Jump to content

User talk:28bytes/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15


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.

Where did all my messages go?!?

Peek-a-boo
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Peek-a-boo-where-did-all-my-messages-go?
Man... but like it or not, we are his bitch. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Archiv'd. Page was getting too long. 28bytes (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Arguments

(re to your question) Both, especially the one under Glass House Warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Regarding the Glass House Warning, Eagles, Doug and Sitush all make sensible points, I would listen to their advice. In general, it's bad form to template somebody for doing what you're doing, especially if you're doing it more than they are! I may have suggested this before, but it's better to discuss one-on-one with a good faith editor on a talk page rather than relying on templates, warnings and edit summaries to get your point across.
Regarding the other discussion, I agree with Eagles that it shows disrespect to the WMF employers to remove their comments with an edit summary. You're allowed to delete comments from your talk page, but in my opinion, comments like the ones MRG and Phillippe left are better left and replied to.
Does this help? 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Giving this some more thought, I think you should hold yourself to 1RR for a while, unless you're dealing with an obvious bad-faith editor (e.g. vandalism). If someone makes an edit you don't like and you decide to undo it, don't undo it a second time if they reinstate it. Start a conversation on the talk page instead. I'm afraid if you don't do this you may be blocked for edit-warring, even if you don't approach 3RR. 28bytes (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm trying myself at 2RR restrictions. My only concern with Eagles'comments is that he tends to make me think he's not assuming good faith with what I'm doing. His comment on his talk page seems to be especially the case here. I strongly deny I have a IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, which he's been accusing me of ever since he first talked about my issues to me. I personally feel that 1RR is comin' soon for me. After all, I am not going to use disruptive editing to make a point.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm confident Eagles thinks you're acting in good faith, just that you need to improve a few things. Would you be willing to voluntarily adhere to 1RR, starting now? I believe that would go a long way in preventing disputes. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think 2RR is good enough for now, since it's usually the second revert that triggers discussion. If I do have a 1RR restriction, there have to be exemptions for blatantly obvious BLP violations and copyvios, which I'll stick to 3RR rule with. Sound good? (Concerning Eagles247, that comment on his talk page seems to be a simple result of impatience, and it shouldn't be chastised unless it gets worse than that. He did personally say that he couldn't be my mentor due to that impatience. Glad I have you and Kansan :) ).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Your suggestion that you go with 1RR with 3RR exceptions for blatantly obvious BLP violations and copyvios sounds great, let's go with that. 28bytes (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also, a 1RR exemption should be made, in my opinion, for blatantly misplaced comments, like this, where 2RR or 3RR would suffice (this user did it twice, and those comments were not on the top of the talk page. I discussed with the user after the 2nd revert). I'd like to try 2RR since I don't get into these revert conflicts as often as some other users under 1RR. But, I will be OK with 1RR with those exemptions.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
LOL, you're overthinking this. Let someone else move a misplaced comment the second time, it's not like you're the only talk page stalker. 28bytes (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That aside, I think a 2RR restriction is best because this isn't as bad as some editors with 1RR.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I know you're skeptical about this, Jasper, but please trust me. 1RR will save you a lot of headaches. 28bytes (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If you say so. Accepted.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jasper. I think you made the right call. 28bytes (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there needs to be another exemption for blatant and obvious advertising, don't you think?Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Unrelated to the above, I have made what looks like a successful proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require Captcha for Special:EmailUser. Is this enough consensus for the proposal to move forward? If so, how would it move forward?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Requests for comment is your next step. (I think) --Σ talkcontribs 03:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on the success so far! These things normally stay open for a week at the very least, and it's only been open 3 days, so no hurry. Someone else will close it, we can talk about next steps then. 28bytes (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work

I saw that you removed a revision of an article that contained a person's home address and would like to say good job. It obviously wasn't hard or controversial, but it was very important as a privacy matter. In fact, it is probably the most important change someone could make on Wikipedia as it has more real life consequences than anyone else. Good job! Ryan Vesey contribs 06:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan, I appreciate it. 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

You archive fast! I want to thank you for good words in a difficult case, offering my latest productions, written suffering (but I hope it shows only to someone knowing the circumstances), Does He ... abandon us to the deceit and trickery of the enemy? and despised and rejected. Did you know that the final Amen of Handel's Messiah was considered "entirely absurd, and without reason" by a contemporary critic? Enjoy your trip, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. The time off is quite enjoyable so far! 28bytes (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

my page is missing

~new msg~

hi, basically a random person decided to tag my page (most likely out of the goodness of this person's heart) after all this time when nobody else did. so i just need my resource page that was on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rm2dance -- it doesn't seem to be on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Rm2dance and i don't know if it's supposed to? basically i just need my page, i guess you can just post it back on my page and then i can move it out of wikipedia. thanks~


