User talk:28bytes/Archive 45

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.

---

Thank you.

Thank you so much to everyone who has posted words of support and encouragement here and elsewhere. I have read every word, and what you have said means a great deal to me. I hope each of you has a happy, healthy and safe 2014. So long, 28bytes (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You'll be missed in both places. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Move Like This
by 28bytes

• I wrote before all this happened: "But then I'm a friend of 28bytes, also no real name but heart and reason." and hope it will stay true. For encouragement and praise (and your duck) see my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

ps: (pictured) added, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

ps: music added, especially for you, The Lord bless you and keep you ... and give you peace, - will sing it tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

28bytes, though I never got the pleasure of working with you, and was unable (for the obvious pseudonym-related reason) to vote for you in 2013, I'm sorry from top to bottom about all this. Oddly enough, I knew about your videogame, because I had an RfC-closure-request on the noticeboard where you asked for COI review (all your actions strike me as very honourable and fully clean methinks... people that complain about WP:COI in your NPOV-to-a-fault edits to improve the wikipedia pages and wikivisibility of your competitors as being somehow a devious plot to make the entire videogame industry more wikivisible and rake in the oodles of cash... well... pillar four prevents me from explicitly saying what I think about such folks).

  Anyhoo, I wish you full success in Doing Notable Deeds out in the real-o-verse, and would welcome you back in any capacity of your WP:CHOICE, at any time, after any duration of wikibreak that you deem WP:REQUIRED. In the meantime, smooth sailing; strive for greatness. p.s. If you take requests, Montanabw and myself would like to see WP:PONY in your next off-wiki effort, enough with the fire-breathing mallards.  :-)   Hope this helps, and thanks much for improving wikipedia. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Farewell :( Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 11:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request

The arbitration request involving you has been declined by the Committee. The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Your election results and career accomplishments are very impressive. Don't sweat the small stuff. Have a terrific 2014, enjoy life and best of luck in all of your adventures. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Best wishes. Jonathunder (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

take heart

• At the top of this page you have written the words:
  
  I am no longer active on Wikipedia.
  Farewell and peace, my friends, until we meet again.
  
  I take heart in your closing phrase and trust that we shall meet again on this project which needs you to return.
  I wish you all the best for 2014 — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm glad to see you're not gone completely. Worm^TT(talk) 08:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I do peek in occasionally. :) 28bytes (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fylbecatulous talk 16:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you back here as well. I am still sorry we aren't getting to work together on the Committee this year (and it is still interesting occasionally to look at an old Mason post now that I know who was behind it). Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Magnificat, started today ;) - Hall of Memory ("with a Twist") is picture on the Main page now, that was yesterday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep on peeking! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Like Montanabw^(talk) 04:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

SG for Duck Attack!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's very cool! Thank you for doing that, Gerda! 28bytes (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have liked to get "awesomely weird" in, but failed to find a good translation for that useful term. ("... an oddity: It's a wholly modern 2600 game that's actually fun and as awesomely weird as old 2600 games like FloqFrankenstein's Monster.") - I liked this move ;) - Thank you for mentioning our effort - which was pure joy - and for taking the time to explain waste of time. - Did you see this? (Or should I say "hear"?) - Move as you like! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A hand-typed thank you

Thank you, 28bytes, for your support of my RfB. I'm also delighted to see that you haven't left Wikipedia and are still around, even if at a reduced rate. I really do hope that, given time, you'll be able to get back into things again; I'm sure I speak for countless editors when I say that you are missed and that you are wanted here. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 18:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and congratulations! I'm glad you decided to take the plunge, and I am sure you will find 'crat work enjoyable. I remain very grateful for the support you have offered me over the years. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back!!!!--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) 28bytes (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Woohoo! Drmies (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

:) 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I read your letter. Well done. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. There were things that needed to be said, but I tried to be fair. 28bytes (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No idea what letter is being referred to here but I'm glad you are back with us. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)There's a link in the Jehochman section of WP:AN. NE Ent 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Like Montanabw^(talk) 20:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see that you've picked up your tools again; I hope you'll appreciate why I didn't comment on the BN thread, given my obvious conflict of interest. ;) As for the concerns that WJBscribe raised over there, I believe you when you say that you've learnt from them; I have no reason to doubt you. You did great work as an admin and bureaucrat and I look forward to seeing you resume that work. Best. Acalamari 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• It's good to see you back. You did good work before and I'm sure you will again. I hope you stick around, although I can understand if you don't. FWIW, as far as I'm concerned, you should still be on ArbCom. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you MastCell, I appreciate those kind words. 28bytes (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Good news

I just saw that you have again resumed some of your advanced permissions, and I want to say welcome back for that! By the way, I also liked your open letter. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm surprised to see you back relatively soon, but I am definitely glad that you are. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both. :) 28bytes (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

My feelings are fairly close to Luke's. I hope you didn't return without addressing the balance between Wikipedia and your real life (something that many of us grapple with). That said, I'm one of your admirers and am delighted to have you as a voice again on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin issue

