User talk:28bytes/Archive 3

DYK for Medieval Mayhem
Courcelles 00:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Video Game Critic
Courcelles 00:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Don't Want You to Go (Lani Hall song) (2nd nomination)
Tell me how you think we can stand to have an article without any non-trivial coverage. Apparently some articles get a free pass to totally ignore WP:GNG just based on the whims of individual editors. There are countless other songs that have been widely recorded but haven't gotten any secondary source coverage that amounts to more than "x recorded song Y — so what?" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling I might get a response to that one. :) I'll reply on the AfD page. 28bytes (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA questions
Hi. By the time I had made up my mind to !vote you had withdrawn, so how I would have !voted is moot. Nevertheless, if you boost your activity over the next few months, I'm sure things will work out differently next time. However, I'd like to have your feedback on what you feel about trick questions. I mean the kind that even a relatively new admin might get wrong, and which cause a pile-on of oppose votes. I'm just doing some random research, so don't worry if you prefer not to commit on this. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung, I'd be happy to comment. I saw what happened with Jerem43's RfA, which was unfortunate. If it were me – and as I'm sure you are aware, I'm not an expert on how to pass an RfA, so take this for what this is worth – I would have, as soon as I figured out I'd whiffed the question, done some quick get-up-to-speed studying, and put an addendum on the answer saying "yeah, I missed that one. I understand now the issue..." and added some explanation as to my (new) understanding of the policies. Would that have staunched the opposes? Yeah, some of them, I think. Some would have stayed in the oppose column, but it would certainly give an undecided !voter the sense that the candidate understands the policy now, even if he/she didn't at the beginning of the RfA. In Jerem43's case, the percentage was so close I think it would have tipped it in his favor. The thing is... it was only a trick question if you hadn't been studying the previous RfAs. I noticed Jerem43 had only !voted in two previous RfAs, so that suggests to me he hadn't adequately prepared for what the general topics and questions might be in late 2010, despite having run previously. Anyway, I don't know if this answers your question directly, but those are the first thoughts that came to mind. 28bytes (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Street Racer (Atari 2600)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for (We Don't Need This) Fascist Groove Thang
Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC courtesy notice - succession boxes
As someone who has taken part in previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums, I'd like to notify you of a request for comment that is taking place at WT:CHARTS. It would be nice to finally come to a resolution on this. If you have already participated in this RFC or do not wish to participate, then please disregard this notice. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will gladly take part in any type of project team to come up with specific standards for these things should consensus be for keeping them. Some sort of guideline needs to be put in place to prevent the mess that exists on some many of these pages. I can discuss these issues with you more following the outcome of the RFC. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

United States Congress
While I agree with you that Andrew Johnson was impeached in the house and not the senate, there needs to be more clarification. Simply stating the he was impeached in 1868, but not convicted is really not enough. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be precise, the House is the only body that can impeach, which in this case it did. The Senate is the only body that can convict, which in this case it did not. It's a common misconception (not saying you hold it, just that it's common) that "impeached" means "removed from office"; it's actually more analogous to "accused". In this case I believe the most accurate thing to say is that he was impeached but not convicted, but I'm happy to work with you to develop alternate wording we're both happy with. 28bytes (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the only other problem I have is with the seven men posing. Who are they? --Monterey Bay (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparentely it's Andrew Johnson's impeachment committee, but I had no idea either until I clicked on it. That could (should?) probably be made explicit in the image caption... feel free to do so, or to solicit other editors' opinions on that on the talk page. 28bytes (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Prep 2
Could you leave a slot open in prep 2? I'll add Jameela Jamil in (see my talk page for the background). Thanks for assembling sets! Shubinator (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! All yours, I've left the inuse tag on there... I'll start on prep 3. 28bytes (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Shubinator (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for your note (just taking it off SG's talk page). If it doesn't get comment in half an hour I've found a completely bland soccer hook that's been approved at T:TDYK that I'll substitute it with. If you're around then, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could watch Queue 6 in case I stuff up any DYK technical matters. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied on WT:DYK. I have to leave for rehearsal in about 30 minutes, but if you make those changes now, I can take a look at make sure none of the technical things are broken. Since you're not making any changes with the images, the only things to worry about are the credits line and the hook itself. Thanks again for taking the initiative on this. 28bytes (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Access Denied/Template:uw-rmwarning1
There is also User:Access Denied/Template:uw-rmwarning1 which you should also nominate for deletion.  WAYNE  SLAM 01:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, Wayne! I will do that now. 28bytes (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome!  WAYNE  SLAM 01:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Red links
No complaints. I assumed that your actions were due to the fact that you weren't an admin and thus couldn't view the article history like I could. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth!


