Your comments threw mine out of whack since I was replying to both brownhairedgirl and Griswaldo.4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind word. I too have seen you make excellent contributions at DYK. I'm sure we'll have more positive encounters in future. No hard feelings here at all. :-)4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The AN/I thread agaisnt Noleander has been closed, and an ArbCom page opened. I just added my statement. I had no choice, and I never wanted this to be reduced to a conflict between me an Noleander. But I think I am a polarizing figure.
I think a key element is just to explain to people how to recognize anti-Semitic editing. You have made astute comments in the past and I hope you will follow this case. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I have been following the case and will continue to do so. 28bytes (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Gremlins (Atari 2600)
On 30 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gremlins (Atari 2600), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the rare 1984 video game Gremlins, the player must either prevent the furry Mogwai from eating the hamburgers at the bottom of the screen, or shoot them after they transform into gremlins? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I would still very much like to have the user right as It would be useful to have the ability edit the actions of edit filters. Also just because I am not familiar with the technical talk I have repeatedly read the WP:FILTER more times than I can count. Jessy(SCG01) 23:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jessy. Honestly, this is not a user right you need. Most admins don't even have this right. Most of the filters are public, anyway, so if you're interested in learning about them you can. 28bytes (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you are the editor who nominated Economic history of the Jews for deletion, I would like to ask you to review the following draft articles and get your input as to their readiness to be moved into article mainspace. What I'm looking for, more than anything else, is a preliminary sense of whether you would be inclined to nominate any of these articles for deletion if they were to be moved into article mainspace. Assuming that you agreed that these articles were worthy to be kept, I would also like to ask for your suggestions for expanding and improving the article text as well as any suggestions for improving the article titles.
My take on Noleander's article is that the title Jews and money was extremely unfortunate, the title Economic history of the Jews was too broad a scope and that the specific revision authored by Noleander was composed in large part of a coatrack of antisemitic canards.
However, I think that there are one or more legitimate article topics in Noleander's original text. (I also don't think that Noleander intended to be antisemitic; I think he just has a tendency to miss antisemitism in some of the sources and thus sometimes presents opinions as facts. I recognize that you have a different perspective but I don't think we need to agree in order to work together productively.)
In any event, I have been working on User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking as one of the legitimate topics covered by Noleander's original disastrous attempt at an encyclopedic article. The section on the "19th century" is almost entirely Noleander's text as redacted by me to remove the most blatant issues.
I would like to ask you to review the entire text of these proposed articles as well as critique the article title.
I think the judicious selection of article titles is almost as important as article text because titles change much less frequently than article text does and the article title implies a scope that strongly influences what text is added and deleted from the article.
I am not too thrilled with the title "Jews and banking" as it still sounds antisemitic to me. I'm playing with "History of Jews in banking" but I'm open to other suggestions.
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Oh, and while I have your attention, I guess I should draw your attention to User:Pseudo-Richard/Role of Jews in the development of capitalism. My thesis here is that not all of the encyclopedic content from Noleander's first attempt at an article on this topic is directly related to banking and that "capitalism" is a broader topic that covers those points that are not really about "banking" per se. I have not worked on this page nearly as much as I have worked on the pages on banking. Still, I figured I'd ask you to take a look so as to get an early assessment from you as to the direction in which I am going.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. In general, my advice in such a situation would be to first seek out people with the most expertise in the topic areas of interest. For example, looking at the talk pages of Jewish history and Islamic economics in the world, the following WikiProjects are listed:
I have no idea how active those projects are, but if you are aiming to create an article analogous to Islamic economics in the world, some or all of those projects would seem to be a good place to request help in selecting the best secondary sources. There may be other interested projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History.
