my page. The ones I've made? Sure. But ones I found? Does that make me a bad administrator? This is why a lot of awesome users are afraid to go through the RFA process, and we miss out on a lot of great people who would help us with our considerable backlogs. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I made it clear that nobody else should oppose because of it, and if that's the only problem he had then he should pass with flying colors. Knowledge of the key provisions of copyright is fairly high up on my list of criteria. And yeah, it's a lapse in judgement if you see a userbox you like with something that looks like a logo and you don't even click on it to see if it's valid, although I wouldn't quite go as far as call it inane. ~ trialsanderrors 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for restoring my userbox. ViridaeTalk 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I did some cleanup among the Australian edu boxes and created one for La Trobe: {{user La Trobe}}. ~ trialsanderrors 22:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Allen notability

Hi trialsanderrors,

I noticed that you added an {{NN}} template to a page I just created. Just FYI, despite the fact that as user vohh I haven't made many edits, I've been a relatively prolific anonymous contributor since 2001, and only created this user a while ago when Wikipedia's new post-Seigenthaler policies forced me to do so in order to create new articles. This isn't relevant to the notability issue you raised on Eddie Allen (folk musician), but I'm just letting you know so that you don't get the impression that I created this user just to produce an article on a presonal friend or music artist I'm affiliated with, as some unscrupulous netizens have been wont to do.

Having said that, I'm wondering how to help alleviate the notability issue. Eddie Allen is a relatively small time folk musician from Wisconsin whose albums I personally own and who I have seen live at a few different folk-related concerts. However, he was already fairly inactive by the time the "internet era" dawned and as such (as I'm sure you've noticed) there is relatively little information about him available on the web. The only reference I was able to find, I linked to (at FolkLib).

Of course, I think he is notable, or I wouldn't have created the article, but as per Wikipedia:Notability, my subjective opinion is not relevant to the matter. It is certainly true that as he no longer performs (that I know of) and that his albums are out of print. But despite his small-time status he has a relatively large fan following in the midwestern folk music scene, and it would be a shame to have an article about him deleted essentially because he's a small time musician.

What are your thoughts? Vohh 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In essence you should try to collect sources that bolster your claim that he was notable. A good comparison to look at is Robert Charles Griggs, which was recently put up for deletion and kept. Since he still seems to be alive, one way to get this info might be to get in touch with him and ask about music magazine write-ups. ~ trialsanderrors 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alameda Measure A Deletion

If you want to contest my closure of the Alameda article - no, actually, I think more admins should see yours and Calton's behavior. Mowster 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said, WP:DRV is the place to bring this to the attention of other admins. I have no opinion on Calton's behavior. I don't know what he did. ~ trialsanderrors 05:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointment

What a pity you closed this AfD, I was hoping that a second admins opinion might have provided a slightly more sensible result but clearly that's not the case. I don't intend taking this through the review process. Two admins ignoring the weighted and carefully argued opinions in favour of vote tallying has to be taken to mean that a votecount simply holds more weight than intelligent prose. Pity. It doesn't even pass your 510 test. •Elomis• 06:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To put it in simple terms: I hate articles on schools. If there were policy-backed grounds for me to delete I wouldn't have shied away from it (see above discussion). Actually, I usually don't close school articles because I don't want my bias to get in the way. But this one was a clearcut close. Any notability guideline gives editors considerable leeway in interpretation, and since WP:SCHOOL is a proposed guideline anybody can ignore it and apply their own standards. The claim to notability was sourced and accepted as sufficient. If I had voted myself I might have applied 510, but in this case there was no reason for me to overturn the consensus, especially after numerous changes in !votes to keep. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If a third admin's opinion is desired, I support trialsanderrors' closing of the AfD. Is there some POV in the article? Perhaps. Is it the same article that you nominated? Hell no. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Japanese sex terms

I just wanted to leave a bit of praise for how well decided your closure was on that AfD. It was well thought out and reasonable conclusion to the arguments that I often don't see on highly contended nominations. I especially appreciated that you gave a detailed explaination of how you arrived at your decision - again, something often lacking in comparable closures.

All in all, just wanted to say Good job - keep it up WilyD 19:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, although it looks like glossaries might be banned from Wikipedia. The discussion seems to have died down now. ~ trialsanderrors 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.S.HUSSAIN ZAHEER MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL ???

