User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2010/September

Signature

Please consider changing your signature. The bold is confusing when reading discussions, such as AFDs. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean my current one with the bolded link? or the last one which just has Errant in bold. The current one should be ok. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The former one. Pardon my confusion and thanks for changing it.--Chaser (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) it was only the other day that I changed it, and agreed it was confusing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

October drive

Sorry, guys. The wikification drive has been bumped to October. You might have noticed already, however. I'm amazed how many people came on as soon as I sent out the invite. With a few more, we can easily meet our goal. Just remember. Concentrate your firepower on the 2008 articles, and you should have no problems. Great work! Also, if you have time, please also invite other users to participate. Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 21:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks

Just to say thanks for your support.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It's worth remembering that that is how Rob edits - very brusque. He's a good guy, I'm sure he meant no real offense. I'd just drop it, unless it really concerns you. It would have been nice to see a retraction but I doubt it will happen --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I realise he probably wasn't trying to cause offence and I realise it's very much his "style" but I felt it was just too much even by his standards (and I'm not sure different standards should apply to different people anyway). There's not much I can do about it really and perhaps he'll at least be slightly more civil in future. To be honest some of the false accusations made by a different editor during the discussions were probably just as bad as anything Off2riorob did if not worse, and I'd say I was more concerned by those now. Thanks once again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

Thank you for working on the computer forensics articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwhitenist (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) the topic needs a lot of work. Feel free to dive in and help :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

When were you elected to be an admin? I am very offended by the attitude copped by that Izak character. It's not about the rabbi, it's about the photo, and he continues to insist it's about the rabbi. That all sounds like content dispute. The problem is, that Izak engaged in censorship, and he's not allowed to do that. That's why it stays on ANI, because you can't have it both ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Izak's action was not "good faith", which you can tell if you read the original complaint. Now, if the original complainant, or someone who is an actual admin, is willing to choke off that discussion, that would be fine. If you want it shut down, then go find the OP or an admin and have them take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop weighed in with some good and useful comments, and since I actually respect his viewpoints, I advised him to go ahead and close if he wants to. You all have decided that it's perfectly OK to have a supposedly respected man depicted in a cartoonish way. So don't gripe when others point out that fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

When Is a Blog Not A Blog?

Please would you clarify the revision history comment on Douglas Murray's page (1st Sep) where you say "removed blog source" when referring to a newsnetscotland.com reference? I added it. I now understand the wider reasons for the reversals on this page (and others) but I am wondering why "blog" and not "questionable" source? Overly touchy of me to prefer one over the other but "blog" when used against a news site that is trying to establish itself as a credible and reliable source is slightly demeaning. Maybe I'm wrong to think that but I do react to it in that way.

FYI: I have backed-off from amending these articles and I have even added a new forum topic on newsnetscotland specifically about using Wikipedia.Cattwister (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Heya. Sorry, I meant nothing by the comment - I was just being specific about why the site is not a reliable source. Newsnetscotland appears to be a blog-style site; whether it is a news site I make no commentary on (that would be the genre). It is no slur on the aims of the site or it's neutrality etc. However we make a distinction between news sites; which have editorial oversight and various policies as well as being recognised press. I realise it is something of a blurry distinction in this case. I read your forum post on the topic - and it looks like a really sensible approach. I know getting traction on a site is hard, especially against some of the big media commentators. And it's tough to be called an unreliable source when we see some much POV rubbish in supposedly reliable sources (trust me, it's frustrating here too :)) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mina letter

Hey, you promised to help out with the request for a photo of Mina (singer). A month has passed. How is it getting along? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Crap, slipped my mind. She is moving house at the moment so it may have got delayed. Ringing her now :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mention at RfC

I have mentioned you at an RfC [1] regarding BlueRobe's behavior. Just FYI. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:

That is just as much of an 'attack' as the giant one laid out by the left-wing meatpuppets; it stays so I can see his response for a possible nom of BigX HeX. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Elena Kagan Talk Page (BLP)