~original msg -- (just forget everything -- too much trouble)~

my page is missing out of nowhere and there's nothing in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Rm2dance and i can't check the history of my page? is that how it's supposed to be?

hmm.. so my page is missing randomly just today with no problems after all this time. then a random person decides to tag it because the person felt like it? is there like mediation or something for something like this?

but basically if it's too complicated or too much trouble, just nevermind, im just wondering if they have mediation

also, was there any way to protect my page? just wondering

hmm.. it says "If all else fails, try another wiki" so i'll just do that -- where is my resource page? the history for it that is. so the page took years to build up so im glad a random person decided to tag it... it's fine. i'll just put it on wikia for the time being. wikia doesn't have any problems and wikipedia also... but it depends on the random people.. well.... rm2dance (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Hi Rm2dance. You can view the old version of your page here. Ordinarily I would add "if I can do anything else to assist you, please let me know" but I am currently away on vacation, so you will probably have better luck contacting another admin if you have more questions. Good luck. 28bytes (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Could you please remove the depictions from the above article as it hurts many of the Muslims like me and has even become a popular cause. Rather than just making a vote to remove the depiction, I believe that someone should really do something about it and so I request you on behalf of many Muslims who failed to find whom to contact for removing those depictions.

Prophet Muhammad is never supposed to be drawn in whatever manner it may be. If I am approaching the wrong person for this matter then would he be helpful enough to take the matter in his hands and help us out..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.196.101 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I wish I could assist you, but as I am just one editor among many I am not in a position to override the current consensus of the community. I understand there is a way to disable the display of these images, which you may find helpful; it is described under "How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?" on the article's talk page. Best, 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision delete?

I wonder if I could ask you to have a look at this [1] and maybe consider removing the edit summary. Thanks. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A few swear words don't really need revision deletion. --Σ talkcontribs 21:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Two points; they are vile profanities and they add absolutely nothing to this encyclopedia. I swear myself - a lot, but I don't use that sort of language. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not a particularly pleasant edit summary, but unfortunately I don't think it qualifies under the rev-del criteria, which are intentionally narrow in scope. You're welcome to ask another admin; perhaps they might take a different view and agree that it meets the criteria. 28bytes (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No big deal. I won't bother. I'm sure if it abused Muhammed or some such person it would be quickly eliminated, but I can live with it. Thanks anyway for considering the request. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I just read your comment - it is fair comment. I did notice your other response just after I filed my last comment. No worries :) The Skywatcher and me (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Article was deleted.

Hi, I'd like a copy of my deleted article if that's possible. I'd like to work on it and make it satisfactory under all wikipedia's guidelines. Gael mamindorf (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, give me a second and I'll e-mail it to you. 28bytes (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done. 28bytes (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

RPP backlog

Could you or one of your talk page stalkers please take a look at the back log at RPP? Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't, since I'm on vacation. :) But hopefully a talk page stalker can help out. 28bytes (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My rangeblock proposal

(For context, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Raise the rangeblock limit (especially for IPv6)) The proposal has been open for something like 3 weeks now, and seems to have some support for the IPv6 proposal. I think an RfC may be the next step here. I need guidance.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to speak with MuZemike about this? 28bytes (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
He did offer his thoughts on the proposal. He didn't reply to my comments on his comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The concern I have is that rangeblock limit configurations seem like a wholly unsuitable thing to handle via a community referendum. So I'm not sure what to suggest here, to be honest. When I see proposals, I like to see them start off by explaining what the problem is that needs solving; what problem(s) do you see with the status quo? 28bytes (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
/64 is too small of a range to block in IPv6. See IPv6 address allocation.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
When is Wikipedia moving to IPv6? 28bytes (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The move is being planned right now and is in action. See meta:Wikimedia Foundation Report, May 2011#Technology.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm assuming the developers are considering such things as part of the deployment; I'm not sure who you would ask, though. I'd hate for you to spend time crafting an RfC if the developers already had all that worked out. 28bytes (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I had already asked Tim Starling (the head sysadmin) to comment, and he didn't comment. Need comments from them too.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, well it sounds like you know who to ask. Probably best to wait for them to answer. 28bytes (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Tim didn't reply, but I guess I should ask other developers.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, don't pester them. If they don't answer right away it's probably because they're busy working on something else. 28bytes (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't suppose then I should bring it up on Jimbo's page.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Probably too soon for that. Better to wait until we're closer to IPv6 deployment, IMO. 28bytes (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

what to do if i spot vandalism?

Hi, What should I do if I spot persistent vandalism on a wikipedia article?, would I need to report it to an administrator?