Hi, Trialsanderrors. This AfD surprised me twice. First when the consensus swung to "Keep" and second when it was relisted. I've read the new, improved article and think it passes WP:SCHOOLS. I can't understand Elomis's position.65.35.168.248 03:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think Elomis's postion was articulate and acceptable, and in a different situation might have tipped the scale. But with the dynamics of the discussion I think there was no other outcome than to keep, especially since Elomis's poistion was based on a proposed guideline. ~ trialsanderrors 05:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Quick question: weren't the arguments of everyone else also based upon a proposed guideline? Namely, WP:SCHOOLS? --Iamunknown 22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
No, and there is no requirement to. Technically, not even accepted guidelines have to be adhered to. They're simply Schelling points that hold because they create consensus in AfD discussions. ~ trialsanderrors 06:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok mate I'll accept it. I didn't need everyone (or even anyone) to agree with my opinion, but I really appreciate the validation that my points were acceptable and I grinned when I read you thought it was articulate. Thanks very much. Oh well. •Elomis• 09:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

100px A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Alameda Measure A Delete.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC).
I still don't know in which way User:Example was involved in this... ~ trialsanderrors 06:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JSTOR access?

Hey Trials, I think you have JSTOR access don't you? If you have a moment, would you mind checking on the article"Pharaonic History in Medieval Egypt" (or even "Studien zu Muhammad Ibn Umail al-Tamimi's Kitab al-Ma'al-Waraqi wa'l-Ard an-Najmiyah" as well - its in the same link) to see who exactly the "Budashir" is? This is related to articles Budasheer and Adim, which are up for afd and I believe are probable hoaxes. The journal articles from a google scholar search for "Budashir" seem to be the only reliable, possible relevant sources, but they;re locked in JSTOR. Would you be able to throw some light on this matter? Thanks very much! Bwithh 20:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a translation of "Studien", p. 333, the only appearance I could find: "Another, not further researched development exists in the figure of HERMES BUDASHIR, named son of ARINAS or ARIS on page 53, or ABU DASHIR, son of ARAS on page 74, and is supposed to have written an epistel addressed to AMNUTHASIYA, named Risalat al-sirr fi'l-kimiya'. The name BUDASHIR sounds similar to PETOSIRIS or BUSIR, AMNUTHASIYA is reminiscent of AUTHASIYA and other corruptions of THEOSEBEIA." Sounds intriguing, I think I have to stop by and check them out. ~ trialsanderrors 06:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!! Bwithh 07:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

left|40px I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou Gnangarra 12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV new layout test run

I have to say that the new layout looks really good; however, is there a particular reason it uses a smaller font? ColourBurst 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Answered here. ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Hi, one of the adminstrators has deleted the Notable attacks by the LTTE even though there was no AFD on it. He has justified his deletion by saying it is a fork of a page (Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE) which has an AFD. However However Notable attacks by the LTTE predates Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE]]. even the people who have voted for the AFD on the (Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE have given 2 main reasons , that much of the material is from the Sri Lankan government and that the title contradicts NPOV. These reasons do not apply to the Notable attacks by the LTTE because I dont think any of the material is from Sri Lankan government and because no one objected to the title Dutugemunu 11:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From one new admin to another

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 21:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of spells of serpents

In the AfD, I counted 3 keeps, 2 deletes, and a merge. This was closed as a delete.   ? – SAJordan talkcontribs 06:53, 29 Nov 2006 (UTC).

WP:V overrides headcounts. The article was sourced by a single off-Wikipedia source, and I cannot find any shred of evidence that that source should be considered reliable. Religious tracts, even lost ones, tend to leave paper trails. Of course, as a closure based on verifiability the article can be userfied or restored if more reliable sources are provided. ~ trialsanderrors 06:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

 Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 13:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RKO Industries

I said at the AfD discussion: "The article has multiple independent nontrivial references which demonstrate the company's notability." I wish that other participants in that discussion had looked at those references more closely. They weren't great references, but I think they were sufficient. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but they were there at the beginning of the AfD. It would be different if they had been added later, in that case I would probably have relisted. ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that the chronology of the additions of references cited determined whether or not you deleted this article (and that the additions of these references cited were made well before nomination for deletion)? Recycledagplastic 13:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this until now. In generally it is not my job to interfere in the discussion about extant sources. If the sources are available and deemed insufficient by a rough consensus of editors then I just follow consensus opinion. If the article were unsourced at the beginning and had been added towards the end of the discussion I would have relisted tbe AfD to see if they were considered sufficient or possibly closed as no consensus, as in this example. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PlanetCricket