If possible, it would be better to remove the posts made by Kauffner after Dougweller closed the thread. If you look at the history, you'll see what I mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I no-indexed the page instead, even though it probably warranted it I tend to avoid removing talk page comments when possible :) but feel free to remove if you think it is better --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of Dougweller's involvement and my posting updates to his Talk page (which I can't tell whether he appreciates or not), I'm reluctant to step in. The whole thing seems too touchy to me, so I don't feel comfortable. What I particularly don't like about Kauffner's additions is he takes a slam at the post that Dougweller left in and reiterates his same arguments. In my view, it should clearly be removed, but I'm just not brave enough to do so. BTW, what does no-index a page mean exactly?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, It means it is removed from being indexed by search engines. The idea being that BLP violations don't then appear in searches (i.e. on Google). I think collapsing it is the best response, I don't really want to remove the post myself. On the other hand feel free to either ask Dougweller or another admin to remove it - my aim in collapsing it was only to stop further comments :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation_Book_Digital Forensics for the Health Sciences: Applications in Practice and Research

I add the link "Digital Forensics for the Health Sciences: Applications in Practice and Research". You keep reverting this change. Why do you revert this change? This is a reference which includes material related to digital forensics. What is then the problem?

I look forward to your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daskalak (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Two reasons. First it appears to be not yet published, and so it is impossible to judge whether it is a relevant book or not. I have found no critical reviews of the book with which to judge it as recommended reading. Secondly the link provided is a purchase link, which is not appropriate. We prefer some kind of bibliographic reference - for example a Google Books link. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I backed away from this Smurf thing yesterday, and certain other editors are trying to draw me into it again. Perhaps you could have a word with them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Forget it, it's not worth spending any more time on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of good faith effort at Libertarianism

It seems you've run across exactly the type of bad faith discussion that makes me dread interacting with the editor. I extended quite a bit of patience for this editor prior to his block, but have very little left his unproductive discussions on talk pages or his unconstructive rants about editors (including me) on various user talk pages. How would you advise me to move forward with the mockery/sarcasm and failings of AGF? BigK HeX (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, but you shouldn't have risen to the bait in that "thread" ;) Honestly; I would just ignore more comments like that (as in; entirely ignore them, don't reply, don't respond). If he (or someone) makes a claim then talk about it, ask for sources, but if they make comments such as the one made about Elvis et al just let it pass - otherwise you are on their terms. I also would simply not rise to any personal attacks etc. unless they start to come "thick and fast" (and then report it and leave it). That way you can't be accused of hounding or anything silly like that (and probably you'll feel less stressed). I appreciate how hard such things can be :( --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He started off by challenging a topic that's been in contention, and I treated him exactly as any other editor. He went into his "Santa defense" and I challenged it with just as much good faith as I'd give any other editor who may be new to WP. It might amount to "taking the bait", but making it patently evident that his comments lack good faith requires a response of some sort. Anyways, if he's going to be allowed to continue to challenge the contents of that Wiki page (on matters long-ago settled by RfC), then I am not going to act as if he's not there --- seems nonsensical for me to voluntarily topic ban myself because another editor has less-than-stellar behavior ... so do you perhaps have any other possible resolutions in mind? BigK HeX (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

From past form it should have been obvious where that was going :P Actually I wouldn't reply to such things for any editor - at least not like that, I'd just say "it's not really relevant to talk about that". I'm not suggesting you ban yourself from anything, read back! I mean just ignore obviously "baity" comments like that. At least then your not at fault. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No ... you've not said to topic ban myself ... but unfortunately, that would seem to be the outcome, if I do not extend to him good faith, as I attempted to do today. BigK HeX (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "If he (or someone) makes a claim then talk about it, ask for sources, but if they make comments such as the one made about Elvis et al just let it pass - otherwise you are on their terms."