Hello 28bytes, I've followed the whole crazy situation and was planning on leaving well enough alone under the assumption that your resignation would be "under a cloud". However, now that you've gotten the admin bit back, I wanted to raise an issue about your use of said bit. It appears to me that you closed the Henry Earl discussion after pushing for it to be brought to AfD at Wikipediocracy. IMO that's a big problem as I don't see how you could claim to be a neutral closer. I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for here, but I'd certainly like your thoughts on the issue. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Also, I've posted a note at the 'crat board. Hobit (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hobit. If you're looking for an assurance that I won't do anything like that again, I am happy to provide it. :) As I told WJBscribe, both commenting on and closing that discussion was a mistake, and one I don't intend to repeat. I'm happy to discuss it further with you if you like. 28bytes (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm finding that answer to be fairly difficult to swallow. How could you not realize the issue? You had a strong opinion. I don't give a damn if you thought consensus was there. It wasn't clear (or even there in my opinion). You put your thumb on the scale. Are you willing to stand for a reconfirmation RfA? I think it's needed here. It's clear you've violated the trust of the community. I think this discussion needs to be held in the open rather than a 24 hour discussion at the 'crat's noticeboard. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There has been plenty of discussion already and one thing that was clear is that an RFA is not needed, the community support is pretty clear, even to the extent that another run for arbcom would likely pass. The crats noticeboard is a public page and can be seen by anyone who wishes too. This appears to be a slight attempt at re-raising the drama.Blethering Scot 22:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I dropped the drama because he resigned. I didn't see the point in dragging this on. I was going to re-DRV the Earl article based on this, but felt I should wait until this issue was a bit colder. I'd argue my attempts to not cause drama is why we are here. If the community supports him, great. But AN isn't the place to figure that out. We should have the entire community involved. I agree he'll likely be over the bar, but I'm not certain of it. Hobit (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hobit, if acknowledging that I screwed up and pledging not to do it again aren't enough for you, then go ahead and take whatever steps you feel are appropriate. I would rather you just wait a while and see for yourself that I meant what I said about not repeating my mistakes, but if you'd rather escalate things there's nothing I can do to stop you. 28bytes (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hobit, there is no reason to DRV the Earl AfD. The consensus was categorically to delete, and any half-sane admin would've closed it as a delete, regardless of their personal belief/off-wiki activities. There was no pushing for it to be brought to AfD; yet again, it was my decision to AfD it, and I would've done so regardless of the location I had found it in. It's very clear that those who thought the resignation was "under a cloud" were in the clear minority; it is only the Arb role that could remotely be counted as that, unless you're someone with an axe to grind. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• If an AfD has obvious consensus, I don't see a problem with an admin who has disclosed publicly an opinion on the topic closing it. I assume that in other cases, the closing had an opinion but kept it to themselves when closing the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• You don't think the part about not taking administrative actions on subjects you have a strong opinion on matters? There are exceptions to WP:INVOLVED, but it's a pretty high bar--things like blatant vandalism. And as the DRV showed, it wasn't a clear case at all. Certainly not clear at the "blatant vandalism" level. And certainly not at the level of "reasonable non-admin closure", which I would say is a lower bar. Hobit (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't sufficient wiki time to formulate everything I'll probably end saying to you ... you know Ents, we take a day just to say "hello" ... but I hastily post things. 1) You f'd up by thinking you could not disclose that account on that website 2) You f'd up by resigning from AC (depriving it and us of one of our better talents). 3) Don't even think about any "reconfirmation" nonsense -- cause it won't be about you, it'll be the perennial 'cracy is evil hysteria. NE Ent 23:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, too many different things to respond to, so unindenting. 28bytes, you've said it's a mistake. Could you explain what the mistake was please? Why shouldn't you have closed that? Hobit (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think WJBScribe put it better than I could: opining strongly about an article's fate – in any forum – means you can't be viewed as a neutral closer. Now, I've closed plenty of discussions where the consensus was opposite what I thought it should be; just today, for example, I closed as "keep" something that (IMO) should have been an easy delete, but consensus was otherwise, so I closed it, as I always try to do, according to what the consensus was. Following consensus means I have closed RfAs as "successful" where I didn't believe promoting the candidate was a good idea, and have closed others as "unsuccessful" even when I thought the candidate would make a fine admin. Conversely, I've closed discussions where I was happy that the consensus was what it was. Ideally, an admin would never have any opinions whatsoever about the discussion they were closing, but practically speaking, they often do have opinions, and simply have to separate their opinion from their reading of consensus. It's sometimes hard to do, and in cases where it is hard to do, they should just skip that close and let someone else do it. Enough people have expressed disagreement with my close on the Earl AfD that I now believe this was one of those cases. I thought I was fairly good at separating my personal feelings about a discussion from the consensus-based close, but in this case, I see that I was wrong. That doesn't mean I think the close itself was wrong; I still think that by every metric (quality of argument, weight of the cited policies and guidelines, even head count) the consensus is with those supporting deletion. But I understand that by feeling strongly enough that "delete" was the right call that I made comments to that effect on a forum, I should have recognized that I was not sufficiently neutral to close the discussion. Whenever an editor finds themselves feeling strongly about a particular discussion, they should simply voice their thoughts as a participant, and let someone else close it. I have long known that, but in this case, I failed to follow that guidance. As I said, it's a mistake I have learned from. I intend to be much more conservative when closing discussions, and much more quick to let someone else close them if I find myself agreeing strongly with one side of the argument. 28bytes (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the point you are missing is trust. If the community can't trust that an admin will come to a discussion without strong opinions on the matter, then there is no point in contributing to an RfC or whatever else. Wikipedia's governance model relies on people fairly evaluating a discussion and ducking out when they have a strong bias. I find it nearly impossible to believe you'd have closed that discussion after making such comments in a forum where everyone knew it was you. You know better. Every admin does. Hell, they know better than to close something they have such a strong opinion on. So it's not a mistake, it's an intentional will to deceive. I can't read your mind, but it strains good faith beyond any reasonable bounds that you didn't know exactly what you were doing. But you keep claiming otherwise, and that drops the trust level even farther. I don't imagine my quixotic quest to get you to go through a reconfirmation RfA is going to succeed. But damn it, you shouldn't be an admin and certainly not a 'crat. If the community feels otherwise, so be it. But I think it should be the community that makes that call. Hobit (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I took your question seriously, but apparently you had already decided that I acted nefariously rather than tried (and perhaps not succeeded) to close a discussion fairly even though I had strong feelings about it. I wish I'd known that before taking the time to write out a lengthy response. 28bytes (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You did take it seriously, thanks. If you'd have said "it was a clear lapse in judgement, I knew better but did it anyways and I apologize" I'd have been fine--let he without sin throw the first stone and all that. But instead you are insisting that you were unaware that you shouldn't be closing a discussion you had such a strong opinion on (and publicly expressed!) That either implies an utter lack of understanding about what it means to be an involved admin (the "strong feelings" part, just to be crystal clear) or a willful intent to ignore that rule. I don't see what other options there are. Hobit (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I was clear that I recognize it was a lapse in judgment. You seem to be wanting me to say I did it maliciously. I didn't, and I'm not going to say I did. As I said before, if saying "I was wrong, and it won't happen again" aren't enough for you, then do what you feel like you need to do. 28bytes (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's just that you seem to keep arguing that it's okay to close things you have strong opinions on if you feel you can overcome those strong opinions. That's not what WP:INVOLVED says. If you agree not to again close anything you have a strong opinion on, I'll be satisfied with that. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a completely reasonable request, and I readily agree to that. 28bytes (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Hobit (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hobit, drop the damn stick. 28 is back, he did not leave under a cloud, he apologized for whatever it was you think he did (hell, I can't even figure out what your problem is), he's one of the ablest and most common sense people around, and if you can't cope with or comprehend any of that, he also explained what your remedies are. Take my advice and move on to other things. The wiki has plenty of things to work on, we don't need more drama. Montanabw^(talk) 03:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Hobit. The way to deal with this is not objecting to the restoration of the user rights. That was largely procedural. If you want to take this further, an RfC on user conduct or an ArbCom case are the correct venues. You are no less able to go down those routes now than you were a month and a bit ago when this all came to light. What you are not able to do with respect is to take advantage of the short resignation of those userrights to avoid going down those routes.
While we're discussing this, I think it's worth reflecting on the likely outcome of either route. An RfC on user conduct will end with no real consensus. An ArbCom case might result in an admonishment but I really doubt it would result in a desysopping or decratting (I think I just made that word up). All you have is evidence of one error in judgment, and that is something for which people who accept their mistakes should be forgiven. WJBscribe (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My non-expert opinion is that any sort of RfC or reconfirmation, etc. would end up with overwhelming support for 28bytes. And Hobit, I like you a lot, but I echo what Montanabw just said. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's fine, guys... I tell people to come to my talk page with any questions and concerns, and that's just what he did. 28bytes (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I'm glad to hear it. What I'm about to ask is totally dumb, and if I'm out of line, please feel free to blow me off, but I want to ask. That avatar of yours (Mason's), at the website-that-dare-not-speak-its-name, please tell me that it isn't really what you look like, is it? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

(watching) you are right ;) - for a picture, study the references in Duck Attack! (see above) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! No, the Mason avatar isn't me, it's a character from my favorite novel, A Confederacy of Dunces. As Gerda says, if you're curious what I look like, it's not too hard to find. 28bytes (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not into digging into what anyone here looks like, but I congratulate you on not looking like the character there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to 28bytes and to Hobit for the significant and reflective posts in the middle of this section. As a critic of the AfD close as being without consensus in policy, I think 28bytes response, in this section, is admirable, and I think Hobit shows why direct and difficult policy based and behavior discussion is worthwhile. It appears you have both spoken honestly to each other and reached consensus on salient points, obviating future misunderstandings or misadventures. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Alanscottwalker. I'm very grateful to Hobit for being willing to talk things out with me here. 28bytes (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Do you consider your blocks of Demiurge and Gwickwire to have been mistakes as well? Not asking whether you think the actions were correct, but whether you think they were actions you should have taken yourself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, that debacle. I think there wasn't a single person in that affair who didn't misstep badly, and that includes both you and me. 28bytes (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

From the linked Toledo Press article: "A senior software engineer for a company that works with the Department of Homeland Security". (Lord. [Did said background tempt trying to play "double-agent" at Wikipediocracy!? Seems like TV spy comedy Get Smart: Wikipediocracy as KAOS; you as daring but bumbling CONTROL agent Maxwell Smart ["Sorry about that, Chief!"].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh. 28bytes (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Glad to see you back. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for closing the thread on my topic ban at WP:ANI. I will try and prove the community's confidence in me by editing in a productive manner and avoid entering into conflict with other editors as in the past. You may be interested to note I have just launched the article Esteban Mestivier as I promised and I would welcome your input if you have a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your plan sounds like a good one to me; good luck. :) 28bytes (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, look who the cat dragged (back) in

doubleplus good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Secret/recall

Can you comment further in the talk page? Thanks Secret ^account 01:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Or sign the petition. Thanks Secret ^account 16:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Secret. To be honest I'm having trouble following all that, and I'm not sure what role you're looking for me to play... are you trying to decide whether to wait until July for a resysop, or are you wanting feedback on the recall mechanism itself? 28bytes (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My first guess would be that "or sign the petition" might actually mean "or add yourself to the list under Editors on that page". ("Petition" doesn't make sense in the context.) That request seems to have expired now that the required fifteen usernames ("the first 15 editors who sign up below") are listed. User:Hahc21 filled the 15th vacancy earlier today, with the edit summary implying that he was chosen to do so off-wiki. Beeblebrox earlier exited the list with edit summary "I don't see any point in remaining listed here any longer".

I can't offer any insight into what's happening on the talk page, as I don't totally understand it either. I do know (from comments elsewhere) that Secret thinks highly of you ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Greetings, although my ban will likely be initiated soon (or sent up to Arbcom) I just wanted to take a moment in my last edits here to thank you for your oppose of my ban. Good luck and happy editing. Kumioko 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and best wishes. 28bytes (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Duck Attack!

You made us understand what it really means ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Out-of-control admin

[1] You seem pretty fair-minded, and I obviously agree w/ you, but can you see here, because Kevin has made quite clear with his ... 1) I am far from convinced that it was not an accurate description of his behavior. and 2) even if it were an inappropriate description of his behavior, I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack..