~~MrAmberGoldMrAmberGold (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If it is one specific user vandalizing pages, you could report him to WP:AIV for blocking. If it is many users all vandalizing the same page, you could report the page to WP:RFPP to get the page protected. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if there's a lot of it a protection of the page might be in order. Is there a particular page you have in mind? 28bytes (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
My guess would be Amy Winehouse, which isn't surprising that it's being vandalized. However, Citation Bot vandalizing the page was surprising. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Given the "– forever" change, Citation Bot is probably just a big fan. (I left a message on its talk page.) 28bytes (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with Vandalism.

But before reporting a vandal to WP:AIV for blocking, would I need to give the vandal warnings first?

MrAmberGold (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)MrAmberGoldMrAmberGold (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Usually, yes. You can check their talk page history to see if they've already been warned. Ideally, they'll stop once you give them a warning, but if they don't, an admin can step in (via a report WP:AIV or otherwise) and block the account to prevent continued disruption. 28bytes (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Final Question on dealing with Vandalism

What sort of Vandalism of a page would warrant a warning, or referral to an admin?. and by the way thanks for the useful replies. and Just to let you know I have not spotted persistent vandalism before, but I'm just seeking advice just in case it happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAmberGold (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism gives a pretty good overview of what to report and when. Take a look at that, and if it's unclear on any point, I can try to offer a clarification. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, if I have any queries I will come back here if that's ok.

MrAmberGold (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)MrAmberGoldMrAmberGold (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, my door is always open. Happy editing! 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting 1RR exemption

...for this. The info here is unsourced.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Try discussing on the talk page first, please. (Or ideally, sourcing it yourself if you think it's accurate.) 28bytes (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's inaccurate. DDR4 is years away. I searched and found only speculation.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
See, those are exactly the kind of sentences that should be on the article's talk page. :) 28bytes (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Image uploader

Hello, coud you tell me who was the uploader of deleted image File:Latgalian flag ver2.jpg Thanks! --Dark Eagle (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the logs, User:Vnc uploaded it on 22 November 2006. 28bytes (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Delete

Hello 28bytes!

I was wondering if you could delete the IP address edit (the 71 one) on here. I accidentally edited while I was logged out. I am truly sorry and I thank you so much if it's possible to get rid of it. Thank you for your time as well.

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I am deeply appreciative of your request at my talk page. Your instincts were right; I occasionally see a herd mentality (not unique to Wikipedia) and when I see it, I try to see the point of the other side. In many cases, there's justification for the herd, the minority position is wrong, and many are noting it. However, on some occasions, I see what looks like a pile-on feeding on itself, when the original issue is either muddled or simply misunderstood. I think that was the case here, with an IP making a rational case, but the argument was lost in very uncivil language. I wish I could say I resolved it to a satisfactory conclusion, but I fear we have turned off an IP who might have been a useful contributor.--SPhilbrickT 13:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sphilbrick. I'm glad you were able to take a look, and I appreciate your following up with the parties involved. I too wish it could have turned out better, but it seems both sides were reluctant to concede the point that they'd acted in error. If apologies for both the spurious templating and the abusive language could have been offered things would have gone much better, but it seems that the "battleground mentality" switch got triggered fairly early on in this case. I'm also not thrilled about the unresponsiveness here, which probably didn't help matters, but perhaps there's a reason for it I'm not aware of. 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, while I was here, I was going to try to be a good TPS and respond to the request above. I thought i knew how to revdel the IP, but I wasn't sure how to do the same for the subsequent edit, where it was in the edit summary. I've looked, and I assume that one does it in two steps, check the square box for the IP edit and Delete the IP, then check the box for the next edit, and delete the edit summary. I assume it cannot be done in a single step.--SPhilbrickT 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I could be mistaken but I believe it has to be done in two steps if you're deleting different elements of each edit. 28bytes (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think you can do 1, 2, or all 3 in one step:
  • Delete revision text
  • Delete edit summary
  • Delete editor's username/IP
My "Practice" with it (somewhere in my userspace) seemed to let me do any combination of them at will. Although I'll admit, I haven't been "doing" RevDel out in WP space either. meh. :/ — Ched :  ?  16:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I've been very cautious about using revdel, but I hadn't considered practicing in my own user space. I'll check that out, thanks.--SPhilbrickT 17:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re [2], yep, it was an edit conflict, I was trying to reinstate it and got edit conflicted twice more before you got back to it. Sorry about that. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries! I figured that was the case. 28bytes (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Warnings

What happens if a user has been warned about vandalism and if they delete the warning from their talk page?, does that constitue as vandalism aswell? MrAmberGold (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)MrAmberGoldMrAmberGold (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No, editors are allowed to remove warnings per WP:REMOVE. 28bytes (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change

Can we seriously not just block the entire lot of IPs this guy uses for a while and see if that shuts the idiot up? I'd rather take the risk of not having one or two positive contributors from the region than this continued madness. I'd say at this point the user is formally harassing MuZemike and it might be appropriate to even get law enforcement involved, but that might be MuZemike's decision.