If only you knew .... progress on that article has been held up for months by a small minority of editors who almost invariably have nothing more substantial than the "Elvis defense" to offer, no matter how clearly outside opinion is against their determined POV. Ignoring their unsourced, likely WP:OR is very clearly not an option on that talk page. The issue being pounded now is yet another iteration of the exact same topic that was resolved by RfC weeks ago. Since the RfC didn't make a conclusion preferred by the vocal minority, it's been ignored by that group, and they've continued proposing sweeping changes based on WP:OR. It's a shame that there isn't a RFC/TalkPage, I'd find it far more preferable than other forms of DR, since the problem mostly stems from a small group of editors who didn't hear things like the recently-closed RfC. BigK HeX (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore them. :D I know it is really hard; I've seen enough of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in article editing, but by responding you're letting them argue a point. Ignoring them seems impossible but it is surprising how effective it is at putting them off :D Ask them to produce new evidence, if they can't or "lawyer" (like the elvis quote) just point them at the RFC and call it closed. If the RFC has not stuck perhaps take it to mediation (a pain but it gets it out of the way). After that prepare a detailed record of disruption (i.e. bringing up the matter again) and go to AN/I to get sanctions. I'll try and hang out on the page and keep an eye on discussion if I can, though I nothing much of the topic --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We're actually in informal mediation right now, though the process is new to me. As for ignoring the WP:IDHT, it just doesn't work. Silence from the majority is taken as tacit approval. It gives rise to the following scenario: IDHT #1 makes a proposal, Majority remains silent, IDHT #2 and IDHT #3 cheer the proposal, IDHT #1 puts the proposal into action based on "so much agreement" and makes sweeping changes to the article, edit war ensues. It's pretty ridiculous .... BigK HeX (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In case you find it hard to believe, I'll refer you back to the Move proposal thread: Talk:Libertarianism#Requested_move_.28Forms_of.29. In this thread, I immediately brought up the RfC, and ignored any further discussion on the matter. This thread was started mere minuted before another Move proposal. An actual pagemove template was placed on the second proposal however, and it received quite a bit of outside input and appeared to supercede the older move request. I'd guess that most people -- myself included -- presumed that the abject failure of the 2nd move proposal was clear enough evidence that the older (now-dead) discussion on the first move proposal did not need to be addressed any further. Lo and behold though ... the terse references to the RfC and general silence from the majority on the proposal, led User:Toa Nidhiki05 to indicate his belief that he had enough (tacit) consent to carry through with his move proposal, after the very resounding opposition to a similar move proposal. The amount of determination of the editors, even in the face of clear community opposition, is nothing short of stunning.... BigK HeX (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know. But what's the alternative? The other move proposal was different, so that seems fine (it addressed the reason the other proposal fell flat). Clearly, though, it will not pass either. Toa may have felt he had tacit consent but if he made the move before closure of the move discussion (7 days) then he would have been in violation of policy, especially if there was no clear consensus in the thread. It's a pain but we have to wait to such things to happen before sanctioning :) Really the page needs someone very strong and tactful to come in, clear it up and direct discussions to keep things constructive. But finding someone to do it might be tough. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Toa may have felt he had tacit consent but if he made the move before closure of the move discussion (7 days) then he would have been in violation of policy"

Oh.. there was no actual move template on Toa's request before today, so there was no "7 day time limit" in place when Toa made his comment. It was only after Toa indicated that he intended to place his plan into action, that I myself, put that move request template on it, so that we could actually go through the motion of watching the proposal fail. To me, it really seems pretty silly to have to even go through that whole process when the outcome should be fairly obvious. BigK HeX (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of Somalis in the United Kingdom article

Hi. This is to let you know, as someone who has been involved in editing Somalis in the United Kingdom, that I've requested a peer review of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RE John Berry