Wow. This editor received 88 Support 2 Oppose at his January 2014 RfA!? Is this some kind of new arrogant and self-righteousness admin!? I suggested he s/ apologize to Eric. As you did as well. Simple. Instead we get (1) and (2) above. And now he seems pumped up and more self-righteous and arrogant as ever. What is to stop such an out-of-control admin as this!? (Admin Kafziel was de-sysopped recently, a big reason I think was his attitude and perceived working relationship with other users at Arbcom and elsewhere. Kevin's attitude is better!? Did his (1) and (2) above satisfy WP:ADMINACCT?!) What kind of future does this spell, emboldened now after WP:BATTLEGROUND, hostile, in-denial, and other behaviors, like declaring war for instance, on one user in a symbolic fight for WP CIV!? (A war declared by someone who's made an untrue, vile attack of Eric dancing on the grave of a suicide victim. Go figure. Pure hypocrisy. Is it supposed to make any sense whatever?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, like you, I am really bothered by his characterization of Eric. It's one thing to use the term "gravedancing" in the context of people unhelpfully posting to a blocked or banned user's talk page; that's the standard "Wikipedia" use of the term, and one I've used myself from time to time. I have to think that Kevin simply didn't understand how offensive it was to use it in the quite different context that he did. I think the best thing for all of us to do is step away and give all the parties some time to calm down and reflect a bit. 28bytes (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

But you're wrong -- Kevin did understand the offense, because I plainly pointed it out to him more than once at his user Talk. (And his response, as you can see above, is to stand by his slur, and call the thought of any apology "hilarious". Pure arrogance.) I think you are too soft!!! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh, maybe I am. But sometimes it takes people a little time to rethink things. I had a bit of a squabble with Eric myself a few years ago, and I eventually figured out that the right thing to do was apologize to him for my part in it, regardless of anything he might have said to me. I hope Kevin will take that path as well. It's early still. 28bytes (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I make it a point in life to not allow myself to 'hope' about anything. It shuts down thinking, which is never good, by passing message to oneself that "there is nothing that can be done." And that is seldom true. (It's also the most passive human "activity" possible -- even sleeping is more active -- when sleeping your subconscious mind is busy solving problems your conscious brain couldn't tackle during the day.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think giving the admin in question a day or so to cool down may be a plus. And all other parties as well. "Gravedancing" was definitely over the top, but being drunk on the power of one's new toys is yet another reason I've not yet had a desire to seek a RfA. Montanabw^(talk) 02:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, time can do wonders for one's mood and perspective. :) 28bytes (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That's probably due to sleeping again. (The subconscious is really quite brilliant, in everyone -- more so than the conscious. It solves problems dispassionately, and when finished hands results to the conscious [which can then refine], when one's conscious is "open" to receiving said message. If necessary it patiently waits for the moment the conscious is open to receive.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And then you go and say this. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Not contradiction. I obvioulsy wasn't able to let go ("sleep on it") as early as 28 or Montanabw. (It might be related to something I've known for years ... the subconcious, powerful problem-solving machine that it is, requires direction what to focus its powers on. It receives by prioritizing based on relative importance. Importance is conveyed by the amount of conscious struggling with an issue. [Common example is trying to recall a name or word ... the subconscious works to locate/retrieve it from memory, but only after it's been conveyed by the conscious it is a problem of some importance, and that only occurs when one struggles consciously trying to recall it for some minutes, but fails. The subconscious then knows "This problem has some priority, OK I'll work on it." And it does!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. What a bunch of BS, with that nice little jab in your edit summary. You should apologize to Kevin for that shitty statement, Mr. Civility enforcement. Don't flatter yourself: that you and Eric both have issues with admins (not the same issues, since he has a point) is the only thing you have in common. Funny--ask him what word he was blocked for; I have no doubt his subconscious will retrieve it easily, and you might find it applicable. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a jab Drmies, I was sincere -- you seemed "kinder, gentler". I don't enforce civility, Drmies, but if you look at Kevin's statement, he's essentially saying that becuase Eric is Eric, it is OK to make personal attacks against Eric, and apologizing for them is "hilarious". (That is an OK position to take as far as I'm concerned, but, not for an admin. I simply responded to ... that hypocrisy.) I don't know what shit you are attacking me with in the rest of your post, something about me making presumptions, that you have invented between your two ears. You should try and make yourself clear, if you want to make insults (but I have seen you several times, Drmies, make false and abusive accusations, then disappear into your Talk-cave, with "Fuck off my Talk page" messages; you never stick around and back up any of your insults and accusations, you just like to make them). The fact is you misinterpret my backing up Eric (probably because you're responding like an abusive dufus). I back up Eric because 1) he's intelligent, 2) intelligence is rare on WP, dumbed-downess seems to prevail here, Eric's intelligence cuts throught that like a sharp cleaver, and that is refreshing and healthy in this sick dumbed-down culture, like turning a light on in a dark room, 3) he's outspoken, 4) he's human, and just like any human, is encouraged by support sometimes, from big equals like Giano, and from small-fries maybe (like me). You have such bad faith it is cuttable with a knife, and you defend abusive admins like Toddst1, and you call the out-of-control pompous self-righteous admin Kevin "one of the good guys" while he is planning a war to get rid of Eric. One moment of break in the clouds occurred when Kevin suddenly realized he agrees with Eric on something -- rules must apply equally to all editors -- but he just called the commonality "weird". (He should think about it more, because its weirdness also hints its importance. Rules should apply to all editors equally. And they would apply equally, if there were, e.g., no more blocks based on CIV violations. [I'm not suggesting that's the best solution; I don't know what is. But it would solve the problem of rules not applying equally, and it would resolve the debate. Think about it.]) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's civility policy, or its uneven application, will be the death of it. And anyone who can't see that is a fucking idiot, aka an administrator. Eric Corbett 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)" Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that I started drinking over this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"Whatever gets you thru the night, it's alright, it's alright." —John Lennon. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Changed view: IMO it's a simple competency issue. (And that explains everything.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko

If Kumioko's current account, BannedEditor, was unblocked to participate in the discussion on WP:AN, should he be handing out thank-yous on other editors' talk pages? If not, could you ask him to stop? BMK (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it really important that they be stopped? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, in general, it's important that editors follow policy, and, in general, Kumioko has behaved as if policies don't apply to him, but I don't want to press the point unnecessarily. If you think it's not a significant breech, that's fine. Thanks. BMK (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If Kumioko ends up getting banned (and his new username certainly suggests it will be inevitable) I don't want it to be said that he wasn't given the chance to speak in his defense. 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks. BMK (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally I wish someone would tell BMK to quite the harassment campaign and leave the discussion to the adults. Personally I am sick of him continuously poking at me and I am equally disappointed and irritated that no one has told him to knock it off. Frankly, that discussion doesn't need more help, my "fans" in the community are going to succeed in getting me banned and that discussion doesn't need anymore of his "special" help. BannedEditor (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Its really disappointing (but fairly typical) to see the admins allowing the discussion to ban me to turn into a free for all. Do me a favor for old time sake please. Close it as a ban, initiate the damn ban and lets all just move on. I'm tired of being insulted by shitbirds and unemployed losers. Kumioko BannedEditor (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I can't close it, but I've put up a note there asking that someone do so. It's already run 4 days, I don't see anything but more hard feelings coming out of letting it run much longer. 28bytes (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and I see that its been closed but I confess I was rather annoyed at the shitty message he left directed at me and didn't even mention any of the other bullshit antics. In fact he specifically made it look like the whole thing was my fault that editors were bashing my relentlessly. Oh well such is the life of Wikipedia I suppose. I'm pretty much done here, there's nothing more I can do for a project that has no hope of fixing its internal problems. Cheers. I would say happy editing but I know better. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@28bytes - Now that the ban discussion is over, and Kumioko has not been banned, I assume that you will reinstate Admrboltz's indef block of BannedEditor for "abusing multiple" accounts, a breach of policy which stands no matter what the result of the ban discussion would have been. He was unblocked to participate in the discussion, and the discussion is over. BMK (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so, I only created that account to finish the discussion because a couple of admins felt it necessary to block both my home and work IP's so that I could not participate in the discussion (regardless of what BS excuse they used). They couldn't very well say it was so I couldn't respond. My home IP is now unblocked (funny that the discussion is now over) and I have no interest in editing here anymore anyway. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. 28bytes (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I must say I don't understand something. A block for abusing multiple accounts is a block of the editor, not a block of the account. So, if BannedEditor, who is Kumioko, is indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts, why is he allowed to continue editing as 108.45.104.158, which he says is his "home" IP? Surely this is an oversight? BMK (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I take your point, but I'm also not entirely sure what Kumioko's editing status is, given that the ban discussion was closed as no consensus. I don't get the sense that the participants in that discussion thought that he would be indef-blocked regardless of the outcome, so perhaps this is something that needs broader discussion... assuming, of course, that he doesn't simply stop editing, which he indicated above he intends to do. I've got no problem restoring Admrboltz's block (which I've done), but I'm uncomfortable making any further blocks unilaterally. Admrboltz, who issued the indef block, or ErrantX, who closed the discussion, would probably be the better people for you to talk to about this... I will defer to their judgment on how to proceed. 28bytes (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the advice. BMK (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There remains an issue to be clarified in everyone's interest. You requested that the ban discussion be closed and it has been. However, the original thread was nothing to do with a ban proposal, it was a Block Review. That part is still unresolved, i.e. whether the IP block was appropriate. The ban discussion managed to highjack the original discussion and leaving the block review hanging may lead to further issues when Kumioko resumes leaving 2-3k off-topic comments which often chill and fork otherwise reasonable discussions (which is why he was blocked). Be grateful for a bit of direction please. Leaky Caldron 10:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaky and BMK this is exactly the kind of bullshit lies that keep bringing me back. A few of you will continue your bullshit harassment campaign and are willing to violate policy to get me out of this place yet I can't say or do anything because then you come running to tell about how I am being mean. At like adults and not little kids. The IP block was not appropriate and it never was It was a weak excuse to block me from comment that's all it ever was and it had the consequence of forcing me to create a username so I could respond to the discussion which also caused me to give you all further evidence that I am socking. Its a typical bait and block scenario that occurs by admins all the time on here and nothing is ever done about it. If you want me gone, quit opening up new discussion full of lies and drawing me back. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko. That is the third time you have called me a liar without justification. I came here to request clarification as to the nature of the close compared to the original AN thread block review request and 28's request to close the ban discussion section. Now I have not reacted to your name calling as many editors would, but if you repeat it again you will leave me with no choice. It really is wholly unacceptable to repeatedly call fellow editor's a liar. Please stop inserting yourself into each and every element of discussion. Leaky Caldron 12:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I participated in the ban discussion; I think it would be more appropriate if someone who didn't participate closed the block review. As ErrantX closed the thread, I recommend talking to him first. 28bytes (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, 28. I just wanted to check that you had intended only for the ban proposal to be closed, not the entire discussion including the original Block Review. I'll speak to Errant. Leaky Caldron 15:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Flappy Bird

