User talk:Trebor

Archives:1, 2, 3, 4

If you leave a message here, I will probably respond here. If I've left a message at your talk page, you can respond there or here.

Add a new comment

F and A

Sure, that would be excellent. After end of Friday (midnight UTC) is the time for doing it. Publication is usually Monday midnight UTC. I'll contact you next week, if you're around. Tony (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Guoguo12

Hello. You have a new message at Guoguo12's talk page.

Curious

I'm also posting this to JClemens, the blocking admin. I'm not so much involved except in explaining some things to the user, but just curious... editor LouisPhilippeCharles has now socked at least twice, under IP's, in defiance of his block, in order to continue editing. He was told very explicitly how to build edits during his block without them appearing in wikipedia itself until the block expires, and obviously doesn't give a rat's patootie about sticking with the rules. So I wonder if his month block should be reset every time he evades the block? Or should it be made much longer, or indefinite? What would be the normal procedure? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already raised this at ANI, so "never mind". :) It is worth pointing out that when I first started at wikipedia, not knowing anything about how it worked, I did in fact do what I advised the editor to do: write the article in Notepad, and then test it on wikipedia, before "committing" it. It's not that much extra effort to do it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

So Trebor,

You were kind enough to come and respond and offer some suggestions to some of my posted comments. However, I would appreciate some help here. In spite of all attempts to provide reliable sourcing of information, the setting out of the argument, etc., the changes are still not made, and summarily dismissed, while the inaccuracies and slurs remain.

You claim that this should deal with content and not be related to the editor/admin who keeps reversing the improvements.

So, what do we do in the case of an editor who is not making impartial and disinterested judgments with regard to content? That an obvious double-standard is applying to what is allowed in and what is kept out. And, you can make a case for anything by leaving out half the facts, to suit one's prejudice, which is clearly evident here, as the contentious and negative unsourced factually incorrect material has not been removed, in spite of numerous requests. That he will post negative assumptions about sources without providing any backup for his claims, but will use the same sources to post or allow negative comments.

That this discussion has been exhausted on the "talk" page and elsewhere without any forward movement ?

That rules and standards should apply to everyone, including editors/admins.

So.... how can we make some progress here, and show that this process actually works, because right now it is broken. Talk on this site is cheap. I would like to see some improvements, i.e, some of the changes made that have been requested.

Thanks for your help in this regard.

Appreciatively, meScience&HiTechReviewer (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User ClaudioSantos

ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is ignoring consensus and edit warring Non-voluntary euthanasia and Action T4 as well as other articles relating to the general topic of euthanasia. He has a long history with this article, under anon IPs (some of which were blocked by admin TeaDrinker — see Aktion T4 Talk history), and as blocked user PepitoPerez2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He has evaded the block (he admits he owns both accounts [1]) and now claims he only did that because he "forgot his password" to the PepitoPerez2007 account, although he has made edits on the same day from both accounts, eg [2] and [3]. He uses ungrammatical English in his edits and arguments, and is often hard to understand. He edits from a fringe religious POV and has little regard for consensus. Help please. TickleMeister (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TickleMesiter deleted a paragraph saying it was not sourced in an english reliable source, now that I reworded that paragraph and sourced it in a reliable, verifiable english source, he is just looking for new excuses to delete and revert. I feel he is not looking for consensus but ways to impose his point of view. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you (finally) supplied the correct source, and that turned out to be a paper written by employees of the Lindeboom Institute, which describes itself as working "within the Christian tradition" and "finding its authoritative direction and inspiration in de (sic) Bible." This sort of source is not mainstream and does not belong in the encyclopedia, at least not without clear qualification. Your edits support fringe views and you ignore the statements of other editors completely. You have a long history of this, and you've been blocked on euthanasia topics several times. TickleMeister (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor of Journal of Medical Ethics disagrees with you as he agrees with those authors. And his editorial is also a correct source of that paragraph despite you said it is not. Moreover, actually it is a study by those authors published in that peer-reviewed journal. And I wonder why and how have you concluded it would be fringe a study concluding that legal restriction on euthanasia are not effective in Holland. And I think perhaps this discussion has nothing to do here. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away for a couple of days, so if anyone else sees this and wants to deal with it, that'd be great. Trebor (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About my presumed WP:SOCK I already explained the situation in my talk page [4]. And Trebor already answered me[5]. Now I only should notice that I've never evaded the block of 72 hours I've got using PepitoPerez2007, as any one could verify, so it is a false accusation made by TickleMeister. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use this page for content disputes. I consider the sockpuppet issue resolved now, any future suspicions can be reported at WP:SPI. If ClaudioSantos is found using a sockpuppet again, he should expect a lengthy ban. Edit warring can be reported at WP:AN3, with escalating blocks for continued violations of the three-revert rule (three reverts is not an entitlement, either, so you may be blocked for fewer). I encourage you to discuss disputed issues on talk, rather than endlessly reverting one another. Trebor (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