"→Biography: ugh, horrible unspecific sentence. stick to off-hand, netural facts. i.e. the surgery was in 1997 but the sentence suggested it was in 1998. the nightmare bit was inappropriate)" Gee Errant, that was bit harsh. Vocal chord surgery IS a singer's worst nightmare, look what happened to Julie Andrews! It was a nightmare esp. so soon after brain surgery that damn near killed him, which I refrained from saying ;-) In the recording world: surgery-1997, recording-1998, release-1999. Those in the industry would know that. I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Your pruning made it a stuffy little sentence with little info, no offense! May we come to a compromise here? Namaste--DocOfSoc (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC) As to the copyedit, I mentioned that to the other editor on the talk page, 10 hammers, who disagreed. I figured you or Will BeBack would catch it anyway. Thanks! :-) DocOfSoc (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is the sort of language to avoid unless we are quoting. It is.... "flowery" (for want of a better word). In the recording world: surgery-1997, recording-1998, release-1999. Those in the industry would know that. - indeed, most people are not in the industry, so it is good to be specific. Especially as the source says 1997 so we can be specific. Your pruning made it a stuffy little sentence with little info - sorry but the bit about it not being noticable is an opinion and would have to have been attributed, same with nightmare. On the other hand it now states a much more specific and understandable fact. *It's not massively clear from the source how significant it might have been on the album (it is a review, so naturally a bit dubious for such things :)) so best to stay away from it. The original sentence was not encyclopedic - I meant no offense in saying that :) Good catch on the slight copyvio, it did leap out at me as i read it :D Good work on the article though. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you wrote the sentence in it's entirety earlier. Sorry, I wasn't directing the comments at you personally :) just the sentence in general! My bad --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

DocOfSoc

Oops, sorry, I'm not sure how I'd missed that you were involved as well. Your involvement supports my belief that this is in good hands, however. TFOWR 12:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. I didnt really deal with that particular issue, so technically you were dead on don't do it again! ;) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that you have kept me up until 5:30 A.M. I will bid you a fond good night. Why, if I live in CA are my trusted mentors all on the other side of the world? Namaste--DocOfSoc (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Sorry Doc :) Sleep well. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Twitter

Hi,

There is a new design for twitter and it's an official link. I feel its better to provide a link there, to give a better picture of what's there in it for the users.

Please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakedout (talk • contribs) 09:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is generally not required to link to things in the article directly. However if the link works as a source or external link it could be added as a reference - see WP:CITE for details. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakedout (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor editor required

You mucked up on this diff. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Youch, good catch. Not sure why that happened :( Fixed --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on Libertarianism

RE: "Any more and I will hand out warnings."

It's not quite clear what behaviors you are pointing out as problematic there. If it's about the warning given for soapboxing, I'd have thought that fairly proper, when merited. BigK HeX (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. Any more off topic discussion of other editors behaviour - or, in fact, any more commenting on that thread :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Explain to me why I need to listen to you; the cabal (if it even exists) possesses no authority, and you are not an admin. It makes me quite angry to see people that are not admins trying to act like them. Regards, Toa Nidhiki05 19:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 'resisting' anything; I get frustrated when editors like BigK HeX, and now apparently you, try to Wikilawyer your will onto pages. Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a complaint against me, i.e. of wikilawyering, please take it up at the appropriate venue. I do not agree I am doing anything wrong. If you note above on this page I am treating BKH in the same way as yourselves - telling him to disengage, avoid commenting on editors and work on the content. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived section in Libertarianism

This is just a heads-up. User:marknutley has asked "Can someone please explain why my section above was archived?" in Talk:Libertarianism. If that was done by you, it might be helpful to let him know why it happened. BlueRobe (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

With regards to this reply [2] i fully agree with your approach, it`s a shame my attempts to help out lead to such an outcome :( mark nutley (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mark. Apologies for not letting you know when I did it; at the time it was something like 1am :) I don't function much past midnight any more ;) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's past midnight here, too. You're not a fellow Kiwi, by any chance? BlueRobe (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, nah I archived it... about 14 hours ago according to the timestamps :) it's 2pm here now! I'm off house hunting :D so don't go mad while I'm AFK --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

AGF check at Libertarianism

Talk:Libertarianism#BlueRobe_et_al.2C_please_comment_on_these_sources

My prediction ..... *crickets*. BigK HeX (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed text