Thought of you reading about this. With the popularity of Duck Dynasty and their luring calls, while anything that quacks like a duck often getting blocked on Wikipedia, it's tough times for our feathered friends. Take care and have fun. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

:) 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ever hear of Cow Clicker? That was another game that has sadly been withdrawn. Or "game", I guess. 28bytes (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I read the Wired article about Cow Clicker. Definitely a classic!!! I find the mythology surrounding Flappy Bird: did he use bots to promote it, did he shut it down because of harsh comments, did he decide the game was too addictive, was he just shy, to be endearing. Who knows what the heck the truth is. I think I may have tried the game and thought it was horrible. Which makes it all the better. :) I played Hay Day for a while. Fairly insipid but quite fun. Total escape from reality as I harvested my crops. I still have a soft spot for the classic arcade game Joust (video game), also on PCs. I still remember the horrible squawk of the bird that would fly in and kill you if your took too long on a level. Bone chilling!!! Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. For some inexplicable reason, I had completely forgotten that game existed, but the name looked familiar, and when I saw the graphic in the article it all came rushing back. I can't imagine how many quarters I plugged into the Joust arcade game at the mall back in the day. A friend and I played teams. That, and Armor Attack. Thanks for a nice dose of nostalgia, Candleabracadabra. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There should definitely be more video games where the player flies around on the back of an ostrich trying to knock eggs out of the computer's bird riding knights. I was interested to read in Wikipedia's article on the game that it was a follow up to Defender (video game). That was a fun one too. I didn't play Armor Attack, but the Tron tank combat arena was fun. No tank, but Commando was good too. Just a man and his machine gun. Some grenades. And then there was Missile Command (video game). Roller ball controls. But now we're straying a bit from the birds of a feather theme. Maybe something about a pigeon would be good? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There should definitely be more video games where the player flies around on the back of an ostrich trying to knock eggs out of the computer's bird riding knights. Indeed. I used to enjoy Mouse Trap, wherein you played a mouse, and a purple hawk would occasionally swoop down and eat you. I wonder what the first video game involving birds was? 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix (video game) was pretty fun. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Good call, that's one of my favorites. 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I may have played Mouse Trap on Colecovision? My memory of it is foggy. I think there is a lot of lingering frustration associated with it. And to clarify, it was a pterodactyl that accelerated death in Joust. And I had forgotten about the grabby lava hands. Looking into it I came across Berzerk (arcade game) and Robotron. Falco Lombardi is a good bird/ human character hybrid. I'm sure there must have been a Howard the Duck video game? Happy Hump Day. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Berzerk's another great one... I spend many hours in my youth fleeing from Evil Otto. (There's a level in Duck Attack where the robots from Berzerk attack you.) 28bytes (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha very cool!!! This Nick Pelling deletion discussion might interest you (and seems to be within a subject area where youhave some expertise). Stay warm. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh, well, I learned a new word today: Ludography! I guess I should go write some more games so I can have one too. 28bytes (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's closest

Came across this at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Could you, as is often done, restore the Who's closest article to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Who's closest please? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fantastic, thank you. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

CC

Hey, 28bytes. I've thought the same thing before about CC (that is, to just unblock him and let the cards fall where they may), and I'm not convinced that it isn't the best plan. But the thing that gives me pause is the fact that CC hasn't just evaded to appeal the block; he's done other things, too, and not necessarily good things. One such example that I myself came across was this one. The unblock request was ill-advised, to say the least, but more importantly, look at the comment that Colton had also restored: it was one that I had reverted earlier. I've brought this up to CC already; his response is somewhere in this thread, if you want to dig through it. As I said, I don't know that unblocking him anyway isn't a good idea, but it gives me pause, all the more so since, due to the nature of things, we can't really know what else he's done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've decided I'm going to stay out of this one. 28bytes (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Note to self (and talk page stalkers)

This new feature looks really handy: Special:Diff/595341040. Works in edit summaries, even. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Better than it was. But my main complaint has always been you have to know what the revision numbers are, and that's still the case. I don't know a way to do that beyond creating the diff and then looking at the url. I've often wished you could configure things to display the revision number inline in the page history, and also on the actual page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably someone's already written a handy script that lets you right-click on a URL, reformat that as a Special:Diff and copy it to your clipboard. If not, they ought to. 28bytes (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Its possible to do, it just requires someone to modify the CSS style sheet for the article history display. Try asking User:Equazcion. He's pretty good at that kind of stuff. Or User:Anomie of course. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like someone's already put in a feature request to make it popups-friendly, which would be handy. 28bytes (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be pretty easy to show diff numbers on each history line (either using JS or a mediawiki tweak). Also I've already got User:Equazcion/LiveDiffLink, which shows the full diff URL live while you tick history revisions. equazcion → 20:44, 13 Feb 2014 (UTC)

That looks helpful; I will check it out. Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Unified login Mawi.

I am an owner of a unified login Mawi. I would like to get acount Mawi at en.Wikipedia. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.176.211 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. The best way to request that is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please let me know if you run into any trouble. 28bytes (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And you wonder why I have a problem with BMK

Comments like this one, which was not directed at me BTW, are why I have a problem with BMK. It has nothing to do with his constant harassment of me, but in his disregard for manners and generally being a jerk to anyone and everyone he comes in contact with. No one noticed, no one cared and no one took action when he did it. Of course people are lining up to block me or look for a reason to ban me from the project and they completely disregard the real causes of the problem like BMK. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually nevermind, it might be directed at me afterall upon further review so since its me I guess that kind of comment is justified in the current Wikipedia environment. Actually, many encourage it if its directed at me so life is the way it should be. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's no secret you and BMK don't get along. I doubt blocks would fix that situation... wouldn't you agree? 28bytes (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes because I am the only one anyone has any interest in blocking. My problem with him has always been that he has always acted like that. His problem towards me is that I call him out on it and I am not afraid of him. Unfortunately, several admins have enabled his comments and stroked his ego by blocking others who complain about him including me. So now, he thinks he's untouchable. Anyway, nevermind. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just FTR, it was directed at the 88 IP who closed the AN/I thread I had opened, in which I asked for admin action. A non-admin should not close an AN/I which asks for admin action. He closed, I reverted with a polite explanation on his talk page, he reverted back. I decided I did not need commentary from such an editor on my talk page and removed it with that edit summary.

Kumioko has the tendency to believe that everything I do is about him, which is not the case. (For instance, he thought the "bad penny" at the top of my talk page was about him, when, in fact, it was about me - I was feeling a bit depressed at the time. Still, interesting that he thinks the shoe fits, it rather shows that he understands how disruptive he's being, but doesn't allow himself to know it.) He simply attracts my attention every now and then because of his abysmal behavior , and occasionally I try to get the community to do something about him, which they appear loathe to do. BMK (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well if it was directed at the 88 IP and not at me then it only emphasizes my point that you are abusive. As for the comment about Bad penny comment, the reason I felt it was directed at me is because we had several negative interactions with each other around that time and that is exactly the type of passive aggressive, snide commentary you commonly use to instigate and enflame discussions. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets see, setting aside completely all your comments and demeanor at me, which can easily be seen in your contrib history but that no one cares about, lets look at how you treat others shall we:

1. This comment directed at a new editor isn't a good way to treat people.
2. Referred to an ip editor as an asshole here
3. Your conduct that caused you to be turned in for edit warring here.
4. Then we have your block log here with the most recent one in January 2014.
5. and thats just a sampling of the last month. Every month shows more stuff just like this and its extremely rare to see an admin intervene. So for you to tell me I am a problem on this site is hypocritical to say the least. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of this thread? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather Kumioko and BMK hash out their grievances here than on a heavily-trafficked noticeboard. 28bytes (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; I will stand aside and let them do so, though I can't foresee whether they will succeed in hashing anything out, or instead will just make a hash of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I am done, as is the case of every other time I have mentioned his shenanigans its not taken seriously. Not that I really expected anything to come out of it mind you, I'm just tired of him running around acting like the victim when he is the instigator. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@28bytes: There's real nothing for us to "hash out". Kumioko thinks I'm abusive (but then, he has a very extensive list of people he thinks are abusive, so there's nothing particularly interesting or unique about that) and that Wikipedia would be better off without me. I think that he's a once productive editor who has, rather astoundingly, become essentially a troll, and is a now a net negative to the project. Many people agree with me, many do not, as shown by the community's failure to ban him recently. I'm absolutely certain that some people agree with Kumioko about me, but that's never crystallized into an attempt to indef block or ban me, and is unlikely to, I think.