Please restore this page as I was in the process of finding more sources and getting a magazine source article to link to! Thanks 88.104.46.32 22:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to post here when you found it. ~ trialsanderrors 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal development

oops... thank you for fixing my mistake... - crz crztalk 22:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

just payback for your earlier fixes of my mistakes... ~ trialsanderrors 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:West London Dweller/Idioms/List of idioms in the English language (A)

Thank-you for making the text of this deleted article available to me. I shall work on transwiki-ing the idioms, but it won't happen quickly, I'm afraid. Regards. WLD 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (Reply here, if you wish to, I'll be watching)

OK, I'll just make a mental note to check back in the near-to-mid future. ~ trialsanderrors 09:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV templates -- tiny problem foreseen

Hi,

Since I'm a moron, I didn't think of this difficulty until today, when I started to implement the new system for December. The entire text of the DRV discussion is placed on the log page. While the "show" tab reduces visual clutter, it does not reduce the amount of text actually present on the log page. Given that the current system (with history links) already results in log pages that exceed 30 K by month's end, I fear for page functionality/loadability if the templates are implemented. Won't this result in a log page that has, uh, 848744730447407395589278527... K of data or so?

It is quite likely that I have implemented something incorrectly, of course. Even if I haven't, your new templates still would work great for XfDs (which have their own subpages), especially on archive pages, where your design is far superior to the current model. For it work with DRVs, we'd have to move to subpages for each individual review, a step I have long resisted, for reasons I think we've discussed before. Any ideas? Best wishes, Xoloz 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA Discussion DRV

...um, when you moved the DRV of GNAA, the link left behind seems to be linking me to an empty page... --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to be transclusion problems and I deleted the redirect too soon. Should be working now. ~ trialsanderrors 22:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I didn't AGF with regards to you, and I was wrong. I should have apologised long ago, but I didn't, which only makes matters worse. I was wrong. I apologise. Guettarda 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked over the talk archives recently prior to my RFA and didn't feel all comfortable about what I wrote either, so I don't feel like I'm being owned an apology. But your gesture is much appreciated and returned for the things I wrote that might've been over the line. Take care, trialsanderrors 01:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Stranger things have happened... Biruitorul 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Hey Trialsanderrors, I saw you've decided to overturn the deletion of the article Terrorist attacks carried out by the LTTE. Thanks for that because regardless of the AFD discussion, I believe the closing admins reasons for deleting the article were flawed.
I'm not entirely sure how the process works, but you've said you are going to relist it for AFD. Does that mean the article is restored and then a new AFD is begun? If so can you please point me in the direction of the AFD discussion cos I haven't been able to find it yet. And I was also wondering why the article is still redirected to another article? (it's a double redirect in fact)
Thanks for any help. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 03:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, sorry this was just a mess of redirects and I couldn't find an actual article. I'm starting the AfD now with your link above. ~ trialsanderrors 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah there were loads of redirects for that page so no prob. Thanks for the quick response. Hope we'll get another productive AFD discussion. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Evil albino

Oh, I didn't know a merge was already ongoing. By DRV consensus the deletion probably gets an overturn and history restored, so please do so anyway (and close the discussion if you want). And yeah, talking to me first would have been a better thing. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

D'oh, I think that bulk of that comment was meant for me... Anyway, thanks for the partial (sufficient!) restore. I'll get on that merge ASAP. And chat with Mailer.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rgd free Invision Power Board hosts category

the least you can do is answer when someone points out that your procedures were not executed as they should have been. Francinne 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

??? ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
read the comments users make before you decide to close something. see [14]. The text that was typed in the category has not been merged. If you decide to merge 2 categories, then you have to merge the text of that category as well. Francinne 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I read the comments. I did not see where your opinion got any support. Vociferousness does not equal strength of argument. ~ trialsanderrors 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* ... You don't understand the point, the decision was to merge the category, but the text of the category has not been merged at all. If you want to f*** up a category by merging it, then at least attempt to merge the text as well. Merging is not equal to deleting in my english text book. Francinne 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV closing process

I noticed you've been doing a lot of the lifting at DRV recently, so I thought you might be able to shed some light on this. First, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 6, why does "Mer" still have a section "edit" control? Shouldn't this be gone? Second, how come DRV closings do identify the closing admin? Seems like they should so people would know who to ask. Also, I don't see any DRV closings with comments—seems like there must be some close calls here that would warrant a closing comment.