got it

OH, now again I shall wonder why I would face a block with less than 4 reverts but TickleMeister, who reverted 3 times warring against me, he actually was not even warned by u. At any case, as u can verify I am discussing each disputed issue and avoiding revertions. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make edits to your responses on my talk page. Aside from potentially changing the meaning, which would be inappropriate, I get an orange bar every time you do which is rather irritating. Thanks, Trebor (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Althoug the Orange is an interesting color and a delicious fruit.-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yinzland

[6] and [7] should probably be met with an indefinite block wit possible talk page access revocation. Exxolon (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Trebor (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never let it be said that he wasn't given more than a fair chance to square him/herself away. Too bad. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, could I trouble you to semi-prot my account for a bit? I have a feeling that I'm going to be getting some IP posts... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like doing it pre-emptively. If trouble materalises, let me know. Trebor (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M-6 at FAC

Thanks for the comments. I have hopefully addressed all of them, but there's a small issue with one so we'll need to figure out a good solution that doesn't breach the MOS. Imzadi 1979 → 03:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, I'll have another look soon. Trebor (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to sound impatient, but I'm just pinging you again in case you might have forgotten. I hope all is well. Imzadi 1979 → 08:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Just a quick note to apologise for accidentally deleting your comment at AN/I. This was a complete accident and I restored it as soon as I noticed. Dpmuk (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Trebor (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roll

Can you please semi protect that article - we have already added one dead not dead person - we are not a press breaking news - rolls now being reported as shot an injured only by ther BBCOff2riorob (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

already done by someone else, but i was just trying to add an NBC refernece to a statement made by NBC Trebor (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, yes I saw , lots of contradictory reports that we do not need to be reporting, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it say "according to NBC news" Trebor (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. D. Howe

Hey, Trebor, C. D. Howe has received an outside copyedit as you wanted. I'd appreciate it if you could revisit your comments at its FAC. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity reviewing Featured Article Candidates, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:AOTR

I see you are in CAT:AOTR, but it appears that you may be inadvertantly listed. That may be because the only page of yours that carries the category is User talk:Trebor/archive3. Having a category membership only on an archive page is perhaps a bit odd, so I would like to ask if that what you intended? Or did you intend not to be in it at all? I let folk know when I spot things like this because some folk use the number of category entries to count the number of admins actually so committed. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, it was some careless archiving from a while back. Trebor (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherford Hayes FAC

I've renominated Rutherford Hayes for FAC. If you have any more comments to add this time around, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Coemgenus 15:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

New York Alcoholic Anxiety Attack

Trebor - you previously deleted a page about this band on the grounds that at the time you considered them unremarkable. Can I please enquire how I go about re-instating them given the information below which proves they are at least slightly remarkable now.

New York Alcoholic Anxiety Attack are a 3-piece Psychedelic Garage Rock band from <ref>Bradford<ref>, West Yorkshire, UK

Members:

Mik Davis - vocals, guitarist, lyricist Matthew Graham - bass, vocals Jimmy Bridle - drums, vocals

<ref>www.nyaaa.co.uk<ref> <ref>Facebook: New York Alcoholic Anxiety Attack<ref>

New York Alcoholic Anxiety Attack have played over 400 concerts over the last five years in the UK and twice in Germany.

Played 7 major festivals in 2010 including two full shows at <ref>Glastonbury Festival<ref> & a main stage appearance at <ref>Bearded Theory Festival<ref>.

Supported New Model Army & Eighties B-Line Matchbox Disaster & Ricky Warwick. Recorded an album, produced by <ref>Justin Sullivan<ref> & Nathaniel Chan. Distributed over 4,000 copies of their demo collection project, 'The Collection' worldwide. Made numerous radio appearances & are regularly played on BBC Introducing.

Will be the opening act for the Michael Munroe April 2011 UK tour.

~~~~.