So, never the twain shall meet, I'm afraid. I will simply have to try harder to just ignore Kumioko's disruptive misbehavior, and not feel compelled to comment on it. I shouldn't have done so in this thread, for instance, but, frankly, it's hard to not respond when someone goes around bad-mouthing you at every opportunity. (That's one significant difference between us: I rarely -- not never, but not very often -- mention him out of context, I generally respond to him, whereas he frequently brings me up when there's been no contact between us and no specific discussion about me.)

I suppose that's one thing that might help: an interaction ban between us. Kumioko doesn't really edit the encyclopedia anymore, so there'd be no potential for conflict there, but an IBAN would prevent him from mentioning me, and prevent me from responding, and vice versa. I would find that acceptable, as the vitriol and rancor coming at me is getting to be a little much. BMK (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think a voluntary IBAN is an excellent idea. I'm sure Kumioko would be willing to accept that olive branch... worrying about you talking about him probably raises his blood pressure as much as him talking about you raises yours. It's a big wiki, after all: plenty of things for you both to see and do without worrying about each other. 28bytes (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. BMK (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I recommend Unilateral interaction bans. NE Ent 09:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in an IBAN which is not mutual. BMK (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular problem accepting an IBAN, my only concern is that since both of us comment on a lot of the same things and have different views, it will amount to a who can get to the discussion first situation. With that said and as I have stated before I no longer believe that anyone cares what I say anyway and I feel that the community is disinterested in doing anything to the project that appears like a reform or would make the project better in anyway, so commenting on most discussions amounts to nothing more than a "I have said my peace" situation. So if someone wants to institute an IBAN, I can get by without mentioning BMK. With that said, I want it made clear that if I mention abusive editors or admins I am not referring specifically to him, so I shouldn't be banned or blocked "broadly construed" because some admin is looking for a reason to block me assuming I am referring to BMK indirectly. I would also suggest a time limit...say 6 months to start with the potential for an extention if it becomes necessary. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kumioko. I appreciate you being willing to do this. Let's give 6 months a try and go from there. I don't think it's strictly necessary for you to never comment in the same discussion, as long as you don't talk to or about each other. (But if you do want to skip discussions the other is already active in, that's certainly fine too.) 28bytes (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I will accept a 6 month mutual IBAN. I have one caveat - since Kumioko is currently using IPs to edit, I will work under the assumption that any IP which appears to me to be him is probably him, and avoid interaction with that IP. However, if it is unclear to me that any particular IP is Kumioko or not, I would like to be allowed to ask the simple and direct question "Are you Kumioko?" without having been deemed to have broken the ban. I hope that is acceptable.

I also suggest that 28bytes be the arbiter of the ban. BMK (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko, you OK with that? 28bytes (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I can ask the question"Are you Kumioko?" on the IP's talk page, and not in a more public place. BMK (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. For clarity I am trying to limit my edits more and more anyway so hopefully it will be unnecessary. Also, I will generally be using either the 108.45.104.158 IP or this one 138.162.8.(57.58 or 59) so if you see a different one such as the 88 one I mentioned above, it shouldn't be me. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks both; I will be happy to be the arbiter of the IBAN: just drop by my talk page anytime if there are any issues. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. BMK (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

TPS

(talk page stalker)So can I ask what the rest of us with a particle of interest in making an even marginally positive contribution to do when Kumioko, using multiple IPs, hijacks, forks, coatracks or otherwise disrupts discussions with their "the community has gone to Hell in a handcart since they failed to given me the Admin bauble that I deserve for making half a million bot edits" mantra? Can I "hat" such an irrelevant, off-topic, tangent? Yes, but I guarantee that one of his charmless Admin/Arbcom supporters will soon be along to reverse it and warn me off into the bargain. Surely mentoring or a talk page topic ban would be more appropriate. But that would need ANI, RFU/C or Arbcom., and no one is going to be willing to do that after the last shambles was closed, despite a consensus for action. Leaky Caldron 18:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, one thing at a time... let's get the discussion above settled first, then we can talk. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well Leaky, you could always do something to make the editing experience in Wikipedia more enjoyable or you could reform RFA or you could do any number of other things that would fix the problems I have been ranting about. If your not interested in doing anything except complain about how irrirating I am then I don't know what to say other than maybe that time could be better spent improving the project. If more people were interested in making the editing environment here better, then I wouldn't have much to complain about and might even start editing again. As long as I continue to see the majority of the frequent editors and admins more interested in banning their enemies, pushing POV and acting like A-holes with no admins or anyone doing anything about it, then I am likely to continue "complaining". 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is high time this self righteous screed was exposed. The fact is that this anti-establishment mantra only revealed itself following your second failed RfA. You so badly wanted the bauble that the failure of the community to gift it has resulted in bitterness and recrimination at every opportunity. It ill behoves you of all people to extol the need to make the editing experience in Wikipedia more enjoyable when you repeatedly and without shame disrupt RfAs and other interesting talk page discussions to repeatedly state your points about all that you perceive as bad. If you had the interest of the project at heart (and I'm not saying you should) you would register an account, contribute your best and help new editors, without the bitterness and rancour that we have seen for the last 2 years. Leaky Caldron 19:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, if you were familiar with my editing I have been an advocate for reform since I started editing back in 2007. Even then a lot of the current problems were visible but were only beginning. I didn't do anything then, partially thinking that others would take care of it and partially because I didn't want to get invovled. Unforutunately my complacency allowed these problems to fester because no one did anything. Now we are at a crisis point; people are leaving in herds, few are joining the ranks, the editing environment is getting mroe toxic as time goes on; backlogs grow because too few experienced people have access to the tools they need and that is because there is no longer any trust within this commmunity. I didn't cause any of that although I would agree that I haven't been able to stop it either. I would also note that I did, for several years, edit heavily. I did hundreds of thousands of edits, had multiple Featured content, a couple dozen GA's, restarted several WikiProjects, created a newsletter, restarted an article collaboration, several portals, created hundreds of articles, etc. You know what I got for trying to make the project better? Abuse from people who wanted to push POV and abuse other editors. Admins who were more interested in protecting their pet projects and article ownership, admins who wanted to delete every stub and article with no reference without hesitation and remourse. So I finally got tired of dealing with all the bullshit and decided to do something and stop sitting on my hands and waiting for others to do what they are clearly not interested in doing. Have I been effective? No, largley because the number of people who want to push POV and protect their pet articles and keep the system restricted so they can be the power, out number those who actually care about the projects success. Make no mistake about it, there are a number of admins who do not give a shit about this project outside their scope of interest. If you suppot them then that's too bad and you completely miss the point. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You are a far more effective content builder than you are a crusader for change. Please, go back to editing. Leaky Caldron 20:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that no one is "crusading" for change. If there were, I would leave it to them to do since I seem to be so ineffective. Since everyone seems so willing to go on without attempting to fix the myriad of problems here that we all know exists, I feel like I need to do something to try and make it better. If I fail then that's fine, but at least I am trying and not simply looking the other way at abuse and damage to the project. If the best that I can do is to raise awareness of the problems to the point where people are tired of hearing it, then that's fine, at least then the problems will be known. I would rather people hate me for trying than to love me for complacency which seems to be the case. A lot of people loved Hitler in his day and a lot of people hated Abraham Lincoln, look at history now. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Kumioko, there are ways of going about trying to change things that are far better than blundering in with a heavy machine gun and firing aimlessly at anyone who gets in your way. Content building in a positive manner is most definitely one of them, as is helping disassemble POV-pushing editors (which it doesn't seem like are usually your target). Self-crusading/crucifying is not one of them. If you are this upset with the way Wikipedia is run, either leave, or do something about it that involves improving it, not trying to break its foundations and destroy it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No wwe are way, way off the original topic here but if you want to talk about it some more I will be happy too. But are you 2 really that naive to think I didn't try being nice first? I did, for YEARS, no one cares like I said or at least too few. Any editor that tries to change the regime is shut down. The example has been made over and over and over. If you do not just say yes and nod your head and go along with the abuse and the problems, you are run off the site. I also did a ton of contributions and content work and again, you know where it got me? To where I am now. No one cares what you have done, only what you have done right now. I didn't get this fed up in one night, it happened over a period of years through repeated abuse by admins and editors who are allowed to violate policy without any response by admins. Everyone knows there are abusive admins on this site...its not just me saying it. Everyone knows RFA is a nightmare and most people know Arbcom is a joke these days. No one does anything about it largely because they feel helpless, don't really care or have seen enough editors get burned for trying that they are scared away. I am not afraid to stand up to the abuse and if that means I get banned from the project then so be it. I am also not trying to destroy anything, reforming RFA and the admin process isn't going to destroy anything nor is dealing with abusive admins and editors. I have also done more contributions than every other editor who has commented on this discussion combined times 2 and yet you all still keep complaining that I haven't done enough. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that you haven't done "enough" content creation, whatever that means, but look at it this way; the average reader doesn't give a shit about the bureaucracy, and they won't, until Jimbo or someone in the WMF is caught up in a massive scandal. Is it better to improve things for the reader, or for a small handful of editors that get affected by admin abuse? I am happy to speak out about admin abuse, but there's a time and a place, and a lot of your targets are not the worst offenders of the bunch, or are generally a "net positive" content-wise - BMK, for their faults (and everyone knows I've got enough of my own) is a net positive, for example. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's leave BMK out of this entirely, shall we? 28bytes (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

