User talk:28bytes/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

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.

---

SG for Move Like This

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm looking at the front page right now! Thank you again for all your help! 28bytes (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. Congrats. — Ched :  ?  10:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A user improved the translation, do you agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish my German language skills were strong enough that I'd be able to have an opinion either way! I will have to defer to you and others whose German is much better. I did notice they changed „this type of quotation mark“ to "this type"... did I pick the wrong variant? 28bytes (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you picked what de normally insists to have (or I did, I don't remember). In Bach cantata articles, "they" always change all that I accidentally leave unchanged. But possibly in Rock, they leave English quotations with English marks which makes sense to me. I like the wording, just wanted to make sure that no meaning was lost. I had asked on the project page for someone with more knowledge of the topic to look at it, - Hauptseite appearance made it happen, - one of the wanted results, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm always happy for people to improve upon my work! Even when I'm not literate enough to tell the difference! 28bytes (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

9,089 hits, excellent for no picture, congratulations, for a bright future ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's exciting... that's better than most of my English DYKs! 28bytes (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget it's 48 hours, and one of four each time (not one of seven). The bridge had more, but a nice coincidence (or not) had it appear the same day as the Sydney harbour Bridge on its anniversary day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page history 19 April 2012: extended Easter, eggs and peace, with thanks for your precious move that made it possible, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Worth an article?

Do you believe that Windows 8's recently-announced editions would warrant a separate article or just a paragraph or two in the Windows 8 article? In either case, would it be worth a DYK?--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I would start by taking a look at the other Windows versions; do they have separate articles for the editions, or is it all covered in the version article? 28bytes (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Windows XP, Vista, and 7 all have separate articles for their editions, but I'm a little unsure on writing an article for the editions of pre-release software.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could start an edition article in your userspace and see what you come up with... once you're done you can decide whether it's sufficient for a standalone article or better as a section within the main article. 28bytes (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Could it make DYK?--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that mainly comes down to the sources. Are they sufficient for a standalone article? Do they say anything sufficiently interesting about the subject that a good hook can be created? Fortunately if you work on it in userspace you have a little bit more time to decide, since the DYK clock only starts once you move it into mainspace. 28bytes (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There's quite extensive media coverage of it, in my opinion. There are quite some things that could be interesting, like the fact that Windows Media Center would be only offered as an optional add-on to the Pro edition. Also interesting would be the shortening of "Professional" → "Pro".--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Interesting" is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose! Good luck! 28bytes (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So how do you think User:Jasper Deng/Windows 8 editions is going so far?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Very nice! Keep up the good work. Do you have DYKcheck installed? That will give you the word count. Looks like you're about halfway there on prose length. 28bytes (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Installed, and it's a big time-saver!--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have 1501 bytes of prose, and the article may be ready for publishing following further copy-edits and elaboration.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Someone got the article first, but I believe my version would be better.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good

This was the best. Thank you very much. You made my day. 64.40.57.37 (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. :) 28bytes (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey I'm new to Wikipedia, where can I find the page with all the recent vandalism so I can undo and help wiki TheProtector123 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Special:RecentChanges will show you the changes that are being made in real-time; obviously most of that won't be vandalism (I hope) but there will be some, and we can always use people helping clean it up. Good luck! 28bytes (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

{tps}}I wouldn't say real time as it doesn't update itself. You constantly have to hit the refresh to get an updated list.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Image input

Since my record of image uploads currently stands at 1 uploaded, 0 deleted, I'm very inexperienced with this. I want to create a new template that uses battery meters so I searched the internet for one that freely licenses their images. I uploaded 1 so far to make sure it stays undeleted. Can you provide some input here? The image is File:Full Battery.png.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where it's freely licensed, can you give me a link to where you saw that? 28bytes (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The website allows you to download a folder containing the images and it also has a readme file that has the license.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What's the readme file say? (I can't download anything at the moment or I'd just look myself.) 28bytes (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

*****icons for battery meter plug-in for rocket dock*****

©Stylo 2008

This pack is absolutely free for a personal use.

by SiSx

—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't "personal use." And the download page says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Public License" but "Creative Commons Public License" links to this page, which means it's not compatible with Wikipedia's license. (We can't accept free images that include a "no commercial use" clause.)