Just curious questions for my own information as I haven't closed any DRV's yet. —Doug Bell talk 02:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I also meant to ask why there are two "show" links on a closed and collapsed DRV discussion? —Doug Bell talk 02:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff is just passed down by force of habit. I take it AfD closures weren't signed until recently and it hasn't spilled over to DRV yet. As it is, it's mostly Xoloz or me doing the closures, so it's not that hard to figure out who closed it. If the reforms catch on and get other admins to close DRV's I can see that signing closures might become more common. Also DRV closures are more count-based and they're not appealable, so there is less need to explain a closure. I'm currently working on archiving AfD's and I might add an optional explanation box, but I first have to figure out how IF statements are implemented in templates. The section header above Mer was necessary because it was a speedy close, so the section should stay intact until all the daily discussions are closed. I'm not sure why you see to Show tags. It might be because of the browser you use. The navbox templates aren't particularly well coded. Hope it helps, trialsanderrors 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Sina

You closed and endorsed the deletion review of Ali Sina at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 5. Can you tell me why the new sources that were not reviewed in the original AfD did not allow a relist? They are the three comments beginning with "relist" at the bottom of that review, and the textbook thing looks very obviously notable to me. Why weren't these new items sufficient for a relist? Thanks for your time, — coelacan talk — 03:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

DRV is mostly numbers-based, and a decision on the closure of the AfD rather than the article itself. The consensus opinion was that the closure was within policy. If you have sources that you think didn't get enough attention I recommend presenting them to the closer and ask for userfication, so that you can work them into the article. ~ trialsanderrors 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I thought you were the closer? — coelacan talk — 04:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The closer of the AfD, which I think was User:Mackensen. ~ trialsanderrors 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it. Mackensen implied it was no longer in his territory... see User talk:Mackensen#Ali Sina deletion review.
Now I don't even know where I was supposed to go with those sources. — coelacan talk — 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have no grounds to overrule him on this. His comment that your sources merit a stub article not the recreation of the old article makes sense. Remember we're supposed to write the article from sources, not just find sources to permit us to write what we want. If you think the article might survive a future AfD based on the sources you should go ahead and rewrite it. ~ trialsanderrors 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
But how are we supposed to rewrite the article if it's a protected redirect? — Rickyrab | Talk 05:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You can take what you have in your user space at User:Rickyrab/Ali Sina, source it, and when you think it's ready request a review at WP:DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the site itself (as well as commentary against the site) ought to be a source for part of the article, as it is already out there and available for viewing. Precedent: we routinely use TV shows and movies as sources for those television shows and movies' plots. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to reargue the AfD with me. I had no involvement with it other than seeing that a strong majority endorsed it, so I closed the review as Deletion endorsed. My advice on writing articles is to start from scratch, collect all and only sources that are independent from the subject and reliable beyond doubt, and stick closely to what those sources say. It is a general problem with editors too close to the subject that they write from "experience" and when asked to source their experience they can't remember where they heard/read it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the material in that article WAS sourced to the site that it talked about, as shown here. Since a website is the main source of its own words, I see no reason NOT to use a website as a source for its own words. Third and second sources are also useful, but when we reference a TV show, where do we go? Why, to the TV show. Collecting "all and only sources that are independent from the subject" is fine from an abstract POV, BUT we are talking about what a WEBSITE is and what THAT WEBSITE says. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this discussion leads anywhere. Absent outside sources I don't see a chance that the community consensus will change. ~ trialsanderrors 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Who knows, the COMMUNITY might change under our feet and you wouldn't notice. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Nor do I care. ~ trialsanderrors 07:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RKO Industries and associated articles

Good afternoon,

I would like to include you in my most recent communication with Alex regarding "Plastic recycling":

I realise you are clearly associated with RKO Industries. Adding external links to any articles related to plastic for this companies website is considered as spam and is against wikipedia guilines. Please refrain from putting multiple links to each associated article. Alex 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alex,

Is there a reason for you not having deleted the following sentence and reference within the "Plastic recycling" article?

"In Israel successful trials have shown that plastic films recovered from mixed municipal waste streams can be recycled into useful products.[2]"

Knowing this will help me in my reasoning during further communication with you (and others) regarding plastics and recycling articles as well as my contributions.

