User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2011/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:ErrantX. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 31 October 2011
- Opinion essay: The monster under the rug
- Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified
- News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest
- Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful
- WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined
- Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked
Courtney Love has been going through a lengthy Good Article review, and is now close to being listed. There now needs to be a bit of tidying up done - trimming some excessive detail, and a bit of copy-editing, as well as building up the lead a bit more. This is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia and is on an important yet complex subject. Any assistance, even if only to proof read one of the sections, would be much appreciated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi ErrantX, I am a new user to Wikipedia and am writing an article on a historic apartment-hotel on my college campus. It is a fairly rough draft and needs some major editing and tidying up. I was hoping that you could give a new Wikipedian some advice on improving my article. Any assistance would be very much appreciated. Here is a link to my sandbox page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pbjellytime17/Clemson_House_sandbox Pbjellytime17 (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 November2011
- Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot
- Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC
- WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science
- Featured content: Slow week for Featured content
- Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week
Surströmming
I note that you removed the reference to the tin being opened live on air on Simon Mayo's show as "trivial" and needing a ref. Surely the radio show is the reference. I was an earwitness to the event and can verify that it did happen. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Same here :) It's not so much that it happened that needs a ref; but that it is of relevance to an encyclopaedic article about the foodstuff. None of the section has much qualifying content... Consider it this way; they interview celebs all the time on that show - but we wouldn't go to each celeb's article and note they did an interview on R2 on a certain date. Because it is not really relevant. Unless of course an independent source picks it up as noteworthy :) --Errant (chat!) 17:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 November 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released
- WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India
- Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 November 2011
- Discussion report: Much ado about censorship
- WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections
- Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class
Image Deletion
Hi. This image has been granted permission of use MANY times by the owner so please dont delete it. Please see below:
I hereby affirm that Barry Hilton is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of; File:Barry Hilton.jpg – picture owned by Barry Hilton File:Barry-and-Sandy-Wedding-Pic.jpg– picture owned by Barry Hilton File:Barryfish.jpg– picture owned by Barry Hilton File:BodyBs.theora.ogv- clip owned by Barry Hilton File:Absailing.jpg– picture owned by Barry Hilton File: Barryh2.jpg– picture owned by Barry Hilton attach the work to the email, I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Ivana Petzer South African ID number 8007310114084 Appointed representative 25 October 2011 The article has been authored by Thea-Lize Moolman from Brandboard upon our request. Her user ID for Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thealize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealize (talk • contribs) 13:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there, I am not deleting the image. My "robot" simply notifies you that someone else has tagged it for deletion. In this case the permission needs to be provided by email to OTRS; the address to use is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - if you have already sent an email then try sending it again, sometimes the permissions can be overlooked. --Errant (chat!) 14:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion Reason
Hi ErrantX. I recently tagged a file for WP:CSD#F11, and I notice the Bot left a message giving the reason as "unknown copyright status". I thought this sounded more appropriate for WP:CSD#F4, and I was expecting a reason more like "missing permission". Any thoughts? Thanks, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. – Wdchk (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm interesting; truth be told notification for local files was sort of tacked on once the Bot was established, so it is a bit "flaky". I've not had time to work on it for some months and as it was largely working just left it be. The issue your seeing is because I'm a bit lazy as to which categories I check for deleted files. I stump for the more general categories to catch all the files as quickly as possible, and the one for that file happens to be "All files with unknown copyright status". Obviously, that isn't really optimal... I'll put it on the to do list :) thanks for the heads up!
Why did you delete my image?
Hello,
Why did you delete this image? File:IDF rabbanut emblem.jpg
Please sespond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.164.108 (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi; I did not delete your image - an administrator on Wikimedia Commons did that (my bot simply provides a notification to the article page). The notification suggests that the issue was a copyright violation; images that you upload to Commons must be freely licensed (i.e. you have explicit permission to upload them under a permissible license). This long after deletion I can't, unfortunately, find any further details than that. If you think it was deleted in error, please consider uploading it again. --Errant (chat!) 16:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
MarcusBritish
The sort of comment he just made makes it hard to 'just walk away'. I shall not repond but do feel a bit ageived that someone can make such comments and I am expected to take them.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Deletion by Errant
You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Jeffrey Elman, which adds more specific concerns. The content is now restored and I expanded/re-organised it a little. See what you think... I wasn't sure about Inside Higher Ed as a source, but if it is a legit publication then we can probably use it to source material. The relevant policy here is WP:BLP - with biographies we try to approach material carefully and conservatively, and try to keep it balanced. As it stands the entire episode is missing some facets:
- The letter related to material published as part of the academic dispute (we appear to have a source for this now, so that's OK) rather than a general restriction
- The follow up to the letter appears to be that
- The academics criticisms were found to have no merit (by the Vice Chancellor of Research)
- Who also found that they may not be covered by academic freedom if unsubstantiated/libellous
- Elman then appears to have followed up with the academic clarifying some points (i.e. retracting the threats & saying that the academic was not indemnified should he publish the material) in relation to this.
I can't find a source for that latter material. However, it would be good to note he sent retractions. Are you aware of sources that could help with this? I'm aware of avoiding the presentation that he was not at fault by including this extra material - but equally it is useful follow up to balance the material. Balance is generally important, to achieve the necessary neutrality. --Errant (chat!) 16:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for pointing me to that. I am glad to see partial restoration of deleted content, with poorly sourced stuff removed.
- If someone can find a source for a Vice Chancellor contending that the committees' criticisms lacked merit, I agree this should be included for balance/accuracy. Ditto for material on retractions etc.
- I will look for more info and sources in the next couple of days and get back to you about whether I have been able to find them.
The Signpost: 28 November 2011
- News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar
- In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars
- Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle
- Featured content: The best of the week