On the note the readers not caring, those average readers aren't editing as much as they used too and even veteran editors are walking away from the project. And don't mistake the knowledge level of those readers or dismiss their experiences with the project. For example, where I work it is well known that I used to edit a lot and I am still fairly frequently asked about the project. It stuns me how many people tell me that they attempted to edit and the shit they went through. Several showed me the specific cases and in almost all there was an admin involved that had wild interpretations of policy. All of these editors wanted to participate but were run off the project. This is occurring for a lot of reasons but a major one is that there is no trust in the community, that is caused from a handful of abusive admins being allowed to run roughshot over the project with no consequences. Other admins that could help change it don't, they see it and just look away. I completely agree some admins and editors are better than others and that is just life. But when abusive use of the tools is just ignored and then people see that, they eventually get tired of it and walk away. That is the point I have been trying to make an that needs to e fixed. We do not have enough editors and its getting worse. More people know what its like than don't and they are telling their friends to stay away...Myself included! 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This charmless non-admin / non-arb encourages you to ignore the diatribe and respond the valid portions of the edit. (Alternatively, you could ask K to sign their post at the beginning so you can know to skip it, as one editor recently did.)NE Ent 03:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Usurp request

Hey 28, could I get you to take a look at my request at WP:CHUU? xeno has requested some more crat input on it. It would make a great present for my weekend if you could make it happen. :) — Scott • talk 16:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. 28bytes (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

afc

You seem to have deleted under G13, the AfC Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Khan Bahadur, not noticing I had previously had removed the g13 tag, as I did not consider it hopeless. . I know I could restore it myself, but I am generally prefer to the deleting admin. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG. I have restored it per your request. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

While DGG claims this is not hopeless nothing has happened and at appears no one is interested so nothing will happen. My G13 is a valid request. The creating editor has made no edits to anything for 11 months. It should go unless, DGG is going to fix it. I don't have the knowledge for this. DGG posted some advise on my talk page and I have replied there. ww2censor (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the two of you have got it sorted; let me know if you need me to do anything further. 28bytes (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

ygm

NE Ent 03:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Another example of at least borderline abusive admin actions

This is another example of at least a borderline abuse of the admin tools. I left a comment on a users talk page and Jehochman semi protects the page so IP's (namely me) cannot edit it and then they refer to me as a sockmaster knowing that editing from an IP isn't socking and knowing who I was. If he would have done that to an admin, he would have been taken straight to ANI. But because it was me, no one gives a shit. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kumioko. You'll have to forgive Jehochman if he doesn't recognize which IPs belong to whom. I find it pretty hard to keep track of myself. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I just sent you an email explaining that but I do not agree about the comment about Jehochman, he knows its me and continues to insinuate I am socking just to irritate me. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As a general comment, if you've got a disagreement with Jehochman, I'm probably not the best person to mediate that. If you and he can't work things out, you may want to see if another editor you trust would be willing to help resolve things. (I don't recommend going the noticeboard route, for obvious reasons.) 28bytes (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Rat Race (video game)

Is this video game notable? Is there a possible merge target? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks notable enough to me; a quick Google search revealed a half dozen reliable sources discussing it. I'll note those sources at the AfD. 28bytes (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess that makes you...

a cock blocker... Anyway, thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Glad to be of service. 28bytes (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A newer needs help

Hello 28bytes, I am a just user named "Smsrehmat". On the Wikipedia:List of administrators/A-F, I found you first therefore I straightly come to you for some help. I need some help.

1. My user page has not been yet created. I need some helps to how can I creat it and what are the rules.
2. There is an other user name Smsarmad . His user name is little like me. He is using the signature as only initials (SMS) only. Please advice him to use his complete signature so that other user should not be confused that who is "Smsrehmat" and who is "Smsarmad" thanks. - SMSRehmat (Talk) 17:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Smsrehmat, and welcome. The userpage guidelines can be found here: Wikipedia:User pages. Regarding signatures, you may wish to fix your signature before advising others to change theirs; the orange part of your signature links to User:Smsarmad, not User:Smsrehmat. I would recommend fixing that as soon as possible to avoid confusing people. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Improved

Ok improved, i improved my signature. But people will readily confused when "Smsarmad" will use only "SMS". I recommend to advice him. - SMSRehmat (Talk) 06:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. As for Smsarmad, you are welcome to politely request that he change his signature, but if he declines to do so, I would recommend letting it be. 28bytes (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested

As your saying above, I request him to change the signature. But he does not yet reply on his talk page. I think he would busy in real life. - SMSRehmat (Talk) 18:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, I add "Picture of the day" on my user page when I read about WP:POTD. Now my user page became beautiful. - SMSRehmat (Talk) 18:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

SMS name issue

Hello 28bytes, more from above, there are many users having usernames starting from SMS.watch here.

Moreover, this user created a non-registered user's page and talk page named "SMS" here and here. The creation log of User:SMS did not found

I recommend to first advice him to change the sign and second to the speedy deletion of the redirects. Thanks - SMSRehmat (Talk) 18:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be much, much better for you to focus on improving article content than to spend time worrying about other users' signatures. 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain?

How was it not a BLP violation? The text from the policy that I saw would indicate that it was a violation. Northern Antarctica (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Really, NA? Do you really think that the BLP policy prevents anyone on Wikipedia from expressing a negative opinion about another person? C'mon, man. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Northern Antarctica, I don't think I can put it any better than Drmies did. 28bytes (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, but I'm not going to make any more trouble over it for now. Northern Antarctica (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Bird still flaps

Amazing, Talk:Flappy Bird, page views and all, including edit request ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor Name Change

Hello, Mr. 28 bytes!

I'm here to request a minor username change,
can you make "Monochrome Monitor" lower-case? It just looks friendlier to me.

Thanks,

—monochrome_monitor 15:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. The user "Monochrome Monitor" has been renamed to "Monochrome monitor". The software forces the initial letter to be uppercase, but you can user Template:lowercase title on your user page to make it appear in all lowercase if you like. 28bytes (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but the move broke my contributions. Is there a way I can get the old contribs back? Monochrome Monitor (talk)

Log out, then log back in as user:monochrome monitor, and you will see your old contributions. 28bytes (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Is it also possible to suppress the redirect notice?

--monochrome_monitor 02:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ignore that last bit, it all got fixed when I logged out. Thanks for your help! --monochrome_monitor 02:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Warren Cuccurullo

So, I noticed that you removed all reference to Cuccurullo's pornographic career... the information just isn't there anymore. Why was this done and what prompted it? I understand some of the information may have been poorly sourced but there's literally no trace of that portion of Cuccurullo's career on the page now. 23.28.43.231 (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. What prompted the removal was the fact that it was badly sourced. A picture of a dildo from some website just doesn't cut it as a reliable source reference, especially in an article about a living person. If you can find sources that meet WP:RS, we can discuss restoring some of that info, but in the absence of quality sources, it has to stay out, per our WP:BLP policy. Hope that helps. 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lowercase proper names or pseudonyms

Category:Lowercase proper names or pseudonyms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Username change request

Request to change my username from my real name Ngonadi in order to prevent harassment to Onyxnoa. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngonadi (talk • contribs) 13:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with edits

Hi i am not sure if you can help me but I don't know where to ask There is 2 people who keep editing the UFC Ultimate Fighter nations final and UFC list of events pages To an incorrect title I keep reverting back but so do they what can I do and one sent me this sarcastic comment Out of the blue you decide that you hold the truth about the articles?) Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, I should note that I've added a sarcastic comment of my own. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Restore (temporarily)

Could you please temporarily restore the following: User:RachelRice/Sandbox, User:RachelRice/A, User:RachelRice/B, User:RachelRice/C, User:RachelRice/D, User:RachelRice/E, User:RachelRice/G, User:RachelRice/H, User:RachelRice/I, User:RachelRice/J, User:RachelRice/O, User:StarzInHerEyes/sandbox, User:StarzInHerEyes/A, User:StarzInHerEyes/B, User:StarzInHerEyes/C, User:StarzInHerEyes/D, User:StarzInHerEyes/E, User:StarzInHerEyes/F, so I can move them to my own wiki? I spent a lot of time on these pages! Thanks --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 11:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have requested this to the administrator who deleted the page, with no luck – he told me to ask somebody else. --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 11:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

British Aircraft Company Drone

Why can't I open a re-direct to this article?--Petebutt (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• There are several redirects. Which one cannot you open? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Transreality gaming

Intruder Alert!!! I came across this as I was working through some AfC submissions. Not sure if it's already covered in an existing article? Seems cool. Thought you might be interested or able to help sort out how best to handle the subject matter. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I also took MuchDifferent live. Game Over Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Super Smash Flash (series), notable? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Archiving note

To the folks who left messages here that I have not answered: sorry if my unannounced absence has caused any inconvenience. Hopefully another admin was able to assist you while I was away, but if not, please feel free to leave another message here and I will try to help you if I can! 28bytes (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for handling my speedy. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) 28bytes (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Blue men