Recycledagplastic 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this sentence & reference gives a pictorial illustration of an example of a proceedure of how plastic is recycled. It does not link to the top level promotional page of the site. Ideally the main article would include a pictorial illustration of plastic recycling in action.
Many of the recycling articles were previously consigned to the process of collecting recyclable materials, which is clearly not recycling. Also the Israeli plant manages to reclaim plastics of a recyclable quality from mixed wastes- this is rare in waste management. Hence I believe this is of note. If you disagree with this feel free to delete the reference & sentence.
Again I reiterate the point that I am happy to back inclusions related to your company if they do not appear simply in an advertising/marketing/spam format, they need to give value to Wikipedia on the whole. Recycling is an important area which is neglected in Wikipedia.--Alex 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex, Thank you for your communication. Regards, Recycledagplastic 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Alex 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, during previous editing sessions I've found myself having completed an edit only (then) to realize that I'd forgotten to log in as "Recycledagplastic." So, some of my edits are credited to IP 65.40.36.66. If you look at the "Plasticulture" article (and others), for example, you will see that my edits aren't only confined to including "RKO." I am a member of the RKO enterprise, however, my purpose is not to "spam" wiki. I do, however, hope to contribute information regarding a US domestic enterprise that is successfully recycling tens of millions of pounds of materials (annually) which, historically in the US, have primarily been either landfilled or burned on-sight at farms. The reason these materials haven't previously been removed from the waste stream and processed domestically in the US is because of their high level of soil and plant material contamination; particularly plastic mulch film. Our company's niche is processing this extremely hard to clean ag film. I find what we are doing with this particular material to be noteworthy because I can't find any other company whose staple feedstock consists of this contaminated mulch film, whereas it easily comprises 95+% of our resource. I am aware of very contaminated mulch film being containerized and sent overseas; primarily China. I am also aware of domestic US companies processing either relatively clean ag film semi-regularly, or very contaminated film seldomly. RKO has utilized readily available industrial recycling technology and continuously modified it over the course of 4 years. This has resulted in us being able to do what very few claim to do. "Florida Trend" magazine featured an article on our company in Oct. 2004. "American Vegetable Grower" magazine directs their readers to our website (along with six others) in an article on recycling drip tape in their Sept. 2006 issue. The Ft. Myers Newspress featured an article on us in May 2006 and again in June 2006. Before I began my effort in Wiki, I didn't find a single reference to the successful recycling of plastic mulch, drip tape or silage bags within these respective articles. Nor did I find any reference to the successful, or otherwise, recycling of materials in the practice of plasticulture. Still, I have read through ample search engine results regarding very contaminated mulch film not being a suitable material for effective or efficient processing. I forget if it was you or "Trialanderrors" who had undertaken an editing project concerned with articles relating to waste management/recycling. Whoever, it would seem that they would be interested in this which I've written today. However, perhaps not. Sincerely, Recycledagplastic 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would sincerely appreciate any feedback. Recycledagplastic 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the comments by Alex make sense. ~ trialsanderrors 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any comment or feedback re: notability of RKO or the addition of information/links in regard to the recyclability of these agricultural plastics?

Was it you that mentioned doing work specifically within waste management/recycling categories?

Also, considering Alex's explanation for having not deleted the aforementioned sentence regarding recycling in Israel, do you find my latest edit to "Plastic recycling" appropriate (the addition of the third para. and references)?

Sincerely, Recycledagplastic 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You might be confusing me with someone else. Do I have feedback regarding the notability of RKO? Not really. I think the mentions are slight but not zero, so someone unconnected to the company might eventually put them together into an article. The problem comes in if you, who has a clear conflict of interest goes about adding the company to various articles. For this not to become a problem you would have to build up a track record as an editor unrelated to the company first, so it becomes apparent that your interest is in improving Wikipedia and not in increasing the exposure of your company. As long as the bulk of your contributions are RKO you will always be considered a single purpose account and your contributions RKO-related contributions will cause friction. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(Regarding your and Alex's decisions made in the "Drip Tape" article) So, you consider external links with descriptions like "pioneer of drip irrigation since 1968" or "DRTS is the leading manufacturer of drip tape production lines" as well as links billing themselves as "World's Largest Selection" (all caps nonetheless)as objective, non-promotional, non-spam and without conflict of interest? Do you believe "seasoned objective editors" like yourself are the contributors of these external links? Or that articles in other categories have been edited by these contributors like "NetafimUSA?" Honestly? My external link simply included a company name and the description of "information about recycling Drip Irrigation Tape?" Is there a reason that my edit to include the sentence/fact that drip tape is a recyclable material hasn't been removed? And if it's because it's factual (which it is), is there a good reason that the link to support it was removed (considering the promotional links which were allowed to remain)? These are all valid points and questions. Please take the time to address them adequately. Regards, Recycledagplastic 21:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take the time to address them adequately. Why should I? ~ trialsanderrors 21:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wield the deletion sword you should use it fairly among all of those who contribute. You should also be willing to better educate those who contribute... especially if they take the time to put forth thoughtful, civil argument. Regards, Recycledagplastic 21:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think articles were created solely to promote a company you have every right to nominate them for deletion. Similarly if you spot content you consider spam you have every right to remove it from the article. This is what happened here, Alex consiered the article promotional, the community mostly agreed and I closed it as such. I don't see any obligation or even possibility for me to apply the same standard to all the 1.5 million articles we have. I can only apply the policies we have to the articles I close at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying. Would you be willing to quickly view the external links section of the "Drip tape" article and let me know if these links and descriptions are acceptable editing in your opinion? Sincerely,Recycledagplastic 22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that the article lacks independent sourcing and depends too much on corporate material. ~ trialsanderrors 22:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You didn't feel the need to remove any blatant promotional language entailed within the external links while you were there reviewing the article. Interesting. Is this commonplace? My points and questions aren't of a malicious nature. I'm just trying to determine the extent of uniformity of the rules so I can operate within Wikipedia accordingly. Sincerely, Recycledagplastic 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I feel like it? Yes. Did I do it? I'll leave that to you, since you seem to have the stronger investment in the topic. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilogos

I've noticed you're very involved here, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PocketGPSWorld.com on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PocketGPSWorld.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TerriersFan 10:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the notifier, I replied there. ~ trialsanderrors 10:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'no majority to overturn' on DRV

[15] Um, yes there was. A slight majority (16 to 14), but one nonetheless. Please consider changing your closing comment to something that actually reflected the review, such as a 'slight majority to overturn and delete'. Proto::► 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, double-check and your numbers are right. It's off to AfD now. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr Anderrors. Proto::► 08:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-Sword

This might be of interest to you. Mackensen (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

Just wondering, do you plan to provide further reasoning for the deletion? --HappyCamper 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Which one? ~ trialsanderrors 21:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This one. --HappyCamper 21:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This looks like rough consensus deletion has been reached, in particular after relisting the call for deletion was unanimous, and there wasn't really anything to override this based on strength of argument. ~ trialsanderrors 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to think that I had something to say about that. Based on how the article was handled and the processes involved, I do not want it listed again. It should be noted that people whose work pertains to the digital divide do not have as many web references as social entrepeneurs, therefore Wikipedia policy seems to just be a 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. It reinforces the Digital Divide. There's an article there somewhere. --TaranRampersad 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, of course that was a consideration too. There's still the picture Image:taranrampersad.jpg. Do you want to use that for your user page? ~ trialsanderrors 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we can delete that too. As far as my user page - well, I'm going to take another unofficial Wikibreak. Part of the reason for my participation in the Wikipedia was that I thought it would be a good resource beyond a standard encyclopedia, and that things previously unavailable on the internet would be made available on the internet. For example, there was an open source conference I spoke at in St. Lucia. It only has one web page indicating that it happened, even when it was sponsored by the St. Lucian government. I spoke at that conference, and was on television and radio. But because there are no web references (I let Guetterda decide), it simply did not exist. Things like that make it appear as though I don't exist. So I suppose I belong with other things which do not exist on the internet; that's not an emotional statement but a reality. In writing a part of the future, we condemn the past which does not exist. Do I want to be a part of burying the past so that no one can find it? Plenty of questions within me about that, as the reason I got involved with the Digital Divide, and ICT, is related to that. That the article on me no longer exists is no great travesty. When I do other things, it still won't be a problem for me to not have an article on me here. When I'm dead, it won't matter to me. What does matter to me is that cultures and people which haven't been written about outside of the Wikipedia cannot be referenced within the Wikipedia because someone else didn't think it was worth publishing. Hey, here we are again. No easy answers. I'll give it a month to see if I'll even contribute in the future, and whether I'll advise others to do so. Nothing personal about it... I'm just more interested in those without voices gaining voice. So far, it would seem that they cannot do that on the Wikipedia. Something to think about, perhaps. --TaranRampersad 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where that ruling comes from. In general, if a source is only available offline it should be more tightly sourced (I take it "appeared on show XYZ on channel ABC" isn't sufficient, but "show XYZ, channel ABC, April 14, 2005, 14:00 (UTC) in an interview with DEF" is), but there is no restriction against offline sources. Oddly enough, in the recent AfD on Leilani Bishop I had to concede that there are very few reliable sources on her (a profile in Interview possibly), even though she has a quite enormous web presence. Enjoy your wikibreak and I hope you come back. ~ trialsanderrors 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that was the chief argument against the entry on me, so it's really a POV of the people deleting. In other words, some people are more equal than others. And that's probably a good reason not to participate. --TaranRampersad 01:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken/Discoordination

