User talk:28bytes/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nice!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For the work done on the Fixing non-free image problems essaySPhilbrickT 22:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I find that teamwork barnstar disturbingly similar to the feet of the Tree man from Java. (I should not watch late night tv.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, I've already seen pictures, so I won't be needing to Google that. 28bytes (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems

This appears to be gaining traction quickly. Nicely done, and thanks for your work. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes does it again!! I think it's almost good enough to become a real policy.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft. Hopefully this will let NFCC work run more smoothly. 28bytes (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Karim Market

Hiya. I've had to decline your CSD nomination, as this is more accurately defined as a geographical location rather than a business or an organisation and is therefore not A7-applicable. Try proposed deletion or AfD instead. Thanks!  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  12:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Return of the Indian joker

Remember what I told you last week? Well, he's back again, on that talk page. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted and (semi-)salted. 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WQA

What, is WQA the better place? Silverseren^C 22:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think it's really fair to request on-wiki action for something that someone thought they said in private. At any rate, it looks like the AN/I conversation is continuing, so I'm sure the good folks there can point you to a better venue (if any). 28bytes (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Hi, 28bytes. I was hoping that you could "userfy" the recently deleted article for Becoming an Archer. If you, I'd really apprciate it. Thanks. —Maktesh ^(talk) 01:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. You can find it at User:Maktesh/Becoming an Archer. 28bytes (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Than you! —Maktesh ^(talk) 02:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

28, I'm concerned about you repeatedly closing that thread over objections. Is this being discussed somewhere else, e.g. IRC? Because it seems to me that if people want to discuss something of this magnitude that affects them personally, they really ought to be allowed to do that. I agree that there's no point in criticizing individual Arbs, but a discussion about the general issues is important and inevitable. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought your changing the {{hat}} to {{discussion top}} and adding a link to the AC talk page was a good compromise. I was in the process of saying so on Ncmvocalist's talk page when I saw the orange bar. 28bytes (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind changing it back in that case? Ncmvocalist seems to want to revert or object to anything I say or do. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that the entire purpose of closing the thread will be lost, given how strongly some users feel (those affected, in particular, which can range from particular editors, to admins, to arbitrators). This situation, and the fact others have been modifying the close, indicates that there is a greater chance of editing right through the plain discussion topbox than when it is collapsed. An alternative is moving the discussion to the original venue, leaving a floating link under the section header at ANI, which I don't have a problem with; you're certainly able to move it in that way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

/Errors

Thanks for giving me a good laugh on the edit summary here :) Shubinator (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Figured the bot knows best! 28bytes (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Revdelete request

Hi. I'm bringing your attention to these entries [1], [2] at Alexandra Knatchbull, which may need to be revdeleted. Your call. Thanks! - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 07:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for bringing these to my attention. 28bytes (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

One more. Thanks again. - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 08:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Renoma article

Hi 28bytes,

It's not quite obvious why you have deleted my article about Renoma ? There is article about this building (as it is one of the most recognizable buildings in Wroclaw - one of the biggest cities in Poland) in Polish wikipedia. If you could let me know how to improve this article as this is part of the broader initiative to create article about different places in Wroclaw.

Thanks and kind regards, J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan.Sokalski (talk • contribs) 15:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When I deleted Renoma, the entire content of the article was "Renoma is a shopping center in Wroclaw." It looks like you're building a much more substantial version of the article in your userspace, so when you move it to article space I doubt you'll run into the same trouble. Let me know if I can be of assistance. 28bytes (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

76.172.160.222

Can you please have this IP's PAs revdeleted (especially the edit summaries on Talk:Slavery)? Felt that a PA on me (see that IP's talk page) was worth rolling back.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, give me a sec... 28bytes (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes, are you kidding me? First, you beat me to the block on this guy, then you re-block without talk page access a second after I did the same. Then, you made me edit conflict here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! (edit conflict) 28bytes (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep botherin' you but I think you forgot 3, or, it may be just that it doesn't need revdelete: [3] (this one especially), [4], and [5].Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the first one, not the other two, should be revdeleted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eagles. I wiped the first one, for the other two I think rolling them back was sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Breen (Star Trek)