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Perseus, Son  of Zeus  has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 19:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC) -- Perseus, Son   of Zeus  19:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

For you!


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

 WAYNE  SLAM has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 19:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)  WAYNE  SLAM 19:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Was bugs serious?
I can't figure out which is more likely... He was serious about that question or he was pretending to be serious about that question. Neither seems very likely, yet one must be true! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If he's pulling our legs, I have to tip my hat to him for doing it so convincingly. I mean, I was gearing up to create some flowcharts for him. 28bytes (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. Well, don't expect an explanation.  He has pulled the cord, signing off by flinging one more insult.  And that after accusing me of not responding to his point/question. Bizarre. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship/GiantSnowman
I'd like to second what the candidate said at the RFA. Although I don't as such agree with your oppose (only in as much as I'm supporting) it was well thought out, you checked thoroughly and above all you gave the candidate some quality feedback; this RFA in particular (and sadly far to many generally) get filled with people opposing over trivalities, politics and in a spirit of bad faith - leaving the candidate humiliated and often none the wiser as to what they did wrong. It was refreshing therefore to see such an honest, useful (and perhaps I may venture - reluctant yet firm) opposition statement. Thank you. Pedro : Chat  17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pedro, I sincerely appreciate that statement. As I said, I really did want to support him. He strikes me as the kind of editor who would be a much better admin than RfA candidate, if that makes any sense. Those questions are a minefield, and the inability to ace them doesn't necessarily mean the day-to-day work of being an admin would suffer from it. 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome. I think he's the kind of editor that will learn from this, and hopefully pass easily on round 2. And the much better admin than RfA candidate..... I get totally - I like that a lot. When you see me passing it off as my own comment at WT:RFA please feel free to wrap my virtual knuckles! :) Pedro : Chat  17:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, many thanks for your kind words - I'll definitely be running again in a few months. GiantSnowman 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I'm glad to hear you'll be running again. Best, 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Chrysoperla carnea
I have had a look at what you said about close paraphrasing in the article and maybe I have stuck too closely to the wording of the source. In this case it was not part of the article that much interested me but I was including the information for the sake of completeness. I must admit that I thought changing the wording around was sufficient to prevent copyright violation.

Let us suppose I had instead sought several sources for the information on the number of lacewing eggs required for aphid control and there were different recommendations, then I would have had difficulty citing a reference if I had blended figures from different sources.

I will try to be more careful in future. What would you like me to do about the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cwmhiraeth. Thanks for the quick reply. For now, I've removed the section where I noticed the issue. I'm going to take a closer look at the article tonight and see if there are any other sentences that concern me, and depending on what's what we'll go from there. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you have found time yet to further look at my DYK entry. It is rather in limbo at the moment and nobody else is likely to consider its merits in view of your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I will take another look at it when I get home tonight. 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Little Black Egg
Thank you for your contribution to the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Funtime (Iggy Pop song)
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination)
There's no problem. I'm enjoying the discussion. You are helping me to clarify my thoughts. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re
Hi, I wouldn't suggest for a moment that you have committed any gross indiscretions. Perhaps your extra lecture on his talk page might have been one too many, but I happen to know that it was made in very good faith. My allusion was 'if the cap fits...' Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended as a lecture, but I concede it may have come out like one. At any rate, thank you for the clarification. If I ever say or do something that troubles you, please do not hesitate to let me know directly. My door is always open. 28bytes (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

