User talk:DragonHawk/Archive 2

Re: WP:OFFICE
Hi there! I noticed your recent edits to WP:OFFICE. Would you please be so kind as to stop in at Wikipedia talk:Office Actions? There's a bit of a tempest brewing there (probably in a teapot, as usual). I think some commentary from the actual contributors would clear things up tremendously. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied at Wikipedia talk:Office Actions. --bainer (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost spamlist bot sensitivity to subscription page layout changes

 * That'd be great. The only thing that would screw up the bot is if you add any sort of links to the page, since the bot parses every local link there.  If you really need to link to a page, use an external link, like this:  Wikipedia Signpost.  Thanks for your interest and your help.  Ral315 » 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm done with the big changes. As you requested, I didn't add any wiki-links, but I noticed that there were already a few wiki-links in the text before I got there.  In particular, Template:signpost-subscription was linked, and I left it that way.  I only mention it in case you were unaware.  •  Thanks for providing this service!  :)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bullets and colons
That sounds a bit weird. Anyway, no problem. It is after all a collegiate project. Tyrenius 05:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yury Chernavsky
Thanks, hope for your advices (Copy from Articles for deleting - Dear Sirs, I have been working in LA for the past 13 years, and I have been completely out of participation in any Russian business. I’ve put this page by request of the young professionals and reporters from Russia. Everything in this article is completely true, and I am in the process of providing facts. However, if at this time Wiki feels that they need to remove my information, please feel free to do so following by informing me of your decision.  Best Regards,  Yury Chernavsky  Gcpro1@yahoo.com) --GC 11:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits
I clicked the "make all edits minor" to do a few tasks, and I forgot to un-check it. Thanks for reminding me! -  hmwith  talk   22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you weigh in at Snafu?
Could you please give your opinion of the correctness in adding information on Private Snafu to the Snafu article?? Thanks, Madman 00:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Joker's Wild
Even though the edit summary was offensive, you put a page back up with blatantly false information. It would have been better if you would have checked the edit out first. Modor 03:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Modor


 * Sure, it would have been better. However, as of late, the time I can spend on Wikipedia has been limited; I have to settle for doing what I can.  In this case, an anonymous editor made a mass-delete without citation for verification.  More importantly, they violated a core policy while at it — NPA is not negotiable.  In my book, that made the edit sufficiently suspicious to warrant being reverted.  It could always be deleted again (indeed, it has).  Regards.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Jitter spam

 * References: Jitter article, and history of same

Hi, why are you deleting the additions I am making to the Jitter page? --Daichinger 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it appears to be an advertisement. Please see the links in the warnings above for why.  I've reverted three times now.  Further reverts would be frowned upon, so next I will contact the admins and let others decide, but I will warn you that you may get blocked from editing Wikipedia if you don't at least attempt to justify your actions.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Jitterlyzer should be added to this page because it is the only device that can measure Jitter in sRIO and PCIe. These are buses that are significantly used in industry and thus the Jitterlyzer should be included. --Daichinger 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, please read the pages I have linked to. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy.  It is not a place for personal opinions.  If you can cite a reliable source as to why this product is somehow notable, then do so.  If you're just pushing a product, you're in the wrong place.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this?
 * The Jitterlyzer performs physical layer serial bus jitter analysis. It is able to inject a controlled amount of jitter and measure the characteristics of incoming jitter. This is usefull when a user needs to see if the eye is going out of scope, which will cause a high bit error ratio.
 * cited from
 * --Daichinger 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * --Daichinger 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * --Daichinger 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion continued at Talk:Jitter. Please place any further comments there.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