Thanks for dealing with my user request to delete the user draft for Blue men of the Minch. I moved it to (hopefully) replace a re-direct that existed but when I try to search on 'Blue men of the Minch' I'm still taken to the re-direct that goes to 'Hebridean mythology and folklore'. Have I done it incorrectly or do I need to request for something else to be deleted? I'm used to moving drafts to main space but have never tried to do it as a replacement for re-direct before, sorry ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I can see how that would be confusing; the Wikimedia software allows multiple casing variants to exist for a given phrase, so Blue Men of the Minch can indeed point to something other than Blue men of the Minch. I've fixed it now, so it points to the right place. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant - thank you! SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help! 28bytes (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

UFC page

Hi, UFC Fight Night: Henderson vs. Khabilov needs protecting from IP addresses vandalism ASAP. Cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Kelapstick has taken care of it. 28bytes (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes thank you anyway, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Song for you II

Do you remember that I dedicated my expansion of Erschallet, ihr Lieder to you when you seemed gone? It's on the Main page now, and the Lieder are much happier with you back! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda. :) 28bytes (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I may have unknowningly EC'ed you

Hi 28 -

I've found recently that sometimes I get unannounced editconflicts, and it looks like I just deleted your support vote in one such editconflict. I would normally just restore it, but was headed to your talk page anyway, both to thank you for archiving some of that mess, and to encourage you compare the wording in the source against the wording Alf has suggested. I initially supported Alf's position as reasonable, but upon comparing it to what the only reliable source to even cover this says, it goes substantially beyond what can be supported imo. Feel free to restore your support of course, I just figured I'd leave you a note here instead of doing it myself since I was on the way over anyway. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. My support was an attempt to encourage what looked like an emerging compromise between the two sides, but since that compromise is (at the moment) no longer operative, I'll just hold off on re-adding it until and unless it looks like some progress is being made towards a consensus. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Just as a note, but a couple other people have readded your support vote, so you may want to remove it if you would in fact prefer it removed. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't much matter either way at this point, I suppose. I still like the idea of a compromise, so I don't mind having the "support" on the record there, but it looks like a compromise is not in the cards (right now at least). 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

RfA talk page

Thanks for deleting. I should have known better than to feed the troll. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. 28bytes (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Log question

Resolved

How can I determine when and why an editor lost admin rights? If it happened after the date 'crats could do it, I assume I will see it in the user rights log, but if it happened prior to 2011 (and after 2004), I assume it was a steward action, not recorded in the en wiki log. While the user rights log hints that I can find it in meta user rights log, I tried looking for WODUP, I do not see an entry. The en user rights log notes the re-sysop in July of 2008, but I do not see when the right was lost or given up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Try this. LFaraone 15:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what I did wrong.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Name Change Favor (again...)

So, yeah. Can I change my name again (last change was minimal, making "monitor" lowercase.) Can you change it to "Crackotage"? Per the Cheat Commando?

Thanks, your humble servant,

--monochrome_monitor 02:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there's already a User:Firebert. 28bytes (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Dammit. And there's a Firebert too. I'll get back to you on that one.

--monochrome_monitor

While you're here, you don't need the {{Template:lowercase title}} in your signature; you can just change your signature to monochrome_monitor and it will work fine. 28bytes (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Right. Thanks!

--monochrome_monitor 20:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Here we go. Can you change my name to "Nebulon"? --monochrome_monitor 01:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That one is taken too, I'm afraid. 28bytes (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs

Excuse me, are you available for contributing to the Sleeping Dogs (video game) page? It's almost at GA. Contact me if yes. URDNEXT (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I might not have time to do too much with it, but sure, I'll take a look. 28bytes (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Question/help

A user (Andrzejbanas) who believes to be arbitrator keeps undoing my genre edit in an album page, as he does not want them included in the page. What do you recommend? --Lpdte77 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I opened a new section on the talk page of the band's album, and we've been back and forth on it. He is now rummaging through the band's page, album and single pages and removing and/or editing a bunch of statements on them, claiming no citation. --Lpdte77 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Garbage, one of my favorite bands. Starting a discussion on the talk page, as you've done, is a very good first step to resolving the disagreement. I recommending holding off on any genre edits to the band, album or song pages until there's some consensus one way or another on the talk page. 28bytes (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. A consensus on which genres to add isn't the problem, this user has a messiah complex, believes to be arbitrator, ordering people around, and removing a bunch of contributions from editors on Garbage pages claiming unsourced information. In fact, much of information written on old artist pages in particular can't be properly directly cited or re-cited, primarily because links don't exist/work anymore or information isn't formally available because it's old or whatnot. This user just came on this band's page, consistently reverting edits, disrupting and removing things, acting the alpha editor. Surely, as I read here when I joined, that this behavior and approach to editing is against Wiki tos and dissuades other users from contributing to Wiki. --Lpdte77 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It can be annoying when someone removes perfectly accurate information from an article, but the best solution is to find a reliable source that backs up that information, so that it can be restored without controversy. (Or at least, less controversy.) Don't assume someone has a messiah complex; assume instead that they are trying to improve the article in their own way. They have no more (and no less) authority to add or remove text from an article than you, me, or any other editor. The best way to ensure text isn't removed from an article is to make sure that reliable sources support that text. Have you had any luck finding such sources? That's the first step, whenever there's a dispute. 28bytes (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

His removal of information is not primarily why I said he does, but largely his attitude in his edit summaries and replies in the talk page; the manner in which he's approached and continues to approach this.

"They have no more (and no less) authority to add or remove text from an article than you, me, or any other editor" - exactly, that's my point. He thinks he does. He removed my edit of indie rock and downtempo on the genres multiple times, ultimately saying it's not cited. Then he started removing a bunch of information from multiple pages, however he then put in the the first genre as pop, with no citation. I told him essentially what you stated here, and that he needs to put it up for discussion at least, and I removed the first genre, for the same reason he removed the ones I'd added, along with the fact that the album has always from the beginning been cited as primarily an alternative rock record, which he knows as he researched and again cited the genre alternative rock. Everything points to him being biased, having a personal agenda here. Please take a look at his edit behavior and the talk page. He's still doing it.

It should be clear It's not a problem with the asking for sources I have, but the with the way he's going about it primarily. No, the stuff he's removed I didn't contribute, only the genres really. Yes out of the many, many references available online I put forward one on the talk page when he ordered me to "go find the quality sources"; But then he ignored it and clearly did his own searching as he cited a different source, which suits his agenda because it also includes the word pop. He's added it again after I removed it, and If i remove it again, he'll added it again. Like I said, users like him are why I (and I know it's the same for others) barely contribute on wiki anymore. He just put what he wanted, reverts any edit, and has no care for putting it up for discussion --Lpdte77 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Garbage genres

Hi again. I would like your input on the latest discussion on Talk:Garbage_(band)#Genres if you don't mind. Note: As you can see, it is again the same contentious user that constantly reverts, and objects to other contributions that disagree with his point of view & agenda. --Lpdte77 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you: as I said, I'm a big Garbage fan, but I've really got no interest in either participating in or mediating a discussion about what genre(s) the band should be listed under. If you're looking for an administrator to "do something" about Andrzejbanas for reverting your changes, I'm afraid I can't help you. Provide solid sources for your proposed genre changes on the talk page, get other interested editors to agree (it doesn't have to be unanimous), and you'll have much better luck with the changes you want to make than accusing your opponent of being an "alpha editor", "having an agenda", etc., etc. Trust me on this. 28bytes (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No I'm looking for multiple editors' input on the points in the discussion (for a consensus). I only noted that because I'd previously mentioned Andrzejbanas' actions as a disruptive editor to you and he is a part of it on the talk page. Actually, his recent objection/reverts concerns cited material, and it's not unfounded accusation when his disruptive actions as editor epitomize those terms. Anyway, it's fine if you want to contribute there. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Bubblegumprincesspoop6

Please block this account. Her username violates the username policy, and she is a vandalism-only account. 108.210.219.182 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Not much point in blocking that one; they haven't edited since January. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again.

Can you change my name to "Homsar"? I looked and it didn't appear taken, which was quite odd. --monochrome_monitor 03:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that one's taken too. [2] You can file a usurp request if you want; I expect it would be granted since that account's not made any edits. 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

hi

could you do the page "List of Turkic dynasties and countries" protected, those who are not logged destroys only.Mehmeett21

I don't have time to look at the moment; try posting to WP:RFPP, you should get a quicker response there. 28bytes (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

okey thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you add a diff?

I found the post by Eloquence, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteforsyth&diff=prev&oldid=616427707.

While not hard to find, given the important nature of the issue, I think the diff should be included in the Case request. I note that it has been removed from the talk page, and while regulars won't find it hard to find, I think it would be polite to make it easier, by providing a diff.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Credo

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert name to Monochrome Monitor

Hello... again. Could you revert my name back to "Monochrome Monitor". The caps difference has been bothering me a lot. Thanks, as always! --monochrome_monitor 05:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. The user "Monochrome monitor" has been renamed to "Monochrome Monitor". 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Page review

Hi, I'm working on an article in spanish, and at the same time translating it in English, can you check it out in my Sandbox? Thanks for your attention. User:FMateos/sandbox --FMateos (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi FMateos. It appears to be well-formatted, but as I am not a Spanish speaker I cannot determine whether the sources used follow our reliable source guidance, which would tell us whether the topic would be appropriate to include in mainspace. You may try the Teahouse; they should be able to help you find a bilingual editor who can help evaluate those sources and thus the article as a whole. Good luck! 28bytes (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Happy bureaucratship anniversary!!

