User talk:ErrantX/Archive/2012/August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question and concerns

I recently ran across this (horrible attack site by the way, but at least something can be gleaned from it) and I was wondering if you ever actually talked with OrangeMike about the "content he is adding in his own topic field", to quote your statement in the past ANI discussion. SilverserenC 05:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sort of. But pursuing it didn't seem worthwhile. The point I was making is that on the one hand OM was lambasting paid editors of every form, and on the other he was adding dubiously notable (and certainly badly cited) content on subjects he has a COI. He didn't get the point. --08:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, at least I know now, so I can bring it up in the future if the negativity toward paid editors makes it necessary. Though, per the link I gave above, are any of those Republican articles he made a concern? They do seem to unduly focus on negative comments. SilverserenC 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I never got that far! So I couldn't comment. I noticed problems in the area of SciFi Fandom (where he appears to be highly active in RL). I'll take a look into the Republican articles... --Errant (chat!) 09:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


I will start by apologizing for my most probable breach of Wikipedia ethics by contacting you in this way. I am however new here and feel the need to point out something that has been troubling me for a while. I saw that you made some change to an article called "Trustor affair". I previously (under my previous log-in Jurstud, I had to change as I forgot my password) made some editing on that page, but the whole matter became a kind of editor-war or what ever it is called. What I would like to draw your attention to is the fact that a certain Mr Posener is described in the article as having planned, prepared, controlled and executed events that are criminal - and yet this individual has not been found guilty in any court of law for these actions. Contrary he disputed any such claims in articles, a book he wrote, TV program he was part of etc. I have been arguing that it is not correct to make such claims - that this individual has committed these crimes - in a encyclopedia as no court has ruled on them and no one can be sure that these accusations would hold up in a court of law. There is a back-story, of course. Mr Posener was sought by police and media as he was suspected of crimes in connection with the Trustor takeover. The police never found him and so he was never prosecuted. The statues of limitations ran out in 2007. Swedish media decided that he was guilty and have written 1000's of articles about the matter in which they do a lot of speculating and assumption of Mr Poseners guilt. One journalist also wrote a book where he claims to know exactly who did what etc. This book seems to be the basis for the Wikipedia article on the subject. Even the journalist who wrote that book (Gunnar Lindstedt) opens the book with a disclaimed that the book doesn't intend to pre-empty any verdict from the courts. In spite of that the very same book (Lindstedt, G. (2000) Svindlande affärer: Historien om Trustor. Bokförlaget DN, Stockholm.) is used as reference for the article. Bottom line is: What is claimed in the wikipedia article is a subjective point of view making Mr Posener guilty of crimes though no court has argued the evidence, no court has ruled on the matter and no appeal courts have decided the final outcome. I ask you to give it a look and see if perhaps I have a point and the article can be changed in such a way as it doesn't name Mr Posener as guilty of crimes in regard to the Trustor Affair. If you do make changes, perhaps you could also keep an eye out so that this doesn't lead to instant editing war again (especially a certain contributer "Le Lapin Vert" seems motivated to keep this version on Wikipedia). Jurstudsthlm123 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Penis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Please comment on Talk:Abortion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Disappearance of Tia Sharp

Just to let you know that I have created a stub on the Disappearance of Tia Sharp in England. Has been featured alot in media.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify and the future of wikification

Hi! There is an ongoing proposal at the project talkpage concerning the future of wikification, including possible deprecation of the {{wikify}} template which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of the wikify project. To update your status, go here.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Wikify

Thank spam

Thank you so very much for your expressing your interpretation of my contributions ErrantX - really - so very much - Youreallycan 17:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox software

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox software. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ErrantX. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox software.
Message added 12:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I added the version you proposed to the first part of RfC. You might want to !vote for it in order to make determining consensus in the end of RfC easier. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure :) --Errant (chat!) 13:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ubbe_nationell