MFD
Hey DragonHawk, I was just wondering, for less confusion to occur, could you list all your delete and keeps under your original thoughts, it might help with people not voting multiple times for either/or situations. — M o e   ε  21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. First, I'd like to point out that two other opinions (one Keep, one Delete) were also just addressing Rickyrab's page.  Second, don't forget that this is not supposed to be a vote; it's supposed to be a discussion.  That's why I wrote it out the way I did; because we're talking about several different things now.  Third, I'll take your advice to heart and move my comments together, but I think it's still going to be confused.  :) — DragonHawk (talk|hist)
 * Yes, yes, it's not a !vote. I forgot the exclamation point.. :) — M o e   ε  23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. :)  Well, what I meant was, the closing admin to this should be doing more than just counting up bullet points.  If they don't notice one person writing in three times, we're in trouble.  :-)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * " ... we're in trouble ". :-)   — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moot
Thank you for asking, but the issue is now moot because somebody else figured the issue was not worth discussing with me, and has posted an attack on me at deletion review.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. What a pity.  I swear, it seems like most BJAODN supporters are their own worst enemy.  On behalf of the BJAODN supporters who are not being dicks (assuming I'm not the only one), I would like to apologize for Walton One's behavior. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am quite offended and hurt at your comments about me. I never intended to attack anyone, and perhaps my wording came across stronger than it was meant to. I have apologised to Radiant!, and attempted to clarify what I meant in the DRV, but I don't believe you have a right to apologise on my behalf or to call me a dick. Admittedly I could have been less confrontational about this. If you really feel that my behaviour is that much of a problem, and you really feel that Wikipedia would be better off without me, then I will resign adminship. I'm not making an attack on you, just telling you that I'm hurt by your evident opinion that I'm a bad editor. WaltonOne 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel you're a bad editor; I have no knowledge of your other contributions, and therefore, no opinion. However, I do believe you were acting like a WP:DICK in this case.  Your DRV nomination largely consisted of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Indeed, a big part of your supposed DRV nomination is just a rant about how you disagree with the BJAODN MfD 6 close, so you're using DRV as a WP:SOAPBOX.  The ranting about the alleged small clique of admins reads like a very thinly veiled personal attack on Radiant!; it is certainly rather uncivil.  The "I will leave in protest" bit is just a threat of supposed retribution, which never helps any discussion.  Finally, your decision to bypass discussion with the closing admin and go straight to DRV is against the spirit of community, and the letter of WP:DRV and WP:DR.  So I feel quite justified in my comments about your behavior.  And, as your behavior is likely to just guarantee the opposite outcome you and I both desire, I don't see how it helps you, either.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Postscript: I just saw your second apology to Radiant. I want to commend you for realizing that you've made a mistake, and then having the courage to apologize for it.  Unfortunately, as far as this DRV goes, I think the damage is already done.  :-( •  FWIW, I don't think you need to resign your adminship or stop editing.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You have a point that, to an extent, I was using the DRV as a soapbox to air my frustration about the general BJAODN situation, which obscured the issue. It certainly wasn't meant to be a personal attack on Radiant!, but I see how it could have been considered a WP:CIVIL violation. I will totally rewrite my nomination statement to clarify what the real issues are. WaltonOne 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the nomination statement to be less inflammatory, although I left a link to the old one for the sake of honesty. WaltonOne 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

re:That's just funny
Since you put it that way it does look suspicious, I must be a sockpuppet :p — M o e   ε  03:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ASUS products AFD
Hello there! Could you expand a bit on your rationale on closing Articles for deletion/List of products manufactured by ASUS with "delete"? The nomination, and its supporters, made almost no supporting arguments as to how this list falls afoul of WP:NOT. Meanwhile, I see several very different arguments (including my own, of course) for keeping the list. There was not a single response or rebuttal to any of those arguments, while the people saying "keep" specifically addressed the nomination. Thanks, and happy editing! — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I closed as delete because the list was unlike the Nokia product list in that it was disorganized, contained no references or external links verifying the existence of the products on it, and was rather spammy. It might be better just to remake it from scratch, although if that happens I could undelete its history. --Core desat 05:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that sounds like a fairly reasonable strategy. Thanks for the quick response.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MoS, MiB, Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs
Hi, you made [this] change. Well, the MoS says that you shouldn't change what is there, but instead add on the new Binary Units in parentheses.

Also, disk drives come in megabytes, the SI unit. So when Maxtor, for example, says 100GB, they mean approximately (ahem ;) 100 000 000 000 bytes (not exactly 100 GiB), thus GB is correct in the case of Disk drives (but not Flash media).

p.s. a 1.44 "MB" Floppy disk is in fact 1.44KB*1KiB :) njaard 07:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yah, I realized that once I saw your link... didn't think it was worth going back to change back again. And the disk drive question is even more confused.  Disk drive manufactures use powers of ten, but Microsoft generally uses powers of two.  So when Microsoft states a requirement for disk drive size, which way do they mean??  :-)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 07:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the disk drive question is about as clear as the memory question. Microsoft asks you to have "128 MB" memory which means you go to the shop and buy a "128 MB" RAM module (which is 128 MiB), and then Microsoft asks you to get a 1GB disk and you go to the store and get what they call a 1 GB disk drive (which is in fact 1 Système International Gigabyte).
 * Anyway, consider changing it back as to avoid incurring the wrath of Warren. njaard 07:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not arguing against changing it back, but I've seen Microsoft documentation which stated that when they say kilobyte or megabyte, they mean 1024 or 1048576, not 1000 or 1000000, and to be aware of the difference. So, no, it's not that clear.  :-)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 09:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Template standardisation implementation
Realistically, how long do you think it'll be till WP:TS is ready to implement? I'm all for starting now, but you guys seem to be debating on code. Having a look over Template messages, there are literally thousands of article-space templates out there. For coding novices like myself who love this idea (and it seems I am far from alone), would it be possible to draw up an easy-to-use instruction manual for converting templates? (Say, at Template standardisation/Instructions for implementation) As it would very much be in the spirit of the movement if everyone was standardising through the same method. — Jack · talk · 04:54, Monday, 3 September 2007