Hey Trials, yeah I think Chicken can be re-directed to Discoordination, I've been crazy busy swamped lately, I think the only thing putting me off doing it is figuring what to do about the Peace War merge frufru. -Cheers, Pete.Hurd 21:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll make this weekend chicken-kill weekend. ~ trialsanderrors 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, good idea, dead chicken goes well with oatmeal stout, you do the killin' and I'll do my share of the drinkin'... Pete.Hurd 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I can take care of the chicken, the beer you'll have to get here. ~ trialsanderrors 23:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to go on a road trip, so chicken will have to roast for another day. ~ trialsanderrors 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Firstly, thanks for all you great work (and hard decision-making) over at the trollpit - much appreciated. I have a query, however: you closed off [16] for "no new evidence presented, speedy close". I was just wondering, would the same (correct, in my view) opinion be relevant to [17] - to tell the honest truth, I have been searching for Reliable Sources on-and-off for 5 months now, and the only ones I have found were those that were listed in the AfD (which was closed as delete, and confirmed on DRV shortly afterwards). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I considered that, but the last time this came up at DRV was, I believe, in August. So my guess is no new evidence will be unearthed during this run, but it's ok to let it run five days. ~ trialsanderrors 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, no problems. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SombatMetanee.jpg

Regarding Image:SombatMetanee.jpg, may the RfU tags be removed? — WiseKwai 02:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Another question: Is there some of tag to put on the image page or talk page saying it was deleted and pointing to the deletion review process? — WiseKwai 09:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a tag, but you can post a note and link to the daily log page. ~ trialsanderrors 09:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review process

Trials, I ask you because of your generally sensible decisions at AfD--at least they seem reasonable to me :): I have just for the first time looked at the Deletion review items, as you will probably notice. I could easily decide whether to comment for the ones that had been kept, and wherethe keep was being challenged, and make a relevant reply--and an edit to the article. But I was unable to make intelligent decisions in the other cases, because I could not get to the article. I noticed that for some articles there was a box added to see the deleted article, as for:

Transition Video Magazine – Restored, contested PROD. – 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But most of the articles didn't have them. How is this supposed to work--do the reviewers remember the article in detail? Are they all of them admins, who can get to the page history? Or what? DGG 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted my answer at the DRV talk page because the same question was asked there a couple of days ago. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Rane Prod/DRV/AfD

Good call; I was offline, at the time, so unable to respond to anything, until now. No objection to the listing, looks like good handling on your part. Thanks. Luna Santin 09:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you tring to delete this page?

hi, i'm the one who is updating the page Mirchi - Chala Naatu Guru. I have given many sources for that. I don't know the reason why you want to delete that. It is an upcoming indian movie. It is also informative. Please give your reasoing and keep that page alive

[edit] Deleted discussion

The Foundation receives dozens of emails every day. A significant part of emails from individuals concern deletion debates containing inappropriate language. Admins who close discussions should systematically blank them if these discussions contain demeaning comments. David.Monniaux 11:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy blanked discussions aren't deleted, they are stripped of the discussion (so that the discussion is still readable in the edit history), on request by the subject, and not within 24 hours after the closure. There is no problem with the fact that you did it, but how you did it. Please put a minimum effort into trying to follow procedure. ~ trialsanderrors 18:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting ...

I noticed this[18] which seems very similar to the 'problem' I had (see note immediately above yours), with the caveat being I couldn't restore the AfD myself, and couldn't get any info from the admin who deleted the AfD article about how to implement his request. I finally figured it out, by asking other admins, but was very discouraged with this one not answering my questions. I hope we don't have a building pattern here ... and now am beginning to wonder how long and where else this is happening ... Regards, Keesiewonder 12:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see now he writes this on this talk page Admins who close discussions should systematically blank them if these discussions contain demeaning comments. That may be a good policy, but maybe it has not been well advertised or otherwise communicated. Kind of like the "courtesy blanking" that even I could implement ... but he wouldn't tell me about it ... even when I asked several times over 3 days. Oh well ... I'm in the know on this now! :-) Keesiewonder 12:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I removed the link to the history in the discussion you blanked. I agree with your points on David.Monniaux's behavior. Ignoring reasonable requests are poor behavior for an admin. ~ trialsanderrors 18:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I noticed you removed the link to the history. You're clearly more senior with all of this than me, so I defer to your judgement and for now will remain content that the discussion is preserved in the history. I'm pretty sure that this "argument" will come up again with this rare breed of dog. Anyway, FYI, you may be interested in this [19] (i.e. what I did when the original admin didn't follow through with me) ... my reading/interpretation of something there led me to put a link to the history in the line referencing that the content had been courtesy blanked. Regards, Keesiewonder 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's a judgement call. I didn't know about the {{Afd-privacy}} template until this case, and noticed that that it doesn't have a link to the edit history either. My interpretation is that courtesy blanking is supposed to make it hard but not impossible to read the discussion, so leaving the link out is probably a better choice. ~ trialsanderrors 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flash Flash Revolution