So unfortunately it'll get deleted, I'm afraid. 28bytes (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to claim it as expired copyright?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Not honestly, anyway. 28bytes (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Rats! Fair use is out of the question too. Until I find I way to keep it, will you delete it for me? Hold on, why isn't the copyright expired? It's from 2008.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. FYI, copyrights don't expire for many, many years after the work is published. See Copyright Term Extension Act. 28bytes (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was good I didn't upload the other 10 images. :)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you definitely saved yourself some time by just trying one. :) 28bytes (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to searching. My drawings stink.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of battery icons at Commons. Perhaps one of those might do. 28bytes (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I found a couple to implement in my topicon portion of it but for the main part, they're either great but lacking levels or terrible quality that I cant use. I found a battery meter who's owner I contacted that does consider commercial or non-profit release.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ty

Hi 28bytes, I just noticed you keeping an eye on the archiving thing - thank you. I've been going through some of the articles that need copy write help - and have picked out a few. One I'd like to work on: Genetic_erosion I think is good, but might require someone with more knowledge in that field. But there are a few others too, as I'm starting to look around. I've been going through setting up my preferences (had to reset to default and start over at one point .. lol), and reading through various things. Anyway .. thanks for keeping an eye on that. l8r 2eschew surplusage (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. 28bytes (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

All Israeli Now That's What I Call Music! images put in correctly!

I just now got all the Now That's What I Call Music! Israeli images in there correct articles and it took a LOT of work because it took me about 3 weeks to get all 17 images because some of them were rare. 𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟 𝕁𝕒𝕞𝕚𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕟 𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣♩♪♫♬ 13:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanKyser22 (talk • contribs)

Your comments on RfA

Are well-taken. Life is all about experience. Those who truly teach are to be respected. Those who don't, well, meh. You offer constructive criticism, and your criticism is duly noted. Well done. Carry on ...

F37 Faustus37 (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC) (damn, too late ...)

Query

I see you archived here without answering my question. Your rationale seems to imply that Demiurge's baits and insults should be overlooked, and yet you fail to give credence to fact that baiting, as per the recent arbcom case, is as uncivil as any incivility it causes. I've not been incivil, and I am insulted. Demiurge told me multiple times I was a liar, made fun of my user name, was condescending, and seemed to imply what? That according to ScottyWong's tool I'm a meatpuppet or something? From where I'm sitting none of this behavior is acceptable. Yet no one dropped him word on his user page about it. Can you please explain why not? I'm very curious about the rationale behind this. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not suggested that you are a meatpuppet, nor have I had any intention of implying it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper. I apologize, I did not realize your question was directed at me; I thought I'd made clear I didn't think it was acceptable. I'm a bit disappointed that I was the only admin in that thread to do so, but that's often the case these days, it seems. While you're both here, Demiurge1000: what's up with the hostility to Truthkeeper in that thread? You seem to strongly imply that you'd seen a conversation between her and Kiefer.Wolfowitz and were using Scottywong's tool to perhaps jog her memory; is that the case? Or is there something else going on? Half of the reason Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked was for calling another editor "dishonest", so I was a bit surprised to see you doing essentially the same thing in that very thread. What gives? 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked here because you closed. Re the allegations, I have no idea what Demiurge means by this edit summary - but the entire episode was one in which an administrator showed a complete lack of good faith toward a non-admin, which in my view is not acceptable. Calling me a liar multiple times,[1], [2], [3], baiting, etc., are all highly incivil, yet was tolerated. It's disappointing and disturbing behavior. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "administrator showed a complete lack of good faith toward a non-admin"... Demiurge is not an administrator. Or you were referring to me? 28bytes (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, for some reason I thought he was. Shows you how little I know (seriously, I don't hang around the boards and such!). Apologize about that. In that case it's less egregious - but still very bad behavior, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, those comments were not something I like to see from anyone, admin or not. Hopefully that message is clear and there won't be a recurrence. 28bytes (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

KW blocked for calling another editor dishonest? You must be kidding! If he was blocked every time he made such suggestions about another editor, he'd be blocked twice a month and have the longest block log on Wikipedia. His behaviour, ongoing, year on year, demonstrates an apparent incapability to deal with just about any dispute without implying dishonesty, incompetence or ignorance on the part of other editors, or engaging in some other snide and childish attempt to belittle them.

He even managed to accuse me of being a liar in the very ANI thread that we're talking about! Looks like no-one chose to do anything about that, I wonder what's up with that?

Now onto this Truthkeeper person. "I've never interacted with the guy", they say.