 * Such discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation, not on individual user talk pages. Indeed, I see someone else has already brought the discussion over there, at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation.  Please join the discussion there.  Your input is welcomed and valued, which is why everyone interested deserves to be able to read it!  Thanks!  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Contribution in Product Lifecycle Management
The current text in Product Lifecycle Management - Major Players is factually incorrect. Accenture is not a PLM solution provider, but a consulting firm that offers some PLM consulting among many other, not PLM-related services. There is already a reference to Accenture in the following paragraph, where it is contextually correct.

In addition, both Integware and Metafore are service providers, not consulting firms, so the current text is wrong also in that sense. This is why I changed the content back to the original version, which provided more accurate information.

Please change it back again to the more accurate, original text: "Independent PLM service providers like Metafore and Integware deliver comprehensive PLM solutions by providing unbiased information and helping companies to identify, design, implement and operate the most appropriate PLM practices, processes and technologies for their business needs."

Please excuse if my response does not follow all formalities here, I am just interested in providing factually correct information to people interested in the subject of PLM.

Lindenth 04:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
The text added about "The market" defined the market for email too narrowly. It only referred to corporate email products, as typified by Exchange and Notes/Domino. In addition, the cite only referred to the A/P region. On balance, I'm of the opinion that the article is better without it, but the text could be reintroduced with corrections and relevant references. I don't know how the minor flag got set—that wasn't my intention ... richi 11:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Safia Aoude
In order to defeat the "deletionists" would you be prepared to keep Safia Aoude's article?Phase4 10:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing the top of a page
Regarding this edit summary, see m:Help:Section for how to edit the very top section of any page. The script it links to is convenient. –Pomte 19:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, hey, now that is super-useful. Thank you for the tip! — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was gonna suggest this too. Pomte beat me to it :) There's actually an auto-install script available now in your Wikipedia account preferences, under the "Gadgets" tab. Just put a check in the box next to "Add an [edit] link for the introduction section of a page".  Equazcion •✗/C • 10:53, 12/26/2007

I need an article support template for my new WikiProject.
It's called Fledgeling WikiProject Small Engines and I need an article suport template for it. I heard you were a good coder so I came here. Thanks, --Gp75motorsports 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you looking for? — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A template, like one of those ones you find on talk pages, that says something like, "WikiProject Example supports this article."--Gp75motorsports 10:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been informally watching that page and some related pages. At this point, it appears to mainly be something you're working on by yourself, and as such, not really appropriate for anything in the template namespace.  See if you can get more interest in it, and/or get affirmation from others at WP:WikiProject Council or similar pages.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

re: MechWarrior: Living Legends entry
Hi,

I was the one who added the MechWarrior: Living Legends link to the MechWarrior wiki and I figured rather than getting into an edit battle I would drop you a line :)

While MWLL isn't a commercial Microsoft product, we have been in close contact with reps from Microsoft Games, and they have issued us a non-commercial license to produce our game using the MechWarrior Intellectual Property, and we have also been given the CryEngine SDK and full support from Crytek.

Obviously posting info on an unreleased game is by definition promotional, but I hope you will agree I wasn't out of line! :)