Thank you for your welcoming message. As you clearly already understood I am very new here. I do have an interest in biographical material and I feel happy to be able to be part of such a grand undertaking as Wikipedia is. As I am Swedish I have a fondness for some Swedish topics and I came across the Trustor Affair. I may have gone a little overboard when editing this page. I will try to be more objective about my editing in the future. However, the text is already so wrong and so against all logic so I just wanted to see if anyone would react if I took it up a notch. The text as it stands is a subjective description of events where no one really knows what objectively happened. Its a case where 1 (Thomas Jisander) person only was convicted of criminal acts - but the Wikipedia text is hanging many people out by name claiming they did indeed commit crimes (it claims that Mr Posener and others planned the Trustor Affair, what they thought what they did, when no one really knows because only they were present. These are all "facts" taken from a book written by a journalist called Gunnar Lindstedt - and he himself writes in the beginning of his own book that this book should no be considered evidence against the people suspected of criminal activities - and anyway - every claim he has made has been rejected by the accused - and the courts only found Mr Jisander guilty of crimes). So if you are going to try to get it right, you really must try to find a earlier version that doesn't claim people committed crimes where no court has so decided. If you don't want to do that, then I see no reason why we can't also call them "evil" etc... is it really a lot worse to be called evil than to be called a criminal? Going through the earlier versions I could see that there were some attempts earlier to take away these accusations and make it more objective, but others - primarily a Le Lapin Vert - went to war to defend the version that basically is the version we now have here in Wikipedia. I would be very interested to know your opinion on this and how Wikipedia wants to handle such situations. I hope you will have time to tell me. Have a nice summer Ubbe nationell (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm seriously unsure of how best to address the matter; I don't read Swedish and I can find few English language sources on the subject. Calling people "evil" is certainly inappropriate. In terms of calling them criminals; that is problematic I agree. I am unsure of what balance to strike in mentioning the role of an unconvicted individual (though, I understand he simply didn't stand trial because he disappeared) in the matter. Let me think on it a bit r.e. what to do. --08:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I did another attempt on updating the Trustor Affair article. I didn't see your answer to me and I do apologize for that, or else I would have waited. I did try my best to change the parts where the sources give contradictory accounts of events. For example, Mr Posener wrote a book and gave a 2 hour TV special interview claiming and arguing for his innocence. Mr Gunnar Lindstedt wrote a book saying the opposite. One of the things I did today was to take away the accounts of how Mr Gunnar Lindstedt claims Mr Posener planned the take over, and similar accounts (the reference being Mr Lindstedt's book) as to Mr Posener's state of mind, goals etc, These can not possibly be verified as true as only Mr Posener himself would know what he might be planning or thinking. And he has consistently claimed his innocence. I also tried to take away emphasis from Mr Posener and move it to the "Trustor Affair". I did this because there is a Wikipedia article in Swedish Wikipedia(.se) on Mr Posener. And in the debate that previous took place regarding the Posener article it was argued that material on Mr Posener should be handled on a Posener article - and material on Trustor should be handled in a Trustor article. I just assumed that would (logically) be as valid here as it was there. Being Swedish I can inform you that Sweden as a country is very divided on Mr Posener. Some people see him as a hero, some as an economic criminal. But no matter what popular opinion says the situation is not far from the one that Mr Julian Assange is in at the moment. Just as Mr Assange doesn't believe he will get a just trial Mr Posener gave similar explanation to why he didn't want to return to Sweden (he was out of the country when the police wanted to question him). No one actually knows what he did or didn't do. His lawyer went public many years ago saying that it was not his clients (Mr Posener) responsibility or duty to turn himself in. According to Swedish law a person is to be considered innocent until found guilty in a court of law. As far as I know no one is claiming Mr Assange is in fact guilty of sex-crimes - as no court has ruled yet. Somehow I just think it's wrong to hang people out as criminals without a court verdict - no matter if they have been accused of crimes or not. But I realise that I am new here and I am open to guidance as to what to do in cases such as these. DSK, Assange, Posener etc.... Anyway, I would like to know what you think of the version I just edited?Ubbe nationell (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubbe nationell (talk • contribs) 10:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Guto Harri