It would be nice to know why the article Flash Flash Revolution has been deleted. I have review the article though google's cached feature, and have found nothing to be wrong about it. Thank you for your time, Mrlego9 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted as result of the discussion at Deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:DRV - User:Argyriou/SirNicholas

Did you intend to post a "vote" here along with your comment? – SAJordan talkcontribs 13:37, 26 Dec 2006 (UTC).

No, it wasn't an opinion beyond my judgement call whether the edit history could be restored or not. If the page contained, say, personal information or personal attacks, I wouldn't have restored. ~ trialsanderrors 18:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] procedural nominations

Trials, I respect your judgment and reasoning a lot, and I see you often listing procedural nominations at AfD. I've started doing that myself in the case of articles in CAT:CSD that aren't quite speedies but ought to be deleted. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind elaborating on your philosophy towards procedural nominations, in particular whether it's appropriate to comment in any way that might be relevant, but then state "no opinion" anyway? I value your thoughts, but if you don't have time to respond, I'll understand. Thanks.--Kchase T 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the main difference between DRV and CSD is that if you bump a CSD nomination to AfD you're acting as an editor, not as an admin. Nothing in the process requires admin tools and you're not implementing a community consensus. So you could quite possibly send a CSD candidate to AfD with the statement "I believe this should be deleted but it doesn't meet speedy criteria", for instance because it's a hoax or because notability is asserted but not established. With DRV's, I believe I'm on safe ground as long as I haven't looked into the merit of the case sufficiently to form an opinion at the time I send it to AfD. So I'm pretty much reserving a right to follow up on the case later and then give my judgement as an editor, although that's something I rarely invoke. ~ trialsanderrors

[edit] Request for arbitartion opened against you

You are suspected (and probably are) a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of John Bambenek who is a well known troll and publicity whore. Because you are shilling for an obviously not notable article, you've been recommeded for banning accordingly. See WP:RFAR. -- J.cajindos 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Crzrussian and I are conjoined twins, we share one head but have three hands and two livers, and Badlydrawnjeff is the name of our sock puppet. ~ trialsanderrors 05:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Forever and ever, Amen. HAHAHAHA - crz crztalk 05:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia

Is deletion review a vote? You have originally overturned a "16 overturn - 14 endorse" no-consensus discussion and I am very concerned on how you are processing this. With the same logic I can get any article deleted with or without valid reasons provided I nominate it for deletion enough times. AfD isn't a fool proof system.

No one explained how Star Trek Encyclopedia (ISBN 0-671-53609-5) is not a verifiable source nor how is it original research so the entire deletion rationale is broken. --Cat out 11:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mostly. DRV operates as cloture vote, meaning it is decided whether the topic has received sufficient scrutiny and the decision was proper or whether it should be discussed further in the intended forum, AfD or its relatives. I usually scan the discussion and keep an eye out for pupeteering, but the discussion on DRV is mostly intended to convince the other editors and not me. It's also not necessary to link to the diffs. Linking to the daily logs makes it easier for me to re-read the cases. ~ trialsanderrors 11:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, maybe you can help then. I'd like you to reanalyze that case since I believe this is a case of meatpuppets. It is unusual for a deletion review debate to have so much activity IMHO. There had been quite an effort to delete it. I want to exhaust all avenues before ultimately going to the arbitration committee. --Cat out 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I find no evidence of meatpuppetry (in the Dec 20 review). In fact, most of the commenters were admins. ~ trialsanderrors 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

Trialsanderrors/Archive

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asteriontalk 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bambenek

I actually don't care one way or the other as to whether the guy should have an article, but thanks for the thoughts. It's probably best for all concerned if we just let the article die. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)