Jaz "WormSlayer" Wilson Environment Artist MechWarrior: Living Legends http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.203.99 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly believe you were acting in good faith. (Heck, if you were trying to be devious, you probably wouldn't send me a message admitting a connection!)  :-)
 * But Wikipedia polices are pretty clear about not using the site for promotion of any sort. That's why I removed that, and some other links, too.  If you disagree, you're welcome to start a discussion on the article's talk page.  Wikipedia works by community consensus; I'm just one guy.
 * References:
 * External links
 * Spam
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox
 * Wikipedia is not a directory
 * Wikipedia is not a repository of links
 * Notability
 * Cheers! — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a repository of links
 * Notability
 * Cheers! — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pavlova
Hi DragonHawk - you wrote:
 * Your reversion of the fact tag corrupted the interwiki links at the bottom of the page. Please check your browser for proper Help:Multilingual support, to avoid such corruption in the future.
 * I have done so - on numerous occasions. I have also followed the instructions on how to avoid this. Frequently. I've brought it up several times at the Village Pump. I've spoken to the developers and olther techies about it. They informed me that it was a problem with WP itself, and would be fixed "soon". That was over two years ago. Since then, I've spoken to them several times with the same response. Usually I catch it when it happens, and luckily it is only an intermittent fault. unfortunately, on this occasion, it slipped through without me noticing it. As to the reason I removed the tag, please see my note on the talk page. Grutness...wha?  00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. An intermittent bug, in existence for years, that causes easy-to-miss corruption.  How nice.  Sigh.  Oh, well, nothing more we can do, then.  Thanks anyway.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

NOR archives
Hi DragonHawk, thanks for fixing these. I looked at the page a few days ago with the idea of moving them, but couldn't face it. :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. :-) — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for barnstar, Dhaluza! :-)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin Rollback
You valiantly tried to fix the page flow up after I made the mistake of putting a response to an editor in a place where the whole thread was liable to be disrupted. I made a stab at putting a post of mine where I would prefer it to be. Please review and if you don't think it's appropriate, revert what I did. No diff's supplied, I'm sure it's on your watch! Thanks & cheers! Franamax (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What you did looks fine to me. Somebody else had really screwed things up, which was what I was trying to fix.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Game

I've added why I think this article should exist as concisely as possible. As you seem to be the major contributor to arguments as to why the article should not exist, I'd was hoping you could respond. Thanks. 58.152.76.129 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Doo-pee-doo... *twiddling thumbs* 58.152.76.70 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yah, I got your message, and I'll check out the talk page when I can. Just for the record, I'm don't really care that much about "The Game" getting an article or not, but I'm trying to explain to you and others the objections that other others have. and work to bridge an understanding between you and them.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well this is what I put on the discussion page. My point is that the objections of the other others are not supported by Wikipedia policy.
 * If we go entirely by Wikipedia policies:
 * Two published newspaper articles about The Game satisfies verifiability.
 * Both mention how widespread The Game is, providing verifiable notability.
 * So why is there no article...? 218.166.37.67 (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the archive box
much rappreciated, ive been lokign fo r the template for that for a some time bnow with no success. thanks for the gift!Smith Jones (talk) Smith Jones (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Approaching Wikipedia

 * My point is not to put forth mere "theories" in criticism of Wikipedia, but demonstratable theories backed by empirical evidence that Wikipedia is not achieving its goal (not that it can't -- just that it isn't, see Wikipedia is failing). For a good idea of the approach I take, see Thomas Henry Huxley and Agnosticism. One of the many cognitive biases of human beings is a belief in a just world. On Wikipedia, this is reflected in a naive "belief in a just policy." Regularly, it is claimed, "But Wikipedia works!" while specific examples can be used to dispute that, Statistics isn't a complete collection of all statistics (and certainly there's been no actual analysis). This is disputed prematurely for a simple reason: When people decide how well Wikipedia is working based on their own subjective experience -- no matter how experienced they are -- subjective experience by itself is not proof of anything. It is easy to quickly dismiss me as some troll who got upset after his edits were overturned, but that is not the case and I do not intend to forcefully change anything around here: Only to present my views and hope that others were listen and understand. If that is not possible, then like Lao-Tze, I will vanish. After all, "most people" is an appeal to popularity and itself demonstrates how Wikipedia is a democracy. Judging how Wikipedia is working without considering what Wikipedia might be -- what greater heights of quality it might reach -- seems unfounded and quite cynical. Furthermore, I have found that many users agree with me and the idea of freedom is viral. Zenwhat (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

archives
I am attempting to make a new archive box, in which there is no archivelist parameter, and one of the few pages still using the archivelist parameter is one of your's. Is there any way possible to remove the archivelist parameter from this box? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was just a sandbox entry I was using for testing the template itself, so no problem. Page blanked.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource interview
Neither were I. This is the project that I am least familiar with. I was like "hmm, should I start off the interview series with more familiar projects such as commons or meta, or start with projects that people least know about?" At the end I decided to use this as an opportunity to attract people's attention that there ARE other projects beside Wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)