When then pointed to this link, in which the third entry down shows Truthkeeper replying directly to KW, and the fourth entry down shows Truthkeeper and KW repeatedly posting in the same threads, on a talk page where both of them have hundreds of edits (lots more examples, those are just the ones from the top of the list), Truthkeeper went on to state as bald fact, "I've never interacted with him at all".

Truthkeeper then came to my talk page to raise this "accusation of lying" implication, and then went back to ANI to demand action, and back to my talk page (after I'd long since followed your advice to abandon the ANI thread) to once again claim "I've never interacted directly with him".

I don't want people like that on my talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge - you're flat out wrong. You haven't given a single link to show me interacting directly with KW - because I never have. You might want to give some thought to why not instead of making accusations without being to substantiate them. Above, again, you've accused me of lying. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[4] Now stop looking for drama, go do something useful please. You accuse yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I would indeed call this an "interaction". Now, there are several ways to interpret that. (1) She did not remember that interaction (it wasn't a particularly lengthy one), or (2) she did remember it and intentionally tried to deceive people about it. I find the first interpretation more plausible, frankly. Is there some reason you don't? 28bytes (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there just that one, or do I need to waste more time locating all the others? Do you think she "did not remember that interaction" even after being given links to it? Even if you believe that (which is stretching it more than a little), do you think "I've never interacted with him at all" (my emphasis) is a fair description for someone with whom one is regularly posting in the same threads on the same page, sometimes within minutes (we're not talking about one person starting a very long thread and the other just happening to comment much later), with totals of hundreds of posts each just on that one page? AGF is not a suicide pact. Oh, and I think the sulking when caught out is pretty telling, too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See, that's exactly what I didn't want to happen. You're both valuable contributors, and there's no benefit whatsoever to be had by assuming that the other party has anything other than good intentions. Things go so much more smoothly when you err on the side of assuming good faith. This whole episode has been very disappointing. 28bytes (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much, it happens quite often I think. I've answered your questions (you've not answered mine!), but I do think this might have been better off defused (or diffused) soon after TK came here, rather than going through this additional round of drama. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, to the degree it was important to point out that Truthkeeper had indeed interacted with KW, it certainly would have been quicker for everyone if you'd just given a link to that RfA talk page comment in the first place, with a nice AGFy comment like "I believe you're mistaken." Why we had to go through all this I don't know. 28bytes (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I posted in this thread, beyond my first very brief one-line clarifying statement, was that you specifically asked me four questions in your first reply to Truthkeeper, above. Nothing more to discuss. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Almost a year ago - a single comment which slipped my mind. Do I regularly interact with him? No, I do not. You're still making accusations and being extremely baitey. I'd like you to stop. Go do something useful - who are you to tell me what to do? Truthkeeper (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The sulking when caught out is bullshit. Go look at the rest of the threads. I became extremely fed up here when last summer I had a pretty bad time when I ran into a very unpleasant editor, FightingMac, and it's only gone downhill since. This was truly the last straw for me. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically right, and technically wrong

After reading up on policy a little more, I discovered that the first part of this was not just your opinion, but was also, technically speaking, correct as per the definition of WP:WHEELWAR. I was distracted from paying more attention to such details because I was dealing with a rather more important WP-related matter at the same time as all that nonsense. The rest of your suggestion, I did manage to follow.

Also technically speaking, your close here was materially incorrect. After Nikkimaria succeeded in gaining consensus for a 2-week block by arbitrarily reducing the block to 9 days, she did not then increase the block to 2 weeks, as you stated in your close, but instead changed it to 13 days. Assuming good faith, we could suppose that was merely a careless mistake. After being informed of it on her talk page, she has declined to correct it to follow consensus. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge1000, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate you going with my suggestion on that thread. I have some further comments on that in the section above I hope you will comment on. Regarding wheel-warring, yes, it's one of our most misunderstood policies; even arbs occasionally get it wrong, which is both sad and amusing. As to the block... you are correct! On first glance at the log it did look to me like a 2-week block, but after doing the math, it does appear to be 13 days instead of 14. However, I'm going to file that in the "close enough for government work" category; anyone referring to it in the future – especially in reference to that thread – will call it a 2-week block anyway. 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz

I'm still laughing at your closure of this topic at ANI. It's great when someone makes incisive comments that are also funny.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Glad you liked it! 28bytes (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)