User talk:ErrantX

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Userboxes

This user lives in England.

UTC

This user's time zone is UTC.

This user assumes good faith.

This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.

SB

This user lets SuggestBot recommend articles to edit once a month.

more...

Wikipedia:Babel

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

Search user languages

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by .

pic

Hi Errant, as your now an admin and you started this RFC Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Placement_of_Image I was wondering what you feel the consensus is not the RFC is closed, congrats on the successful application by the way. Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Being involved (i.e. started it :P) I won't close it. The discussion is something of a mess but I think the consensus is mostly in favour of keeping the image in the section with the critical commentary but not in the infobox. Being that this is my preferred approach it might be my bias speaking :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes mine too, I have asked Sandstein who was the original uploader and who wrote the original rationale for the infobox to assess the discussion also, so his comment will be useful. I asked at AN over a week ago and was rejected as too early and I asked again two days ago and as yet there is no apparent interest. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I chucked a comment on the page, I think the status quo is clear, so I'll close it midweek if no one has issues or we can't find someone uninvolved. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question

Hey, I was wondering if you could explain the reasoning behind the semi-protection of Malaysia? I thought that in instances of one IP or users making changes the IP is usually warned and blocked, but was this to try and make them follow up on the talk page? Not criticising, just inquiring! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for pinging me. I've seen it go either way.. in the end I semi-protected the page for three reasons: (1) because the edit war was on-going BUT the user had not been warned at any level on their talk (2) the IP is changing, and only seems to have the one target for now and (3) the article has been hit by vandalism quite a bit recently I figured a 3 day break might do it (and the page watchers) some good. :) Rather than wait & cause more work for page watchers, and then finally block the IP I figured it made more sense to protect and try to force the IP to interact. Mostly I err on the side of avoiding blocking :) Bear in mind: I'm a newbie at this bit (as you can see above) :) so if it seems drastically wrong let me know and I can change it.--Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!

Please help!

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is almost complete. Please help, as the backlog is still very large. Still exceeding 20,000 articles! The goal is 18,000 or less. Lets see if we can do it! We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to help as well.Thank you for all your help thus far!

Regards,

Guoguo12 (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs), and WikiCopter (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Assange and Hurtig

Don't quite see what is wrong with my edit that the judge in the extradition hearing said that Hurtig was trying to deceive him. That is what he said. Without my edit, the article is unintentionally misleading, as apparently accepting Hurtig account as true, when the judge rejected it as false. The judge also said this. "9.Mr Hurtig says he was unable to make direct contact with his client between Ms Ny asking for a interview on 21st or 22nd September and 29th September. By this time he says he client was no longer in Sweden. An interview was offered by the defence on 10th October onwards, but that was said by Ms Ny to be too far away. Mr Hurtig [is] an unreliable witness as to what efforts he made to contact his client between 21st, 22nd and 29th September (see transcript pages 122-132). He has no record of those attempts. They were by mobile phone, but he has no record. He cannot recall whether he sent texts or simply left answer-phone messages." And the substance of my edit was not (pace BLP) to use the court judgment as a source for a conclusion about Mr Hurtig, but to use it as a source (and there is none better) for what the court judgment said. Would you kindly consider reinstating my edit? Best wishes Ironman1104 (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) As Errant said and I agree it would be better to wait and use a report of the report about Hertzig, a secondary report. I am sure after reading the report that there will soon be some reports about the judges comments about Hertzig so it will soon be ok, I will go look for one now. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 10000 ;))It is a primary sourced and contentious statement; we are not qualified to assert what the judge is trying to say (my own reading of it is drastically different from the broad allegation/statement you added) and in such circumstances it is much better to use a secondary source to judge the relevance. It is definitely not a good idea to make use of the primary court finding for most of this detail, particularly such contentious and problematic content. I definitely do not think that the broadness of the statement the judge concluded that Hurtig had deliberately sought to deceive the court can be adequately supported in the source without our own OR/SYNTH. This highlights the problem with covering events that are currently occurring; we really have to wait now for some form of reasonable analysis. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x 1,000,000 - Found this Assange's lawyer tried to mislead court, judge rules - Solicitors journal - unsure as to if its a WP:RS but as you see it will be independently reported. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I would be happy with that as RS - particularly for legal matters such as this. .--Errant ^(chat!) 16:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At lease my faith in the British legal system is confirmed with this result, it seemed pretty cut and dry to me as well. At least Assange can be happy that through the extradition request it helps Assange not be extradited to the USA. It will be interesting to see if the Americans will attempt to request him after all this silly-ness is over and also interesting to see where Assange will settle, I wonder which countries would allow him access or an entry visa. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposition that, when the judge expressly said that Hurtig tried to mislead the court, one should look to a secondary source rather than the primary one to say what the judge said, is so silly as not to be worth debating further. Ironman1104 (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence was not a simple recording of fact from the document, it was your interpretation to summarise the judge's thinking, and that is a misuse of primary sources. Secondary sources, if available, are definitely the right approach for material like this. There is no real room to debate over this, I agree --Errant ^(chat!) 09:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, perhaps you could give a third party opinion on a dispute I am having over the removal of content from the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest with user Parishan. I believe that the removal of the sourced content is politicaly motivated. Not wanting to write my reasons all over again I am giving you the link to the discussion in which Orphan Wiki also agrees with me. Hope you can see my point.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like it you can check out my stub for Emilia Carr.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Emilia Carr has now been put up for Afd. I believe it is yet another similar situation as with the Murder of Joanna Yeates etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, I've been real busy today :) will try to look at it asap. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Emokid

Regarding your message: Honestly, I don't know. I just stumbled on what he did while for Favonian's response to my message there. Emokid did change names (making my message his) and inserted a message with false links. And my message is actually related to several Russian addresses used by a vandal, which I posted at WP:AN/I. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you have time later, you can check out my report at WP:AN/I about those Russian IPs that I mentioned and leave your say there. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it now --Errant ^(chat!) 16:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD close

Hi Errant, would you close this afd early, they became notable during the discussion as promoted to the Irish parliament.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Mitchell_O%27Connor Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone got there before me :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking Errant. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer

Hi Errant, You know that there are more computers without keyboards (in your car, control systems, satellites, toasters...) that there are with keyboards. What you have described is a PC, not a computer. Please name one computer that is not Electronic besides the first few (less than ten), compared to billions now. There hasn't been one computer built in the past 50 years that wasn't electronic! I was trying to keep the introduction simple so that a non wizard could understand what was happening, you have drowned it in words and concepts that will prevent a ten year old from understanding what it is. Memories and peripherals were in the third paragraph, taking the novice's mind from one concept to another, one new idea at a time. Just a thought! Cheers Ezrdr (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intro you wrote is better integrated into the section describing the computer. Regardless of when computers were mechanical they can be mechanical and it is incorrect to describe them purely as electronic. It is definitely worth noting somewhere that most computers today are electronic. In regards to your first point; that was just an example of an interface. If you read the article in detail then it explains it; a computer conventionally consists of a processing unit and some form of memory. Then onto that we add any manner of peripheral I/O devices, connected by Buses. We don't really have a reading level to aim at in articles - but simplicity is good, as ytou say. Unfortunately my opinion was that what you wrote was pretty incomprehensible to a non-expert. For example Test and jump instructions allow to move within the program space and therefore to execute different instructions as a function of the current state of the machine or its environment. certainly is a high level concept :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks! Now I can log in and create pages again :) --173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]