Posting this here instead of AN/I to deny recognition in a public venue. You are free to delete this following this conversation for similar reasons, keep it all here and use talkbacks if I don't return immediately. CycloneGU (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure what range of IP the guy's been using (I haven't looked yet) but if he keeps it up I may add something to the abuse filter to put a stop to it. 28bytes (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. As to what he's been using, I'm sure MuZemike has been keeping tabs, but the IPs seem to be all over the place. Seems he has access to a proxy service. CycloneGU (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I know you are online

Can you indef User:Orethrius. He is seriously attempting to hurt the encyclopedia now. I filed a report at WP:AIV but would prefer it gets dealt with now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your comment. Glad to see that situation sorted itself out. 28bytes (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

I think I may have broken your advice when I reverted 68.12.229.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). However, it was on an article talk page, and I think that this IP should be blocked - things like [3], [4], [5], and [6] are completely unacceptable and need no 4-warning run-up for a block.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. 28bytes (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Obvious racist trolling should be reverted, so your revert was fine. Same with the second diff, which I've removed. The third and fourth are arguably mere unpleasant complaints about the article, so I've left them alone. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Mmkay, I'll have a second look. Cheers, GiantSnowman 19:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, still not seeing enough to justify an indef block; somebody has suggested a topic ban & shorter (but still substantial) block, which I think are much more suitable. GiantSnowman 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at the bigger picture. His organization's goal is to troll people. He is operating multiple accounts on sister projects, creating articles on this group while pretending to be an uninvolved "fan" of his organization. When an arb asks him about this, he lies about it until checkusers catch him out. At his talk page, now, he's still refusing to acknowledge there was anything wrong with this intentional deception. Why should the block be of fixed duration when there's no indication that he acknowledges the problem, much less any hint that he won't keep doing it? 28bytes (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
His meatpuppets are trolling, definitely, but he's not. He's already accepted that removing the COI tags was incorrect, and he's said he'll stop doing, showing that he does recognise the issues here, and is trying to sort them out. A topic ban for GNAA is fine, but his edits to other articles look to be constructive. GiantSnowman 20:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree that "he does recognise the issues here, and is trying to sort them out." It's quite clear to me that he sees no problem at all with lying to arbs to conceal his COI on alternate accounts used to promote his group. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
True, lying to arbs was bad - but that wasn't what the thread was about, and that's not why he's been indeffed. GiantSnowman 20:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm reading Hersfold's block explanation wrong, but point 3, paragraph 3 sure seems to say it's because he's deceptively using cross-wiki accounts. 28bytes (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It's an odd situation, as he hasn't actually socked on en.wiki, and I can't see how's he broken WP:ILLEGIT - though I'm willing to be proven wrong, as ever! GiantSnowman 20:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, the whole point of having the "unrelated" simple.wiki account was to make it appear there were more people supporting the idea of this group's notability. That's a textbook violation of the first point of WP:ILLEGIT: "Creating an illusion of [more] support" for a position than actually exists. And it doesn't stop there: "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts"? Check. "Avoiding scrutiny"? Check. "Posing as a neutral commentator"? Check. His actions quite obviously go against the spirit of WP:ILLEGIT in multiple ways. 28bytes (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
True, but the simple.wiki account never actually contributed here... GiantSnowman 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a new article I'm writing

Hi. We interacted last January, following my failed RfA. I'm currently working on a biographical article on George E. Crothers — an important alumnus, trustee, and benefactor of my alma mater, Stanford University (and not to be confused with George Crothers, the Irish cricket player). Once the page is in decent shape, I'm planning to nominate it for DYK. If you have any time to go take a look (User:Richwales/Drafts/George E. Crothers) and give me feedback, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to take a look. I should have a chance to poke back in later this morning. 28bytes (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It looks good to me, with the caveat that I don't have access to the offline sources. I don't see any reason this wouldn't meet the DYK requirements, although as a straightforward biography it might be tough to find an especially compelling hook for it. But that's usually not a deal-breaker. It's sourced well enough to pass muster at DYK, but to AfD-proof it, you may want to use more independent sources if you have any: most of the sources I see appear to be connected to Stanford (which is natural) or the judge himself, but anything you can find that (for example) covers his judicial career independent of the university might help. 28bytes (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I am, in fact, working on finding and incorporating more independent sources (and I have a couple of things I'm going to go to the library for later this week). I'm also going to add some more stuff about things Crothers did that were not directly related to Stanford. I've already got a DYK hook in mind — the fact that Crothers Memorial Hall was named in memory of George Crothers' mother (something, BTW, which most Stanford people aren't aware of). Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You acted on false information

You were fed false information by a user called "the mark of the beast" or something close to it in a WN/I situation. I am not happy at all about it, either. PeterHarlington (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can you be more specific? I'm not sure what this is in reference to. 28bytes (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:28bytes/Archive_12&oldid=1144605591"