Please consider including BlueRobe's highly dubious characterizations of me, if you're going to collapse my response to them. BigK HeX (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually .. the "facepalm" comment doesn't seem very constructive either. (Also... there are some unsourced assertions at the bottom of the talk page, which may need collapsing until they are sourced. BigK HeX (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was arbritary in collapsing it, the point was - end of. But I will take another look. Blue's comments at the bottom seem fine to me, I believe he is summarising his view of the current status of things; though, obviously, it will be good to see sources - I prefer a good faith wait for the sourcing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Now ... I'm going to have to fairly strongly oppose the collapsing of my text that describes BlueRobe's "straying into WP:OR." Allowing his OR to stand, while collapsing my explanation of the text within tertiary sources seems a bit odd. I'd ask that my "straying into WP:OR be uncollapsed, or that his WP:OR post be collapsed as well. BigK HeX (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I left it because there was a direct reply refutation by Fifelfoo to Blues comment that seems useful to the thread. Rather than demanding a strike, which is sorta a roundabout way of doing it, I have asked Blue to try and revise his assertions based on the sources now provided. I would also note that I found Blues comment a reasonable point, he is actually right. As I read it what we are aiming for here is a consensus on how much mention each of the less common forms deserve directly in this article and how much should focus on right-lib exclusively. In the absence of a scholarly analysis of this we have to establish a consensus on what the significance of each form is, one way is to consider the sources and weigh up what they say. We are here to make editorial judgements on what to include in the article, that is appropriate. If, for example, we have sources that identify right-lib as more common then that is helpful to show it requires more weight in the article; then it is up to us to figure out how much weight to give the others. This will take a long time - it is complex subject and the literary material is difficult to come by on the specific topic we are concentrating on --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC recently did an interesting analysis of the article's weight. Not sure if I'd endorse the exact results, but -- given the claims of the vocal minority -- the results are rather surprising. BigK HeX (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "No more!"

When people overstate their case, I will point it out. Respectfully -- and with due consideration and admiration of your success and toil -- but if discussion about the potential (and oftentimes blatant) misuse of sources is somehow a taboo topic under this mediation arrangement, I may have no other choice than to forego willing participation. BigK HeX (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no worries. But as the matter was closed above it I recommend just ignoring it. For clarity --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ... I was making reference to a different matter. We all know his whole "only limited governance" thing is a dead topic. However, I actually appreciate the (ton of!) sources he provided. They very well could be quite useful, however, my point wasn't so much that he was harping on a dead topic, but rather that -- even with his new evidence -- it's fallacious to make the case that the number of sources he could provide would "prove" an exclusive view about libertarianism. New editors can often believe that, and it's a fairly reasonable belief. I was trying to let him know that he can use those sources to prove that his prefered viewpoint does exist, but it can't really be used to "cancel out" other viewpoints. BigK HeX (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Gah, yes some sort apologies - the remark wasn't really directed at you for that comment - I was aiming to kill off discussion of such an issue before it started :) I see your point (that you made in that thread), because of where it was and what it was replying to I tried to kill off further discussion. (BTW I approve of the suggestion you made for formal mediation). On a seperate matter, how do you feel about my efforts on moderation so far? Is there anything I could do better? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

One moment while I respond appropriately to your question... BigK HeX (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Intervention of the type you've been delivering is EXACTLY what I've been hoping for. I'm quite surprised that -- in a sea of intransigence -- you were able to gain even a modicum of respect for your efforts, though you've now seemed to have earned far more trust than that. I don't see much room for improvement in your approach; you are, in fact, doing an exemplary job. Definitely an issue to tuck under your belt, should you ever decide to go for an adminship. BigK HeX (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate you (and the others) being open to "direction" like this - I think the talk page has taken a turn for the better. Even the "spat" earlier wound down fairly quickly and amicably compared to the past! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

New section on Ayn Rand was instantly deleted

As arranged with you, and supported by a RfC in the Libertarianism talk page (in a stunningly rare show of consensus), I created a brief section on Ayn Rand. All too predictably, it was deleted about 3 minutes later. BlueRobe (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Errant. I have posted the draft of the Ayn Rand section in the Libertarinaism talk page. However, I can't get it to list the reference list properly: the reflist template is not working. Do you have suggestions? BlueRobe (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Forensic disk controller Juan Manuel Márquez The Coroner's Toolkit Preet Bharara Mobile forensics Real evidence Computational forensics Forensic geology Pollen calendar Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor Forensic arts List of companies of Uzbekistan Global Information Assurance Certification The Sleuth Kit Body identification Certified Hacking Forensic Investigator Ignacio Mariscal Airedale NHS Trust Evidence Eliminator

Cleanup Crime lab High Technology Crime Investigation Association Medical software Merge Phreaking Incarceration in the United States Wireless forensics Add Sources Wikileaks HashKeeper Secure digital forensic imaging Wikify Capital formation F1 Magazine Forensic corporate collections Expand Anti-computer forensics Arrest of Bradley Manning Outline of forensics

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Did I wish you the best of luck?

