Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 28 sections are present.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, for your positive comments about my work, in the deletion discussion for the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System at the AFD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. Your comments are most appreciated. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

--Soman (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on the Glee hook. I agree that it was awkward. I edited it (although not exactly as you suggested). I wasn't involved in reviewing that hook -- I only moved it to the prep area. The folks who did review it had an alternate hook that I wasn't very impressed with.[1] I guess I should have worked harder to improve the one that I did pick! --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you may remember me from my RFA. I was wondering, what kind of things would you suggest working in (for example, in AFD discussions) to be qualified for my RFA? Also, when would you suggest that I apply again? I was thinking in at least February, or March. Thanks, and I'd really like to get your help. Endofskull (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I clafified in the hook. Thanks Secret ^account 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate referencing a site without it having a page in Wikipedia, and he's got some great information on the rare titles. The last time I checked the DYK discussion, it was practically a tie for H4h and A4A. Ha, I've been dying to see some resolution there. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't brought it to DYK yet. You can use it, also i saw this "box art" for it, although I imagine it's fan made... and I didn't think the homebrew games have boxes, but anyway I saw that there was a request for it on the talk page. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to, I was hoping that the editor who tagged it would look at it; after looking at their contributions and talk page,another editor has warned them of being a sockpuppet, so as of now I'm unsure. I may try to find more references, but don't let it stand in the way of your DYK (although that would have been 24 for me, 1 away from a much anticipated 25 ha) - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag this morning, I added a reference to the San Francisco Chronicle. If you want to add it to the DYK nom, I think it is certainly ready. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you're in the middle of preparing the set for Prep 1. Prep 4 actually contains quite a lot of "number" hooks — 6 of this, 4 of that. I tried to scramble them, but there still are some that go one after another. Perhaps you'd like to exchange one or two with something in Prep 1? Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting Wasp Motorcycles back on DYK I thought I'd failed this time - and so close to my 100! Thruxton (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! I've asked Yoninah to take another look at the AfD... since that's the sole remaining delete !vote, if that's changed I can close the AfD. 28bytes (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hay, sorry to bother you but i created a new page called "I'm Not the one", and i could really you some help putting the sources or references wikipedia style..and if you could, please add on some information abou the song?? thank you, take care!! MajorHawke (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow uhh thanks alot!!! I didn't know that you couldn't put the whole review, well i really appreciate you putting hard work into the article, let me know if you need me to do anything on wikipedia..take care!! MajorHawke (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in Wolfgang Schäfer you "unbolded" the Freiburger Vokalensemble, which is a redirect until they get their own article and therefore bold for readers who come that way. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I wasn't aware that that was a redirect. I've reverted my change. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My understanding of WP:NPOV is this: if reliable sources strongly endorse a viewpoint, then Wikipedia should also. If we back away from that strong endorsement in order not to appear biased (to those who may not like what reliable sources say, for example) then we are no longer neutral. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 28bytes,

I discovered that some of the classic games (even the homebrew ones) have info and ratings at allgame, like this one. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen those, but they're pretty useless (IMO) since they don't actually have any reviews behind the ratings. (Not to mention the screenshots aren't their own gameplay screenshots, but ones nipped off the web without attribution.) 28bytes (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just wanted to say good luck on your RfA. From what I have seen from you, I think you will do a good job as an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them and I will respond if I can. Once again, best of luck. Malinaccier (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the words of support! 28bytes (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have opposed your RfA, but I wish you luck regardless. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Utahraptor. No matter how it goes, no hard feelings; I know you (and everyone else, support, oppose or neutral) are !voting in the way you think is best for the project, and I respect that. 28bytes (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are doing surprisingly well for such a new (in terms of active editing) candidate. Don't be discouraged; this is an indication that you would have a good chance of passing RfA sometime next year, and maybe if you get lucky you might just get through even on this RfA. —Soap— 11:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Soap. I appreciate the words of encouragement. It's interesting to see how people are responding; I wasn't quite sure what to expect. 28bytes (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to echo Soap in encouraging you to stick with it and run again. Usually people are advised to wait at the least three months before running again, but if you wait more than that it shows a lot of patience. I would definitely advise remaining active and running again. You are honestly a great candidate and if you are still interested in running in a couple of months you can feel free to approach me for a nomination if you so desire. If you don't want me to nominate you, that's ok--you can still count on my support. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malinaccier. Don't worry, I can guarantee you I won't be running again in the near future. But if I ever do decide to try again I will be sure to talk to you first. In the meantime I've got plenty of non-admin tasks to keep me occupied. 28bytes (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello, the proposal is under november 19th. you said you would make some changes you thought were necessary. what can be done to get it cleared as a hook? thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesanj. Thanks for the reminder. I'd been meaning to set aside some more time to work on that. I'll try to do so in the next couple of days, or this weekend at the latest. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I supported, I have archived the request as unsuccessful since you withdrew. It's a pity really, and I hope you're not discouraged. In another 3 to 6 months I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors. Cheers, Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dylan620. And thank you for your support, too: I did (and do) appreciate it. Your support comment was a pleasant surprise, since I didn't think anyone was paying much attention to my edits, much less enough to consider nominating me! Take care, 28bytes (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late now, but I thought you might like to know I was going to support you after your answer to my question - I'm sure you'll pass next time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BSZ. I'm glad to know that, and I appreciate you telling me. 28bytes (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your failed RfA. I've been there...twice. I'm sure your next one will go more smoothly. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. By the time I had done all the research and made up my mind to !vote, there had been a stampede of opposes and you had already withdrawn. I have no doubt that you can be trusted with the tools. FWIW, your creations are short and many, but clean and demonstrate a solid knowledge of content, referencing, and MOS. I think that several hundred more pages patrolled at NPP, and some participation at AfD would show that you have adequate knowledge of all the different deletion policies and systems and their consequences which most likely represent the main areas for sysop interventions - not, however, that you have demonstrated the opposite. I'm firmly convinced that if you keep up around 500 mainly manual edits per month for the next few months, and grab some experience in those special areas without compromising your regular content work, I will almost certainly be supporting you strongly the next time round. - Kudpung (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kudpung. I think that's useful advice, and I plan to follow it. 28bytes (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the previous section is too big for me to edit on my mobile phone, I'm starting a new one! I didn't comment on your RfA as when I saw it, the figures meant it was obvious where it was going, but I did notice that a lot of editors who opposed said to come back in a few months. From what I've seen, I'd suggest that too. I didn't look at your contribs in depth - I'm at work - but if you do stand again in a few months, I hope to get the chance to do so! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 05:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phantomsteve. Thanks for the note, and for the suggestion. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

