Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:48, 6 March 2007

trialsanderrors is looking for a job irl and is trying to cut down on wikiediting for the time being. Most likely, however, he won't be able to stay away from Misplaced Pages all day, and will probably be around making small edits every once in a while anyway.

Still need help

I wish you hadn't archived there. I still need help and I'm still being harassed. I think this individual and the others involved have exhausted any possible good faith we can afford them , .--Crossmr 22:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I permanently semiprotected the talk page and removed some recent inflammatory comments. I noticed the anonymous editor was already blocked for incivility and vandalism. ~ trialsanderrors 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I accidentally semi-protected your talk page instead of the James Kim talk page. But if the harassment extends to your talk page (and looking at the edit history I see some offending comments) I can semi-protect that too. ~ trialsanderrors 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I mentioned before that I do occasionally help IPs and they do leave actual questions on my talk page, so I'll wait a bit before I make any decision on that. If he really gets at it there it may be something to explore.--Crossmr 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That block he has is expired, which shows how much good it did, as does this comment he just made .--Crossmr 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you happen to know if Feb 15th is too old to do a check user?--Crossmr 00:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Who are you thinking of? ~ trialsanderrors 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

24 and jake b both edited on the 15th (its the only time both accounts have been editing close together) I wondered if that is not too late to tell us if its the same user or not.Some of the things 24 has been saying and another article edit outside James kim makes me suspect that its the same person. I've also found out something else rather interesting which I'm just in the process of piecing together.--Crossmr 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you should go for it and list it if you have the evidence. Worst case is that they tell you it's too late now. If you want you can email me. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, I've included a bunch of links and some info. Some feedback would be appreciated.--Crossmr 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this IP is going to pick up where the other one left off. Antandrus thought they might be the same person as he thought they were geographically close..--Crossmr 13:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And I think we'll go ahead with the semi protection. This individual has been known to vandalize both my user page and talk page, so perhaps a month on both?--Crossmr 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know when you want it taken off. Default is 1 month. ~ trialsanderrors 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as always I appreciate the help.--Crossmr 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been confirmed Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jake_b. Unfortunately he hasn't edited recently to find out if he isn't also the 131 IP. I'm not quite sure what should be done with this, but since december his disruptive edits out number his beneficial edits about 10 to 1.--Crossmr 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna block him, but it looks like Inshanee already shot him down. ~ trialsanderrors 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The nose knows. Thanks again, hopefully this will put this all to bed, there are still some consensus issues on the article this all sprang from (mostly bolstered by IPs and accounts which have only made 1 or 2 edits since this all happened), but hopefully we can get those sorted out.--Crossmr 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously 131 intends to start stalking me anywhere I edit . The IP address seems somewhat static. You might try a range block of the Air force base as well.--Crossmr 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I could get away with that. The only thing I see that might work is 3 hour blocks whenever he pops up anywhere. ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actors by series

Thanks. I've removed that CFD template; the nominations were actually for its subcategories (which are now renamed and untagged per bot). The work to be done would be to (1) tag those subcategories with {{Actors by series}} to indicate their purpose, (2) prune some of the subcats that still contain guest actors, and (3) consider whether some of those cats should be lists instead. I believe some people more knowledgeable on the subject than myself are already working on it, though. >Radiant< 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

On whether you agree with this proposed principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Workshop#Purpose_of_Deletion_Review . I'm asking Xoloz to comment too. My M.O. these days is to quote you in order to look smart. Kla'quot 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus. I made a comment where I thought was appropriate, but this is far too convoluted for me, and I'm half-glad I missed out on it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite the train wreck ;) By the way, good luck with the job hunting! Kla'quot 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Hey Trials, I thought you might be interested in a (very small) debate about whether a body of research is, or is not, pseudoscience taking place over at Talk:Height and intelligence. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Commented there. ~ trialsanderrors (5'10") 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pete.Hurd 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have time

Hey man, I totally fluxed-up an attempt to create a 3rd AfD for Steve Nguyen. I don't know what I did to anger the transclusion gods, but if you have a spare minute, could you please fix my mess? Sorry, Pete.Hurd 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

got it, nevermind, sorry for disruption. Pete.Hurd 03:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I can't even watch the Simpsons without something breaking here... ~ trialsanderrors 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You think that's bad. I just rewound the first six minutes of Man Utd vs. Reading on my PVR in the vain (but I thought not unreasonable) hope that it would come out differently on replay. Pete.Hurd 04:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You should rewind the last 6 minutes and play them over and over if you want to change the outcome... ~ trialsanderrors 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha! right! of course, I'll get the hang of this technology stuff yet! Rock on. Pete.Hurd 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton Stands

Thanks for your support of the article. It blew me away that an entry on the company would be deleted as "non-notable". It blew me away further when I read the "endorse deletion" replies and reasoning (to cut the endorsers some slack). It blew my socks off to discover that the article had actually been speedy deleted, which takes two parties. No wonder it never turned up on my watchlist, and I only discovered the deletion months later. (I still wonder what needed "improving"?)

I'm hoping to add more (like pictures) to it soon, and if I turn up press references (besides the online one, which I had to wade through literally dozens of online catalog pages to find... and this still wasn't "notable"?!), those will go in as well. (If they don't get dismissed as "original research", since somebody had to ask about them.) I'm hoping someone else will add even more. – This one had the personnel at our local Sam Ash and Guitar Center rather surprised, even if nobody had seen a recent news story. Zephyrad 08:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a common misapplication of the new Notability guideline that bugs me. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use claims

I am having a bit of trouble on a redirect's talk page with User:Miaers, but when visiting his user talk, I separately contacted him about using a fair use image on his user page. He has left replies (User talk:Miaers and User talk:Dekimasu) indicating that he disagrees with me, and I just now glanced through his archive and saw that you've already recently had this conversation with him about the image Image:Chapman Hall.jpg. He's been reacting similarly at other pages, such as List of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee people, which I reverted once.

Since I've already had nearly a month of going over redirects and WP:DAB with him at Talk:University of Wisconsin, would you mind following up on this and talking to him a bit more about fair use? I don't want him to think that I'm following him around and attacking his edits. Sorry to take up your time. Dekimasuよ! 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave him another note. Thanks for reminding me, I had planned to follow up on it anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop Query

I ran it through the bag of tricks I know to detect Photoshop tampering you said in a comment on FPC, and I wondered what exactly you meant, is it a plugin (if yes could you give me a link to download) or just a technique (could you describe it in detail) because I think I could make use of something like that just to check I havn't left any 'scars' in my images. thanks --Benjamint444 11:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I don't find the tricks very useful in fixing images, which is another art by itself, but I usually try to increase contrast or enhance borders. One trick is to create a separate layer in a bright color (e.g. bright red) and set it to color screen or color burn. In the case of the race car I also rotated the image into a position where the car is horizontal and checked if it would look "normal". ~ trialsanderrors 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedians taking a Wikibreak