RfA
Is the tool server just slow do you think? Or have some of the functions been disabled? For example, for two weeks now, whoever's user name I enter at RfA votes, I get 'invalid user name'. I've not heard anyone else mention this problem. --Kudpung (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've had the same problem with that tool. I got as far as looking through X!'s Google bug tracking system to see if anybody else reported it, but I didn't enter a ticket for it. 28bytes (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The tracking database shows a couple of bug reports dating from January 27, so it's definitely not just you and me. I left a message on X!'s talk page. 28bytes (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

tb

 * Hey :)  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  03:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW
Hope you cleared your driveway newbie ........... ;). Pedro : Chat  22:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello you!

I hope you won't mind my templating this message, but as there are several users whom I wish to express more or less the same thoughts to, it seemed appropriate.

Of course it's a shame things turned out how they did with regard to the thread on ANI about Someone65, but no great harm has been done and he will eventually get his comeuppance. I'd like to thank you for your support there - it's been noted :)

Best,

Egg Centric (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thanks, but I'm not really interested in Someone65 getting a comeuppance. Blocks are not intended to be punitive. I want him to become a positive contributor here, and if it takes a block to get him to slow down and familiarize himself with policies to that end, so be it. If he can do so without a block, even better. 28bytes (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right of course. Let's hope he stops trolling, or if not, then gets his comeuppance ;) Egg Centric (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If he does anything else disruptive, I'm sure there will be plenty of eyes on him. In the meantime, probably best to just let him alone. 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jeanne Galzy
Hello! Your submission of Jeanne Galzy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Civility blocks...
...you could almost predict it to be a question nowadays :) Back in my '06 days (when I hung out on RFA a bit more) it used to be editcountitis and XFD that consistently came up. Thanks for the question, answered, I hope as completely as possible. --Errant (chat!) 13:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful answer to my question. I disagree that short blocks are likely to "calm" an editor, but I'm not going to oppose over that. I actually have more of a disagreement with the answer to question 5: I am a huge believer in inline citations. When I first started editing I thought they were a pain and visual clutter, but I've since come around to the view that they're critical to supporting verifiability. Now when I create an article, I try not to add a single sentence that's not supported by an inline reference. But I won't oppose over that either. :) I dug through your contributions and they look generally good, and you seem to be a reasonable and even-tempered editor, so I will probably end up supporting, unless someone finds something egregious that I missed. 28bytes (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think short blocks can be useful to stop someone who is on a "rampage" (i.e. to stop them causing more damage to their reputation). In #5 I am not exactly arguing against use of inline references - indeed I definitely think they are essential. In that article we had a paragraph of about 4 sentences, each of which had multiple cites. The content was not controversial and was easily supported by a couple of the references; my argument is this: it is much better to pare back the number of cites - preferring to add them at the end of the paragraph (an idea supported by the featured article advice) or within the paragraph if needed to support a point. IMO a perfect article would have one inline cite per paragraph or part-paragraph, with controversial stuff directly cited for simplicity. --Errant (chat!) 14:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
for this. Glad to see someone is watching over me :) T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Talk-page stalkers have their benefits. :) 28bytes (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Genres
Yeah i know, but people keep putting genres in the cars article that are false, powerpop?? i mean, what's the difference between powerpop and poprock. although i will slow my roll on changing genres, i still will continue changing them as long as there false.. but so far they look alright on the cars article. well thanks for the heads up. take care! MajorHawke (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that other editors might disagree with you: for example, the Power pop article explicitly mentions The Cars as one of the bands of that genre, and that's supported by this reference, which lists "the slick, more-power-in-reserve coolness of the Cars’ My Best Friend’s Girl" as one of the example of the genre. Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to slow down, I think that's a good move. Take care, 28bytes (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)