Why do you keep deleting the fact that he has a sister? Many bios contain at least bare bones info regarding the article subject's siblings, some more in depth even. And just because you (and apparently only you) consider something superfluous doesn't mean you have the right to keep removing it, especially when it has been rewritten to try to meet your concerns, unless, of course, you can cite me a Wikipedia policy which indicates that you have that right. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please calm down. The subject contacted OTRS to explain he has more than one sibling. And also the one we mentioned was the wrong name. I had a look, it was trivial so I invoked BLPNAME. Please do not add back innaccuracies. Also; the subject has raised issues re his birth name. Do you have adequate secondary sources to support your research into his name? --Errant (chat!) 16:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I am entirely calm. This is not a matter of life and death but please do not use patronizing language. There is no "issue" regarding Guto Harri's birth name, although I remember one editor who refused to accept it and engaged in vandalism by continually removing this sourced information. Guto's name at birth has been clearly established as Guto Pritchard-Jones as per the General Registry Office's Civil Registration records at www.findmypast.co.uk: PRITCHARD-JONES, Guto; Registration District: Cardiff; County: Glamorganshire; Year of Registration: 1966; Quarter of Registration: Jul-Aug-Sep; Mother's Maiden Name: Harries; Volume #8B; Page #335. Quis separabit? 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Mia Pritchard-Jones (born 1968) is Guto's younger sister – I agree that I erred in referring to her as his older sister – and born to the same parents. Quis separabit? 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You've got her name wrong too - what's your source for it? As it is; she is non-notable, and the detail is trivial, so we should be taking it out really. Also his birth certificate appears to differ with your research (which you shouldn't be doing anyway). I think you need a secondary source here or we will have to drop the details. --Errant (chat!) 18:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Why shouldn't I be doing research, this is an encyclopaedia, no?? Why do we have genealogy, census, and other data online? His sister's name is Mia, as per the General Registry Office of England and Wales -- what name do you have for her?? And if you have taken a look at Guto Harris' birth certificate, that sounds like research also, no? Please tell me where I can see the birth certificate for myself as to any differences between the birth certificate and the birth registration. I feel like I have fallen into Wonderland (or Underland)! Quis separabit? 20:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
As I noted; the subject has contacted WP:OTRS to complain about the inaccuracies. I am confirming the details now and will get back to you once I have more. And to be clear; no, you should not be undertaking original research. --Errant (chat!) 20:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I re-reviewed WP:BLP as well as your initial comments above and realize that I should and will rv any reference to Harri's siblings given the inaccuracies the subject has claimed. As far as his birth name, however, he has not disputed this and it is confirmed by his entry at the General Records Office for England and Wales; whether this constitutes original research or not I guess is the crux of the matter. I will abide by your considered opinion. Quis separabit? 16:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Heya; great, that's good :) The name kinda is original research; for example - are you *sure* 100% it is him? Is that website guaranteed accurate? Are you a genealogy researcher (hence able to weigh professional experience to such an assertion)? It being an unusual name would suggest it's unlikely to be anyone else... but that's not a dead cert. Which is why the rule about conducting research exists. If a professional researcher writes about it in a published source, with editorial oversight, obviously the fact has a lot more weight than what we located :) I'm following up for more information as we speak - personally I'd have no problem with keeping that birth name in for the moment pending detailed clarification, as it does seem somewhat unusual. Thanks for being patient over this; I'm clearing a backlog of OTRS tickets so it is getting a bit fraught keeping up with them :P --Errant (chat!) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, do as you see fit. You are deputized after all to handle OTRS cases and I bow to your better judgment. Quis separabit? 20:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Phil Cannella page

I urge you to be wary of material that you "approve" for that page. The page is clearly self-promotional in its entirety, and someone on Cannella's staff is monitoring it closely to ensure that there's zero balance and not even a semblance of fairness. Cannella and his staff have immediately deleted any references to the controversies surrounding him and his companies, including lawsuits and other serious allegations of impropriety. See for example www.truthaboutcannella.net. Meanwhile they continue to add fluff content.

This is a matter of some importance because Cannella runs a financial marketing organization that deals exclusively with people who are in or near retirement. Those people, numbering in the millions, are already exposed and vulnerable enough in today's economy, and should not be at the mercy of someone who is exploiting Wikipedia.Cannellalies (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Cannellalies

Whatever your views on the subject; blogs and badly published sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia per WP:BLP. Making broad accusations and attacks on a subject is not accepted on Wikipedia. Now; I have been assured that proper sources are available - I am not convinced so I am removing the page to draft space for now. --Errant (chat!) 19:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair-minded decision. I agree that blogs are just blogs and that unfounded, hateful allegations have no place on a Wikipedia bio page. That cheapens the whole enterprise, and nobody should be misusing Wikipedia to fight out a spiteful vendetta. However, if there is negative material that can be properly sourced, it has a rightful place on a bio page along with the positive material. A lawsuit is a lawsuit. Similarly, if there are facts that cast doubt on the truthfulness of the claims being made for a person, those facts deserve to be seen, at least in footnote. All this assumes that the individual meets the test for "notability" in the first place.Cannellalies (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Edward

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Miriam Stoppard article

Hi I made some changes to the "breastfeeding" section of this article today but notice that they have been swiftly reverted. Could you please explain why they were deleted? I did provide a link to the correct World Health Organisation guidelines which Stoppard inaccurately quoted in her Mirror article (already linked.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenalgirl (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As I explained to the other article above; it is your own original research that she has misquoted or misunderstood the WHO guidelines. This is not accepted. You must locate a source which identifies this to support its inclusion. --Errant (chat!) 09:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand, what do you mean by my original research? It is a fact that she has misquoted the WHO guidelines and in my edit, I provided a link to the correct WHO guidelines, that demonstrate they are at odds with what she said in the Mirror article, also linked.

Here is the WHO link again: http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/ On that page you can read the correct guidelines: "Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended up to 6 months of age, with continued breastfeeding along with appropriate complementary foods up to two years of age or beyond." The WHO website is certainly a reliable, published source!

Which is at odds with what Stoppard said in her article - she said "For years, we’ve followed the World Health Organization guideline that where possible babies should be breast-fed for six months." 6 months is not two years and quite a difference where the health of a baby is concerned.

Perhaps this article in The Independent will help explain it further: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/21/dr-miriam-stoppards-breastfeeding-article-is-factually-inaccurate-and-irresponsible/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenalgirl (talk • contribs) 09:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the source you need. Looking at Stoppards article, then looking at the WHO guidelines and saying "that is misquoted" is original reasearch - please please read the link I have provided which explains why this is such a problem. However; if you cited the independent article which has published this information then that is fine. --Errant (chat!) 09:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I have re-edited and cited the Independent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenalgirl (talk • contribs) 09:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well; the fact she misquoted the WHO isn't of particular significance. I'd word it much like I did (i.e. summarise what she wrote) - then use the Independent article to note the criticism. But otherwise, fine. --Errant (chat!) 09:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Archibald Hood

I have made several edits to the article. I think it looks much better and also I hope your concerns have been addresses. Thanks. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:John Biancato

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:John Biancato. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your incredible dedication to OTRS and especially your role in the recent backlog drive. Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thrilling to see that quality queue dip down. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Maggie; I just do little bits when I can :) --Errant (chat!) 09:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
Ian Bonham-Carter
The Young Ones (song)
River island
Ginka Zagorcheva
Coldstream
Underground (Suelette Dreyfus book)
Shanghai Expo Park
Arif S. Kinchen
Jessie Usher
Valeria Bufanu
Hammersmith Academy
Quambatook
Case sensitivity
M234 launcher
Bill Redpath
2012 Indian Ocean migrant boat disaster
Battle of Vescera
David Bergland
Battle of Andrassos
Cleanup
Argentine tango
Google Play
Calvin Ayre
Merge
HomePlug Powerline Alliance
Frank Bickerton
Medicine
Add Sources
Moose Jaw
BlackBerry
MI9
Wikify
Maureen Gardner
Gate operator
Seicap
Expand
Bowral
Libertarian Party (United States)
Angel Town (film)

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) 12:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Scott Tucker

You posed a question the other day about references on the article on Scott Tucker (racing driver.) The query was whether linking to an investigative news article done by the Center for Public Integrity in collaboration with the CBS Evening News violated Tucker's privacy. One of the stories included public documents showing Tucker's signature. This is not a valid complaint, especially for someone who runs companies and signs autographs. Furthermore, one of the references removed does not even show a signature. The obvious intent is to remove any link to the only in-depth investigative profile ever done on Tucker. The source now cited is second-hand information. The Wikipedia article was created and is substantially written by Tucker's public-relations firm: Mbarksdale4. Until the Center for Public Integrity article was published, there was no mention in the Wikipedia article about Tucker's involvement in his primary business, online payday lending. Even now, the article says that Tucker began racing in 2006 while maintaining chairmanship of Westfund, a private-equity fund. However, Westfund was not incorporated until March 2007: https://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=6elglkjtH4r4jA0y0aFXRA%253d%253d The Center for Public Integrity is 20-year-old nonprofit news organization founded by a former 60 Minutes producer. It does award-winning investigative stories, most often in collaboration with national news organizations such as CBS News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IcabadCrane (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Mata Amritanandamayi

Cheers! I have been involved in the edit discussion regarding the Controversies Section on the Mata Amritanandamayi page. I was happy to see you chime in. Some action was taken after your post. I am not sure it is really satisfactory, but being a novice here, I really dont know. I was hoping you could have a look and give your opinion again.--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of unit testing frameworks

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of unit testing frameworks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Grayson Russell

Could you find an image of Grayson Russell. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.224.15 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

email

Hi ErrantX, I've dropped you an email. WormTT(talk) 14:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Chris Vlok

Where might I legitimately ask questions as to concerns of Wikipedia:Autobiography, and if any action might is warranted. My concern is based around the self-publishing issue rather than any analysis of the subject. As the subject appears to fail WP:ATHLETE this complicates the issue. --Falcadore (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that page. Or you could raise it at WP:COI/N perhaps? FWIW there was nothing wrong with your comments/question on that page :) Moriori was the only one crossing the line. I can confirm that the article has been written by someone with a close connection to the subject (who has also contacted WP:OTRS), but I can't give any more detail than that. I've sent the correspondent our usual text about writing biographies with a COI, along with explanation of notability etc. I'd suggest the best approach from your end would be to conduct a good WP:BEFORE search to see if you can sort the article out. If not, then the deletion options are worth considering. --Errant (chat!) 12:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:OTRS

Re:OTRS

I found http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/volunteering - dots first and second are not a problem (it would be read-only use), and last one (I am older), but is there any explanation of "Willing to provide identification to the Wikimedia Foundation if necessary, considering the access to nonpublic data policy"? What does it exactly mean? When it is necessary? What kind of identification? Bulwersator (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I've never figured out if it is mandatory before being given access, or might be asked after the fact... anyway, it means being willing to send someone at the foundation a copy of some form of ID which then gets you a "tick" as 'over 18' (and the copy is destroyed). No one releases or records who you are. I'll double check on the exact protocol. --Errant (chat!) 13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ErrantX/Archive/2012/August&oldid=1148823054"