Welcome to Libertarianism wikidrama. If it's not been said enough, your efforts at neutral, informal mediation are greatly appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, your recent edit garbled a sentence in TFD's comment. [3]. I want to take this opportunity to say that your work at the article is much appreciated. N6n (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Hello, another one:[4] N6n (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Man... not a good day, I have no idea how I keep managing that :) feel free to fix it if you spot another one (I will now double checking my edits though) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.

I think this company is notable for its alcoholic beverages, at least in the United States. I think the ordinary editing process can fix it up, but you are free to nominate it for deletion so it can be debated. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a cursory search for sources, but no real joy - it fails WP:CORP as far as I have been able to find (significant coverage). However if you can fix it up, wicked :) Sadly I don't think it is possible --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mayweather

Mate i clearly stated why i reverted the article, if someone has achieved goals in the boxing or sporting world that needs to be stated. and secondly all the information is true, and in the dissusion page it doesnt say anything about cinderkun wants the page reverted backBalagonj786 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check WP:LEAD, all of the data you talk about is dealt with in the article, there is no need to repeat it in the lead. As raised on your talk page - I am confused why you have supported the shortened lead for Manny Pacquiao but not this article. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WSR

Apologies, I missed your post on the subject. Iota (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No problemo :) just dotting i's and crossing t's etc. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BP edits

Hi Tmorton, I recently edited BP and you reverted in good faith. I don't know why templates and such were removed, maybe because the js userscript I installed doesn't work on Safari, which I recently switched to. I left a note on talk about summarizing the environmental, safety, and political record in the LEAD on Talk:BP. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of What.cd

Hello! Your submission of What.cd at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ballistics

Adding the template to this article presume a dominate relationship of one science over another. Ballistics is not predominate a forenic science. If you want to relate the article to forensic science I suggest you do it differently. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you make a solid point. I admit I only cursorily checked the article before dropping it in. Feel free to remove. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you improve it, no one said anything about removing it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at Marcus Qwertyus's talk page.
Message added 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfC

I'd ask that you not encourage Mark nutley's misrepresentation, if it can be helped. Suggesting that I'd enforce a different consensus is a big hint, but it still doesn't really address that "what I like" is not discussed as any part of my decision to revert. Being more direct with Mark is possibly a better course. Your thoughts? BigK HeX (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

shrug I thought I was very clear to Mark. I don't intend to comment again though, my point was made :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah .... he keeps asking for clarification. With your explanation (and my direct statement), I have no idea what could be made more clear. In any case, thanks for trying to clear up the matter. BigK HeX (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Too bold?

I suggest that you slow down. Before you delete articles like 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot you really ought to try a prod and to write to the creator. And perhaps ask the opinion of some other people who edit on terrorism, both deletionists and inclusionists. Perhaps start a discussion on the project terrorism page. And figure out how big a deal this was in Ottawa. Just because there was only one source given, doesn't mean that this might not have been a major focus of attention in Canada. I'm not saying it was, just that you might want to slow down.AMuseo (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to get the replacement roughed up so we can see it in action. Certainly that article would not survive a prod or AFD. I dug around for sourcing but it was basically a repetition of that news article used as a source. No post event content. I grabbed one of my Canadian contacts and he agreed it was just a news event. See how the new article pans out :) if you strongly disagre... I guess AFD it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW in case you didn't see my note from before - deletionists and inclusionist are usually considered derogatory terms, it doesn't worry me but it is recommended to avoid them :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!

Get ready. The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin. Prep your keyboards, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please get your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar ". Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month! Regards, Mono (talk · contribs) and WikiCopter (talk · contribs)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 05:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC).