User talk:Trialsanderrors

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I got it on my watchlist. If you contact me here I will respond here, so make sure you put this page on your watchlist. Thanks!

Archived discussions

Your proposal at DRV

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

Trip to AfD, but yes. Essentially it gives admins the discretion to deny it if all those who view the deleted article believe it fails A7 or G11. Copyvio, attack and similar speedies should remain deleted until a consensus to overturn is reached. ~ trialsanderrors 07:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, but getting a policy change approved here is like pulling teeth. Good luck.--Kchase T 07:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

With DRV, the problem in changing policy is mostly disinterest. Maybe one day I'm bold enough and implement it IAR... ~ trialsanderrors 07:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Brothers Past undeletion

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

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

La Coka Nostra

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

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

MacNab Street Presbyterian Church, Hamilton, Ontario

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

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

Jesse Samek

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

Okay, looks like it was restored, but has a horrible picture posted. Anyway to get it off, since I don't know what template was used and don't want to modify it in possibly messing it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJREJECTED (talk • contribs) 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, I was off the computer. The AfD is now listed, you can remove the picture by removing the line "Jessesamek.jpg" in the infobox. ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

MacDade Mall

Hello,

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

I sent it to WP:DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to you. Erechtheus 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Team Final Boss

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

A. I'm not a deletionist and B. I didn't delete the article. I looked at the sources provided in relation to the claims and found them insufficient for a stand-alone article. A Strong Speedy Keep vote based on bogus sources is useless. As I said, take it to WP:DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 22:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found more independent sources per request I am going to go ahead and revert. http://www.gotfrag.com/halo/story/32181/ and http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/11209/MLG-Signs-FourMan-Halo-2-Team-for-1-Million-Contract/ and http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/bungie/the-1m-halo-2-clan-182861.php

I updated the article. I see no reason for WP:DRV since the article was not deleted. Anyways you can take a look at the new article with new sources and the removal of sources that were not reliable. Thanks :) Valoem ^talk 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll post it on DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 22:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

PGNx Media

Trialsanderrors,

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

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

Thank you. I have some hope now. If you have time later to take a look at the article, I will be indebted. Infomanager 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

You said:

• "Don't administer in areas where you also edit is a very simple and consistent rule to follow."

• "And it's also still wrong if it's anything less egregious, but shit like this is desysoppable behavior."

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

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

Mirchi - Chala Naatu Guru

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

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

DRV of Category:Child Wikipedians

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

I apologize but on the other hand I find it a bit troublesome when admins who are usually not to be seen on DRV close the controversial ones early. One of the purposes of DRV is to decide whether WP:IAR decisions were in fact acceptable applications of that rule, and that can only be credibly done if all rules are abided by during the review itself. I don't expect the result to change, but I don't want to see this being renominated solely because the review itself was challenged as out of process. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely sympathise, and apologise for having put you in that situation. It's a shame that there appear to be no go areas on Wikipedia now though. Still, my own damn fault for not being thorough enough. Cheers, Steve block Talk 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines, this ended up being a perfect example of DRV not working. I won't mourn the loss of the category, but this is a perfect example of my issues with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion policy

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

Unless agreement is reached earlier, nomination time plus 120 hours. The Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active section lists the last six days, including today. I usually close the day listed on top of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent, so most reviews run a bit longer than 120 hours. ~ trialsanderrors 08:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Still trying to learn the finer details of the rules. Happy belated new years to you. Infomanager 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing. If a decision is overturned, there are two options (?): the article is permitted to stay or the article is listed at AfD. If the latter, will the article be unprotected so that changes can be made before the AfD process? Thanks! Infomanager 08:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about PGNx Media. I unprotected the article since in all likelihood it will be sent to AfD, so you can improve on it until then. Just if you're done editing I'll ask you put the {{subst:drv}} tag back on. I'll remove it when I close the debate. Happy New year to you too. ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be editing it tomorrow afternoon and will add the tag back on then. Infomanager 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes were made and tag was added back to top. Thanks! Infomanager 04:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

article protecting for deletion review

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

Only those two? I'll take care of it later today. ~ trialsanderrors 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All others would be fine for those who worked on those I guess, but for me those are the two I was working on and I'd like to have the information available. If it's decided not to have these where they were before I could still use the information for personal usage. Thanks a lot already, SportsAddicted | discuss 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's just wait how the DRV goes and I can restore or userfy at the end depending on outcome. ~ trialsanderrors 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me, thanks a lot. SportsAddicted | discuss 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this that you meant to do?

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

It was borderline, but since nobody put up a {{drv}} tag to announce the discussion I'm relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. In this case a gentle "ping" of the people who took part in the deletion review might be acceptable. When you've completed the nomination I'll do that, then. - brenneman 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It'll take me about 15 minutes. ~ trialsanderrors 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration

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

Thanks for the comments

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

Child Wikipedians

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

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

PGNx Media

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

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

Rosenthal article

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

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

Peace War Game

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