surely you appreciated my efforts to fix the factual errors, at least. please, go ahead and edit the article as you see fit. i would like to see how it comes out. i will step away for now and let you do your work. Jesanj (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesanj. Sorry, I think our interpretations of NPOV are just too different for me to be comfortable working on this. I recommend you seek out another experienced editor to help you out with this one. Good luck! 28bytes (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty dissapointed/confused/frustrated about that right now. I've offered to back off, and in return you appear to "wash your hands" of involvement. Jesanj (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that I don't think you and I agree on what NPOV means. I'm happy to help improve articles but I don't honestly think you think my changes are improvements, but rather "watering it down." I don't want to work on articles where my changes are begrudged. But I understand your frustration. What I would recommend doing is replying to my note at TT:DYK and requesting that an experienced editor assist you with getting the article ready for DYK. There are plenty of experienced editors available to help; you may be able to find one of them there. 28bytes (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave a note there. I don't begruge your changes, but yes, I did think the article had become "watered down" a bit, but mostly because of the Gatoglass diff I've mentioned. I don't think mentioning the Orlando Sentinel's description of The Washington Times's editorial view is problematic. I did, though, present it this time as their words (which I think is a POV improvement, in the sense of being disinterested). I liked how you relied less on quotes than I did. I also liked the simple fact that you took time to make changes. Perhaps you could leave a few suggestions on the talk page of the article, but if you don't want to, that's fine too. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Orlando Sentinel, the reason I took the quote out was that it's pretty unremarkable for a newspaper (e.g. The Washington Times) to be "against" Obama. Plenty of newspapers are conservative. As a reader, I see that quote and think one of two things: "So?" (if I'm familiar with the Times) or "Oh yeah? What's their proof?" (if I'm not.) So rather than letting the Sentinel tell us that the Times is anti-Obama, we should instead show it, by stating the uncontroversial fact that they endorsed Obama's opponent in the election (with a reference pointing right at the Times' endorsement). At any rate, I think requesting assistance on TT:DYK was a good move and I hope someone volunteers to help. Although accusing Gatoclass of a misleading edit summary was probably not a good move and I'd recommend you strike or reword that. 28bytes (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it is unremarkable except to me the word "decidedly" stuck out. I was thinking one of the main ways we write articles about newspapers is by citing what other newspapers say about them. I surely didn't mean to sound accusatory, is this wording civil? Jesanj (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wording's an improvement but I'd probably drop the "misleading" bit altogether. Remember, you want these folks to help you, you don't want to put them on the defensive regarding their edits. 28bytes (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Jesanj (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to know that my oppose in your RfA was absolutely nothing personal. I know from experience that it stings at the time, but a lot of candidates (including me) have a tough RfA that ends up being closed as NOTNOW or withdrawn. That doesn't mean they'll never be good admins. In your case it means that with a little more depth and breadth of contributions, you could be a damn good admin (and I would love to see you prove that in the not-too-distant future), but that the community doesn't feel you're ready for it just yet. Anyway, I wanted to apologise if you felt hard-done by by my oppose and I hope you'll give it another shot in the future. Best wishes, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, HJ. I really appreciate you stopping by and saying that. And I'm sorry if I got a little heated in my response to your oppose; in retrospect my comment came out a little snippier than I had intended, so I apologize for that. I know your comment wasn't personal, but I appreciate the reminder nonetheless. Thanks again for your follow-up comment here, it was very kind of you to offer it. 28bytes (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure you knew it was nothing personal. It stings now, but give it a few months and follow the advice you got in the RfA and I'm sure a second attempt will turn out better. Just for the record, being an admin isn't that much fun, anyway! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, understood, on both counts. (Although I suppose I'm odd enough to think that cut-and-paste move repair actually does sound kind of fun, in a solving-a-puzzle sort of way.) Regardless, I've got plenty of non-admin tasks on my editing to-do list to keep me busy for the foreseeable future, so no worries. Thanks again. 28bytes (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take out comments to heart. You should have an easy run in a few months. As I said, "If you run again after, say, 1 March 2011, and you haven't exploded or done anything reprehensible, I see no reason why I wouldn't support you." If you hang out in admin areas and learn the ropes while you're waiting, even better. Good luck in the future, and keep up the good work! Sven Manguard _Talk 19:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sven. I'll certainly try not to explode or do anything reprehensible! 28bytes (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think we're both trying to move hooks to prep at the same time. I'll just undo my last two edits and let you go ahead :) - PM800 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. - PM800 (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Again, I'm sorry about that. - PM800 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]