 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:28bytes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
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.
DYK for Bryan Loren
 | On 30 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bryan Loren, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "Do the Bartman", written by Michael Jackson and Bryan Loren, was never released as a single in the US yet it peaked at number 11 on Billboard's airplay chart? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bryan Loren. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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. |
Full protection
Administrators aren't playing nice, so I requested a protection level reduction of Star Trek into Darkness [1]. Ryan Vesey 01:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I agree, by the way. It's pointless to protect it if the battle just continues with admins doing the battling. 28bytes (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I assume the vast majority of old school admins are okay, but I've come to the opinion that anyone who became an admin before the 3 standard questions were introduced (completely arbitrary, there might be a better cutoff) should have to run again. There's too many that don't understand how things are done. Ryan Vesey 01:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I tell ya, Ryan, I never cease to be amazed at the things people battle over. Randall Munroe really has our number, ya know? 28bytes (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just a heads-up, I've lowered the protection as requested at RFPP and after seeing your sign-off above. Best regards, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the courtesy note. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just a heads-up, I've lowered the protection as requested at RFPP and after seeing your sign-off above. Best regards, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I tell ya, Ryan, I never cease to be amazed at the things people battle over. Randall Munroe really has our number, ya know? 28bytes (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I assume the vast majority of old school admins are okay, but I've come to the opinion that anyone who became an admin before the 3 standard questions were introduced (completely arbitrary, there might be a better cutoff) should have to run again. There's too many that don't understand how things are done. Ryan Vesey 01:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you come to WP:AN?
At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706, you closed a discussion with the result that TonytheTiger was prohibited from participating in Featured Sounds and from uploading images of himself. Someone has proposed that the ban be lifted, so I thought you should be aware; the thread is "Request to revoke Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Two_topic_bans_for_TonyTheTiger". Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look. 28bytes (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Move
Hi, I would like the permission to "move" or rename certain page titles.
Thanks, Axelbooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelbooks435 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Once you are autoconfirmed (after 4 days and 10 edits), you will be able to move a page by clicking the "Move" button at the top of the page. Wikipedia:Moving a page has more info. What page are you wanting to move? Perhaps I can help. 28bytes (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Was that boldly closed where no-one has closed before? ..... I'll get my coat! Spartaz Humbug! 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was merely one in a long line of editors to make that terrible pun in relation to that article. :) 28bytes (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
You did say "anywhere else", yes?
I really thought you had done a good thing there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'll speak with him. 28bytes (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- He's still working on User:Xkcdreader/Star Trek Into Darkness Title. And there's this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- And I'm not sure what he's planning with his "revisit", but he's created User:Xkcdreader/"Title Section Into Darkness" Revisit --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not planning anything. I am backing up the documents I created, like I asked to in our unban compromise. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Everything I didnt move off site is now final. Let's not turn a molehill into a mountain. "If you're done editing them, they're fine to leave where they are. If you plan to maintain/update/tweak them some more, I suggest cutting and pasting them to one of the sister project sandboxes I linked for you." - 28bytes. I believe I have permission to leave documents there as long as I don't maintain them. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- You appear to have been tweaking them[2][3] and creating a new article.[4] --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not going to argue with you. I submitted my last backup. This seems extra silly. He said I could leave documents there. What do you have to gain from this? Is this a vendetta? Feel free to check the new article's edit history. It should have zero revisions. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- You appear to have been tweaking them[2][3] and creating a new article.[4] --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not planning anything. I am backing up the documents I created, like I asked to in our unban compromise. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Everything I didnt move off site is now final. Let's not turn a molehill into a mountain. "If you're done editing them, they're fine to leave where they are. If you plan to maintain/update/tweak them some more, I suggest cutting and pasting them to one of the sister project sandboxes I linked for you." - 28bytes. I believe I have permission to leave documents there as long as I don't maintain them. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is not what I wanted to see on my talk page this morning. Xkcdreader, I will take you at your word that you've made your final edits to that stuff. Any more Star Trek related edits and I will restore the block, understand? 28bytes (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely. In the interest of transparency and "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both," This (User:Xkcdreader/index) is what I am leaving as my legacy (besides a lot of frustrated elders) as I kill this account, so if someone want's to come back to it later, it should be minimal work on their part. Hopefully someone can use it to build a better encyclopedia. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- So forgive me if I'm wrong, but the reason Xkcdreader has been editing and creating these pages is to leave them behind after he's gone so that someone else can pick up the mantle? That doesn't seem in the spirit of lifting the block. May I request that an admin deletes these? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're kidding right? No consensus was reached either way. Somebody will have every right to bring it up later once the dust has settled. The block was to prevent me from being disruptive. If they want to reblock me, that is fine. I don't see why they should delete my contribution as well. You are dead set on killing this before it has a chance, aren't you? Let it go. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- So forgive me if I'm wrong, but the reason Xkcdreader has been editing and creating these pages is to leave them behind after he's gone so that someone else can pick up the mantle? That doesn't seem in the spirit of lifting the block. May I request that an admin deletes these? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Look, the only thing I want is for my work to be here after I leave. I don't understand the problem. Can we leave this between me and 28bytes, and not start a lynch mob? Xkcdreader (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- And Chris, I am not sure what you are being told through back channels but "We have a compromise as long as I am allowed to keep editing my own user pages. I would like to make some personal backups of things under my own account, before they get archived" was the very first thing I said before they unbanned me. 28bytes said it was fine to leave documents there. He asked me not to maintain them. Is the only side of this story you are getting from Rob? Ask douts and Pfhorrest what they think of me, they have been supportive from day one. A couple of tweaks and leaving them alone is in the spirit of what he asked of me. Bring the admin Elen of the Roads in. I have been acting in good faith this entire time. Rob is trying to paint me as some kind of criminal that I'm not. (and I would have been done with this like a day ago, but we are having trouble finding me a sandbox.) Xkcdreader (talk)
- I hope I didn't give you the impression that those userpages were immune from deletion. Wikipedia isn't really in the business of hosting people's "legacy" after their departure. It's quite possible that they'll get deleted, which is why I was trying to steer you to alternate venues (although I regret that the specific venues I suggested didn't work out.) 28bytes (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok maybe I did misunderstand. Would you consider four points of evidence to keep the material? 1) I did have support (Pfhorrest, douts, Eraserhead1, David93, and Whoosit) for this. People did want it in the page. 2) There may be some encyclopedic value to this contribution (User:Xkcdreader/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_Title) that has yet to be determined because nobody can get along. and 3) The reaction to "my disruption and not understanding how to use the talk page" is now causing more issues than if everybody just dropped this. 4) Deleting it does nothing, but allowing it to stay allows everybody else (not me) to reexamine it once heads have cooled. The current way I read the talk page is "let's drop this for a long time" not "this is never going to be allowed. Tempers flared and everybody needed to walk away. That fact that I didn't do a very good job of learning to use the site before I jumped in should have no impact on the contribution itself. (WP:SPA - Focus on the subject matter, not the person.) If deleting these is a big deal, can one of the users that supported me archive a copy of the contribution in their userspace? Xkcdreader (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- And here is one of the last quotes on the matter before admins got involved "FWIW I still think xkcdreader's contribution is fine and the arguments being provided against it look like they are clamoring for anything to throw just to shut down the matter of title-related issues here. While I agree that there's been (way more than) enough of this and everyone should move on as soon as possible, I think the direction to do that in is to let xkcdreader's contribution stand, at least until an uninvolved editor (no canvassing!) objects to it. Seriously, I understand that strict policy means xkcdreader was bold, got reverted, and now discussion happens. But discussion has been happening. For way too long. And this is not a big article-destroying thing in question here. I know I would be hesitant to concede to this on an article I WP:OWNed, but can the objectors here just let it slide for a while so all this talk-page thrashing can finally settle down? Let it stand for a week and see if any passers-by object. Or call a 3PO if you want to attract passers-by to give their opinions. Xkcdreader seems like a very diligent editor who is eager to improve the encyclopedia, and I would hate to have you guys scare him off by objecting so vehemently to such a minor thing. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)" I am contending that the reaction to my disruption is the bigger issue. The chemo is worse than the cancer. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. Stop it. I don't know how to put this more plainly: you need to step away from the whole discussion, anywhere on Wikipedia. The whole point of me unblocking you was so that you could edit unrelated articles. If you're not interested in doing that, fine, but the Star Trek title stuff is ending now. 28bytes (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not campaigning for it to be included. I am just saying the disruption is coming from both sides, not just mine. K. Stopped. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. Stop it. I don't know how to put this more plainly: you need to step away from the whole discussion, anywhere on Wikipedia. The whole point of me unblocking you was so that you could edit unrelated articles. If you're not interested in doing that, fine, but the Star Trek title stuff is ending now. 28bytes (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- And here is one of the last quotes on the matter before admins got involved "FWIW I still think xkcdreader's contribution is fine and the arguments being provided against it look like they are clamoring for anything to throw just to shut down the matter of title-related issues here. While I agree that there's been (way more than) enough of this and everyone should move on as soon as possible, I think the direction to do that in is to let xkcdreader's contribution stand, at least until an uninvolved editor (no canvassing!) objects to it. Seriously, I understand that strict policy means xkcdreader was bold, got reverted, and now discussion happens. But discussion has been happening. For way too long. And this is not a big article-destroying thing in question here. I know I would be hesitant to concede to this on an article I WP:OWNed, but can the objectors here just let it slide for a while so all this talk-page thrashing can finally settle down? Let it stand for a week and see if any passers-by object. Or call a 3PO if you want to attract passers-by to give their opinions. Xkcdreader seems like a very diligent editor who is eager to improve the encyclopedia, and I would hate to have you guys scare him off by objecting so vehemently to such a minor thing. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)" I am contending that the reaction to my disruption is the bigger issue. The chemo is worse than the cancer. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok maybe I did misunderstand. Would you consider four points of evidence to keep the material? 1) I did have support (Pfhorrest, douts, Eraserhead1, David93, and Whoosit) for this. People did want it in the page. 2) There may be some encyclopedic value to this contribution (User:Xkcdreader/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_Title) that has yet to be determined because nobody can get along. and 3) The reaction to "my disruption and not understanding how to use the talk page" is now causing more issues than if everybody just dropped this. 4) Deleting it does nothing, but allowing it to stay allows everybody else (not me) to reexamine it once heads have cooled. The current way I read the talk page is "let's drop this for a long time" not "this is never going to be allowed. Tempers flared and everybody needed to walk away. That fact that I didn't do a very good job of learning to use the site before I jumped in should have no impact on the contribution itself. (WP:SPA - Focus on the subject matter, not the person.) If deleting these is a big deal, can one of the users that supported me archive a copy of the contribution in their userspace? Xkcdreader (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I hope I didn't give you the impression that those userpages were immune from deletion. Wikipedia isn't really in the business of hosting people's "legacy" after their departure. It's quite possible that they'll get deleted, which is why I was trying to steer you to alternate venues (although I regret that the specific venues I suggested didn't work out.) 28bytes (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this isn't what you want to read on your talk page this {what time of day it is for you}, either, but that never really does stop me, does it? Unblocking: good. Topic banning Xkcdreader from ST articles in mainspace: preventative. SofV stalking Xkcdreader in his user space and you reading them the riot act: punitive, not good. All the evidence suggests Xr is a new editor who both: thinks they are right, and, that being right is particularly important around here. (We know better, of course.) Anyway, letting them do their thing in userspace wouldn't have really hurt anything, and makes it less likely they'll morph into a useful editor. We both know we allow all sorts of myspace stuff in user pages as long as the account is making some reasonable effort to be an actual Wikipedia editor, and since Xr is finding other articles to edit, that seems to be the case. So maybe you and me and all ya'll tps can just not worry about the userpages? NE Ent 17:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'm certainly not planning to spend the precious time I have on this earth monitoring their userspace edits, but I think for a variety of reasons it's best for them to focus on unrelated topics either in user- or main-space, which, to their credit, it looks like they're doing. 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe you think all these Xkcd breaching experiments are hilarious, Ent, but having had to run around cleaning up after these folk for years I'm somewhat less sanguine about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope.
Ok, so per the Meta:Inclusion policy that didn't work. They deleted it and said it didn't belong. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Xkcdreader/Interpretation_of_the_movie_title_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness Do I just keep stabbing in the dark until someone will let me have a sandbox to play in? I don't see how it is appropriate for simple or common either. Is that content now permanently lost? Maybe talk to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tegel ? I really hope that article didn't get deleted off both ends permanently, because I didn't have it backed up yet. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like Elen has restored it for you. Sorry for steering you in the wrong direction re meta; I didn't realize they were as strict about sandbox pages as they are. 28bytes (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- So commons deleted it too. :( I submitted it to wikidata to try there. Do you think I will be safe on wikidata? I just noticed, the wikimedia guy said to try books. Do you know anything about wikibooks? Xkcdreader (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about either of those projects, sorry. Maybe WikiAlpha? They seem pretty indiscriminate. Heck, I bet you could write a whole article on the title dispute there if you wanted to. 28bytes (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is that a different company? Interlinks wont work, correct? Ill probably try books first. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about either of those projects, sorry. Maybe WikiAlpha? They seem pretty indiscriminate. Heck, I bet you could write a whole article on the title dispute there if you wanted to. 28bytes (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- So commons deleted it too. :( I submitted it to wikidata to try there. Do you think I will be safe on wikidata? I just noticed, the wikimedia guy said to try books. Do you know anything about wikibooks? Xkcdreader (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Help on deleting something?
Dear 28bytes: I'm wondering if you can help with a wikipedia administrator issue? I chose you from the list of Wikipedia admins willing to handle RevisionDelete requests since I had an atari 2600 when I was a kid. =)
Anyway, I just created a wiki page here: Drift Plus Penalty. It's on a technical mathy subject. Anyway, as I was making minor typo corrections I noticed I forgot to log in. So my IP address is visible. This probably is not a big deal, but I would appreciate it if you could delete those edits in the history? I have the whole page (in the wiki language) saved elsewhere, so I can recreate the whole page if need be. Let me know if you can help, thanks!
JamesQueue (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. Easiest thing was to just delete it since you said you had a saved copy and can easily recreate it. 28bytes (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
Wow, thanks for the quick reply and help! I've now restored the page. Thanks again,
JamesQueue (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to help. 28bytes (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Protecting a page
I wish you could help me protecting the page Mahathir Mohamad by allowing only registered users to edit it and with no time limit. There is frequent vandalism made almost every day. Irfanshaharuddin (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. 28bytes (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)