One thing I would strongly recommend is to not proceed quickly or without broad input from editors with expertise in the subject areas. Buy-in from the projects listed above or other interested projects on the direction, focus and scope of the article(s) you intend to create or recreate will be key in avoiding the kind of mess that led to AN/I and ArbCom discussions. Please, proceed with care. That you are reaching out to other editors such as me and Slrubenstein is a good sign, and encourages me that you intend to build actual, encyclopedic articles on the topics instead of the racist propaganda that was thankfully deleted. Incidentally, I thought Slrubenstein's advice and suggestions on your talk page were quite sound, and I hope you'll take them into consideration. Best, 28bytes (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I will try this out. 28bytes (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi 28bytes/Archive 5. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Pages watchlisted. 28bytes (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: Edit test cleanup bot
The thread seems dead, it's not recent enough to be getting noticed anymore. I'd go out on a limb and say that you have clear enough consensus for the "Simple case" cleanup, and not enough for the "Complex case" cleanup. Personally, I'd think that after two months running simple case, if it all works out well, you'd be able to point to it and say "let's run a trial of option 1 of the complex case" and go from there. Sven ManguardWha? 20:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. It's an excellent idea for a bot. Kudos.
Thanks Sven. The BAG was kind enough to approve the bot (simple task only) for a 50-edit trial based on the VP discussion, so I've started coding it and will hopefully be ready to test it soon. In addition to fixing the simple cases, it will write to a userspace subpage what it would have done with complex edits it comes across. That way we'll have some empirical data to go by if we want to revisit the question in the future.
Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon this dead bot the other day that used to do the exact same thing, but apparently the source was lost and the bot op is no longer active. I may use that bot's contribution history as a test case for my bot to see if it does the same thing when presented with the same edits. 28bytes (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I was looking at your page was wondered if you've played games on the NES. I loved the NES. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Please note that "Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia". Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
@Guoguo12: If you feel the need to scold BuickCenturyDriver, please do it on his talk page, not mine.
No worries. 28bytes (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The Video Game Critic
I have edited the "Controversy" section as you requested. It is very middle-of-the-road and informative. It is also cited very well. Please check the citations. Thank you! Kajicat (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat
I do not understand. The sources I am citing are directly from The Video Game Critic himself, and from his actual website. Both sources are from "user-generated" sections of The Video Game Critic site, but one was officially authored by The Video Game Critic himself, while the other source had The Video Game Critic as a contributing author. Being the creator and author of that web domain, The Video Game Critic is a credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff. The Video Game Critic himself is making a claim about his reviews being possibly offensive and/or homophobic in nature and is asking his user base for their opinions. There is no questionable doubt over the authenticity of the source, as the claims are written directly by The Video Game Critic and found on The Video Game Critic's website. All sources I have provided directly support my writing, which is neutral. Would it be best if I do not put it under a "Controversy" section, but rather place it promptly within the correct time line under the "Reviews" section? Are my web citations incorrect? Please tell me what you think would be the best fit for my contribution to this article. Thank you very much and sorry for any misunderstandings. Kajicat (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat
No problem. Always glad to help :) Gscshoyru (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, i was on the library computers (like i am right now) and i only had 1 minute left!! But i will grab some sources in the next hour that i have left, take care!! MajorHawke (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Got the sources, now they need to be formatted correctly. take care!!MajorHawke (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Iunderstand you liked to be as wikipedia-type as possible but im just wondering from your personal opinion, do you think my choice of genres for cars songs are good?? Because i like to hear other peoples opinion. but i dont get much of that. I also understand you dont exactly find genres important, but other people do, 100's of different people look up songs every day at wikipedia and alot of them dont understand what type of website wikipedia is, and are expecting the genres to be true "all the time". Well if you find the time, please let me know some of your opinons, and btw, i got a new computer monitor. It's old, but my internet isnt, it's better then having to go to the library and only get an hour, take care!MajorHawke (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Dylan620 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Dylan620 to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/28bytes 2. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
You willing to run again? The only real issue with your last run was the length of time you had been active; obviously that's no longer an issue, and you've only broadened your horizons since then. --Dylan620(I'm all ears) 03:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, what a pleasant thing to see when I click the orange bar! :) I'm very honored and flattered, but I'd like to wait a little longer first. I'm sending you an e-mail that goes into a little more detail about that. Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That RfA reform thing
Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o)
Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)