I genuinely appreciate your attempt to help, and your friendly message. However, none of the links in his three edit summaries specified the section in which verifying that the wikilink is correct is mentioned. All three of them simply link to the top of that page, which means that a veteran editor already familiar with the policy and who looks at the rationale and doesn't know the wikilink is outdated will not be able to understand which of the rationale's criterion is faulty. If you want to help Triangle, then try informing him that when an editor leaves a message on his talk page indicating that he is indeed familiar with the policy, and still cannot see anything wrong with the rationale, and flat-out asks him what's wrong with it, that the proper thing for editors like Triangle to do is to simply tell him. To flat-out refuse to do this, to employ non-sequiturs, and to repeatedly made condescending remarks about the other editor needing to "familiarize" himself with the policy, is spiteful, uncivil, and a violation of Wikipedia's requirement that we collaborate with one another, and discuss things when there is some type of problem. The problem is not any policy or any link. The problem is people like Triangle who adopt a "figure it out for yourself" attitude (as User:J Greb accurately described it on Triangle's talk page), and enablers like JMilburn and Hammersoft who lack the ability to make reasoned, objective assessments of conflicts like this. Simply answering a simple question would've prevented all of this. Instead, Triangle deliberately picked a fight with someone with whom he had a previous conflict (one which I thought had been resolved), in order to engineer a pseudo-edit war, and a false 3RR accusation. If Triangle were genuinely interested in collaborating and working with others, he could've simply told me that the wikilink was outdated. Nightscream (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply. I agree 100% that if Δ knows what the problem is with the rationale, the courteous and helpful thing to do would be to simply say what it is. Of course, it may be the case that all he knows is that there's not a valid rationale, and he's not particularly interested in investigating further. In this case, a good solution would be for him to point an editor to the list of editors willing to help trouble-shoot NFCC problems. I'll suggest this to him. 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

His comments about his edit summaries on his talk page would seem to indicate that he did know, but declined to tell me because--according to him--there's not enough room in his edit summaries. This presumes that:

• He has to include that long, boilerplate summary, and only add an addition answer at the end of it, which he obviously does not
• He had to answer my question in an edit summary, when I never specified his edit summaries; he could've answered my question to him on his talk page, where I asked it.

After all, if he didn't know the pointer was wrong, why give this excuse? For that matter, if he didn't know, why didn't he just say so when I first asked him on his talk page? Nightscream (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I completely understand your frustration. I would probably be frustrated too if I were in your shoes. Heck, the first image I ever uploaded got removed from the article I'd added it to and was then deleted as orphaned, which pissed me off quite a bit. If I give both you and Δ the benefit of the doubt here, I see him sending you to a new page (the FAQ) that he thinks will explain the problem better than he can, and you thinking he's just sending you back to the NFCC policy that you've probably already read a number of times, and which doesn't offer particularly useful advice on what the problem with the rationale might be. On his side, he should have made clear what the problem was, and on your side, you shouldn't have reverted him until you either figured out the problem or asked someone else to take a look. If either of those things were done, there wouldn't have been a need for an edit-warring report. My goal with the FAQ was to try to get in between frustrated editors who see an image removed for an unclear reason, and Δ, who often has a hard time explaining to the editors' satisfaction why it was removed, since so many (preventable, IMO) blow-ups have come from that combination. The point behind the "editors willing to help" section was to say, OK, maybe Δ can't (or won't) help you understand the problem, but there are people who will. Hopefully as more editors become aware of this document and that list of editors, Δ's lack of "customer service", so to speak, will become less of an issue. 28bytes (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Filter 422

I posted a comment in its comment field. I don't want to say too much here, given the nature of filter 422. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. 28bytes (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. 28bytes (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

27.3.18.100 - IP block?

User 27.3.18.100 is edit warring and making an all-around mess of Wikipedia pages, as you have no doubt noticed. Any chance of an IP block on him? 71.176.50.2 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I see some edit warring from around June 14, but he appears to have stopped that. What's he doing now that would require a block? 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he didn't read your latest warning [6] very carefully at all, regarding both issues mentioned, if the current page [7] is any indication. 71.176.50.2 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

He acknowledged my message and has not made any more problematic edits since I left it, but I will keep an eye on things. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You really need to have your fellow admins take the appropriate corrective action here ASAP. As suggested, an IP block might be appropriate for a given period. Thanks again. 71.176.50.2 (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Help please

See my talk page. What started out as a reminder of policy by Eagles turned into an extension of the content dispute I was involved in (and no, I actually am knowledgeable in the subject there). Please help me.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this. Looks like it's resolved... or did you still need help? 28bytes (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it brings to light a misunderstanding by me of how sources work. Need some advice on that.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's generally a bad idea to remove a source someone's adding without a really good reason. Even if the source isn't "enough" to satisfy "many" in the example you gave, it is a good-faith attempt to show that at least one prominent college does teach such a course. As Eagles suggested, it would have been better for you to just leave the source and just remove the word "many" (or change it to something else, like "some", or "at least one".) The other editor was trying to demonstrate, through referencing college curricula, that this is taught in college, which is a perfectly legitimate thing for him to do. If a source goes "part of the way" towards establishing the verifiability of a statement, but not all the way, that's no reason to remove it. 28bytes (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Lot of boring crap on your talk page

What element are you working on? TCO (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. At the moment I'm cleaning up other people's messes rather than making any of my own, but I'm sure I'll get bored with that eventually. 28bytes (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No sweat. Have fun storming the palace. Just remember, the more FAs you write (on core topics and elements are), the long...er...more of a man you are.TCO (talk)

NPP

Hi 28. I'm not sure if it's up your street, but you may find this discussion interesting. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the link. 28bytes (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Economic antisemitism

I wonder if you would take a look at a draft articlethat I'm working on. If this looks familiar, it is because I started by taking Noleander's Jews and money article and hacking at it, throwing out a lot of irrelevant and even dubious material but keeping stuff that was relevant to the topic. (see the edit summaries to get a sense for what I mean). The more I work with Noleander's Jews and money text, the more I stumble over problematic passages.

The thing is... the Antisemitism article doesn't really take on these issues head-on and give them adequate treatment. My proposed article will do that but I need some feedback as to whether my draft article is headed in the right direction and I would really appreciate input as to how to improve it.

I am particularly concerned about the section titled "Historical development" which I suspect may be too long and too detailed. Still, I didn't want to throw it all out without getting some input from other editors.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's still way too close to the version that was deleted. For example, in the Nazi Germany section, the only quotes are from Hitler. Surely there is enough scholarly analysis of the Nazi era that we don't have to rely solely on what Hitler says? Your version of that section is word-for-word identical to Noleander's version. Sorry, but that's just not acceptable. If it reappears in mainspace in its current form, I'm afraid a G4 deletion would quickly follow. 28bytes (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting those messages and protecting my talk page. :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. Kind of cute how the edit filters are forcing them to use Olde English Pirate Speak. 28bytes (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, my userpages actually aren't in abusefilter 294. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Guess they must just speak that way normally then. I bet they're a hoot at parties! 28bytes (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't avoid laughing despite the fact that I didn't witness this incident.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fun Fact

That's an interesting fact, and utterly false [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and those are within my last 50 edits. And even then not all the edits that took place within Delta discussions were about Delta, some of them were strictly discussing policy or other users. If you want to convince me you're not trying to pick a fight you might want to consider not trying to misrepresent my edits.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I saw the Santorum one, missed the Scarpy and the other two. (But come on, you can't tell me with a straight face that this one wasn't at least partly jab at Δ, can you?) So let us say less than 132, but certainly more than 100, of your last 136 project space edits were critical of or advocating a ban of Δ. Fair? I mentioned it simply because I've been following the most recent discussion, and saw your username – a lot – and thought, I wonder how many anti-Δ posts he's made this month alone? Turns out over 100! That surprised me, I thought maybe it'd be around 50 or so. Anyway, this was for your information only, I thought perhaps you might not know how high, percentage-wise, your project space edits focus on that one editor. I'm not planning to restart one of these or anything. 28bytes (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't a jab directly at Delta. Delta isn't the only one who acts like a bot in those situations sometimes, but he's the only one who causes that level of disruption. I know most of my project space edits are regarding Delta these days, but I make those edits because I feel they're the best for the project. I've also gone out and lead by example in NFCC to demonstrate how to handle the issue in a community centric way.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. And you do certainly have a valid point about the bot-like editing, even if you tend to make that point over and over and over. I did notice your helpful work fixing NFCC issues, which is indeed a good example to set. Actually fixing broken-but-fixable rationales is a much better use of time than just deleting them without further investigation, IMO, so my hat's off to you for that. 28bytes (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ban notice

Please comment at User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Ban_Notice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK subpages

I'm sending this message to editors who commented at WT:DYK#Page restructuring and expressed an interest in setting up a subpage-based system for DYK nominations. If you have time, please see WT:DYK#New nomination setup and comment there. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Lock Page NOW!

UFC 132 needs to be locked because of excessive vandalism. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done by another admin. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A second opinion

Good day. I came across the article for Therme Erding, and I really felt like asking for a second opinion about it; I hope that it doesn't bother you. Overall, it gives me a strong feeling of a sales brochure, but the text is written in such a way that it may as well be an encyclopedic entry. With the outstanding exception of the Transport section, I don't think it is blatantly promotional as per G11, and looking at the few third party references gives me the impression that the park is indeed notable (specially if it is in fact the largest thermal bath complex in Europe). I have tagged it for {{spam}}, but it would be really helpful to hear the opinion of someone with more experience. Best regards - frankie (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me understand wikipedia

i am sorry for my disruptive editing in the past since you are an admin can you please stop this user User:Gorlack36 from messing with my talk page please? thanks --27.3.18.100 (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop putting "surprise links" to sex articles on your talk page. Stop doing that, and I'm sure Gorlack36 will stop removing them. These surprise links do nothing to help build the encyclopedia, which we is why we are here, right? 28bytes (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)