Wishing 28bytes/Archive 45 a very happy bureaucratship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Anastasia (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Singing your praises also! A day later was my user's birthday, as its infobox kindly told me. A day later, colourful creatures followed a blue duck around the world ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

:) 28bytes (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

hope over experience

pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version will be posted after 11 August; you are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, 28bytes. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. NorthAmerica1000 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiSnap Challenge

Hello 28bytes:

Wikipedia is holding a contest called the WikiSnap Challenge
The goal of this drive is to eliminate poor stub articles with not so much as a picture or info box. The contest starts on the 3rd of April and continues until a winner is declared.

Awards will be given out for all participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the contest.

Thanks. NickGibson3900 (talk) NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, 28bytes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Open-door policy

You and several others have remarked on Jimbo's "open-door policy" at the Arb request. Only thing is, AFAIK he's never said he has one. I said so, once, but when I tried to remove my statement after events proved it to be incorrect, I was reverted and accused of personal attacks. So it stands, and it really shouldn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I said (or meant to say, anyway) that if Jimbo were to say he had an open-door policy, people ought to respect that. And if he doesn't, people ought to respect that as well. I agree with you that he probably doesn't have an open door policy (there are at least a handful of non-banned editors he's asked not to post there again, for one thing) but a clear statement one way or another would help, I'd think. 28bytes (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo is out of touch with the day to day operating of the entity he founded. Sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 04:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

he was in touch here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Stale userspace drafts

Hello User:28bytes, I am working my way through Category:Stale Userspace drafts and nominating stale drafts for deletion. You have several drafts which are at User:28bytes/List of songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics, User:28bytes/List of Top 40 instrumentals, User:28bytes/List of Top 40 songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics, User:28bytes/NANP and User:28bytes/Religion, Inc. (film). Some of these have not been edited in 3+ years. Will you be working on these in future? Or should I nominate them for deletion. Can you please advise. Thank you, PNGWantok (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, User:28bytes/NANP is not a draft, it's more of a sandbox: it's not intended to be an article, just some userspace notes and format testing. I've un-tagged it as a draft; I'm not sure why I tagged it that way in the first place. As for the others, I may work on them some more at some point. Wikipedia:There is no deadline and all that. 28bytes (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:28bytes, I will skip those drafts. I noticed you are an administrator on Wikipedia. Can you please give me some advice on another draft. User:2tall4u2/Vivicca Whitsett has not been worked on for almost 2 years. An article exists at Vivicca Whitsett. I noticed another draft I nominated had a history merge done. How do I request the same thing to be done on this draft? Thank you, PNGWantok (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In general the instructions at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves are the best route to getting a history merge performed, but in this specific case you could probably just redirect the draft to Vivicca Whitsett since the author is the same. 28bytes (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users

Dear 28bytes,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Account usurping

Hi, i'm a user from italian Wiki (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Ptolemaios). I would usurpe Ptolemaios' account in your Wiki; it seems to be never used since registration in 2008. Can you ask the user if he want to hold the name and, if not, to make it available for me? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.144.68.11 (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I can help you out with that. I'm about to step out for a couple of hours but I will follow up on this when I return. 28bytes (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. You should be all set to use your SUL on English Wikipedia. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--Ptolemaios (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help! 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Usurping the thread to repeat hope, on an aniversary, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ps: I derived move in harmony from Move Like This, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The creatures will follow the blue duck on 2 September ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Orr in German was moved without a redirect, - I don't know if you make any reference to him. The creatures were well recieved so far, the stats = Abrufstatistik are on the bottom of the page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC#Statement by 28bytes "So my questions for the committee do not include "do they have the power to do this" (yes, they do), but rather:"

How very Charles I of you:

"by what Authority, I mean, lawful; there are many unlawful Authorities in the world, Thieves and Robbers by the highways: but I would know by what Authority I was brought from thence, and carried from place to place, (and I know not what), and when I know what lawful Authority, I shall answer"

Said during his first statement during his High Treason trial

-- PBS (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite. Likely no less futile of a protest now as then, but it will be interesting to see how things turn out. 28bytes (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case has been suspended for sixty days and to be subsequently closed. In the intervening period, the case may be re-activated either at the request of the committee or if fresh issues arise following a successful request at ARCA. The motion notes the following:

• Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia while an arbitration case was pending and may only regain administrative rights on their personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship. This does not prevent them from holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account.
• From 15 September 2014, the WMF will require require staff to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts respectively, with work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
• The WMF aims to improve working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 00:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Sections on Nancy Drew game pages.

Hello 28bytes. Many of the Nancy Drew game pages (maybe all I'm not sure) Does not have the "Fatal Errors" or "Easter Eggs" or "References to other Nancy Drew games" sections like before. Do you know why they have been deleted? And can you undo the deletion of the sections? Answer please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.110.49 (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I had no idea there were so many video games based on Nancy Drew! For the specific pages you're talking about, it looks like User:Woodroar has been performing the removals, so your best bet is to stop by that editor's talk page to discuss it. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection Puerto Madero Street Circuit

Dear 28bytes:

Protection request page Puerto Madero Street Circuit On the subject of the image File:Buenos Aires Formula e.svg changed by File:Puerto Madero Formula E Circuit.png lower quality made by the user Michieliosios.

Thank you very much.

Girardelli G.Escucho 21:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid we don't protect articles over content disagreements. You will need to reach an agreement with the other editor, or if you are not able to come to an agreement, seek a third opinion. Good luck, 28bytes (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

request for meditation

Dear 28 bytes

I hope you are doing well. Could you please come and mediate between us me and the user Middayexpress. I am afraid that we reached a dead end regarding the clans that lives in the regions of SSC of Somalia.

here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khatumo_State#SSC_clans

best regards217.164.179.36 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

List of banned users MfD

Hi 28bytes. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Two Moves

Hi, 28bytes! I have been waiting for the page "Wonder Pets" (which is not the topic's true title) to be moved to "Wonder Pets!" for quite some time (I have started a discussion on the matter on the page's talk page and most Wikipedians feel that the move is necessary), and I am unable to do so because the target (Wonder Pets!) already exists as a redirect. When I try to manually move the page, it will not do so. I was wondering if you, as you are an admin, could please delete the target so that it can be moved.

Also, the page "Max and Ruby" is protected so that it cannot be moved, but the true title of the show is "Max & Ruby" (with an ampersand). Could you please also move this to its correct name or allow autoconfirmed users to move it?

Thanks! - Momsandy (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. It looks like discussion is still ongoing on the Wonder Pets talk page, so I think it would be best to wait until the discussion is properly closed before making any moves. I see that User:NawlinWiki move-protected Max and Ruby, so perhaps you could check with him about that. 28bytes (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice on the move-protection for Max & Ruby - it helped a lot, and NawlinWiki ended up moving it. I will wait for the discussion on Wonder Pets! to be closed, but I did want to know if you could tell me your input on the matter (whether or not the page should be moved) so that I can hear from more than just the people already on the discussion. Thanks again! Momsandy (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrative assistance requested

Hello, 28bytes,

I'm a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, and I'm a bit confused by a deletion proposal. It was suggested (by the person who nominated the page for deletion) that I contact an administrator, and as you are interested in music matters, I've chosen you after the briefest of searches.

The page in question is D. W. Cooper, and the AfD page is consequently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. W. Cooper. Since I don't quite understand what is going on, I would like to ask you to review the conversation on the latter page—and, of course, the article itself. Then perhaps you can advise me what I should do.

Is all this appropriate? If not, I'd be grateful for an alternative suggestion or additional guidance. As I say, I'm a bit of a novice.

Many thanks in advance for your advice. Wfbrooks (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wfbrooks. I took a brief look at the references section, and what I see there (census data, directories, a copyright lawsuit settlement) does not seem to establish notability, but merely that Mr. Cooper did exist and worked as a music publisher. If you have accesses to sources that cover his life and work in greater detail, presenting them at the deletion discussion would be your best bet for keeping the article where it is. Particularly valuable would be sources that describe his work as critically praised, popular or otherwise significant. Otherwise, I can userfy the article as another editor suggested, which basically means it's moved from the encyclopedia proper to a "sandbox area" where you can work on it. Let me know. 28bytes (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, and thanks also to the two people who responded on the deletion page. One directed me to Wikipedia:Notability (music), which I didn't know about and which is very useful, though not in this case because there are guidelines for songs, composers, lyricists, albums and so forth—but not for publishers. Whoever does these things might consider adding a section to cover that. (I also had the sense that the guidelines are really directed at music of, say, the past fifty years, and might need adjustment for earlier periods.) As for the matter at hand, articles about Cooper are in trade journals of the time (The New York Clipper, Variety, and so forth)—essentially specialist periodicals primarily devoted to news, not critical interpretation. Are these pertinent, or are they irrelevant to notability? If irrelevant, the article is best deleted; if pertinent, I can include some more in the citations (at present I include only the one Clipper article). There's little point in using a "sandbox", I think, as there is no reason to think I have missed extant material, and simple editing won't resolve anything. One question (remember, I'm new to this!) concerns articles that link to D. W. Cooper—primarily the composers and lyricists who were published by him. If the article is deleted, will those links be removed? And if so, is there any way to direct interested readers to information about the publisher? Wfbrooks (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the trade journals of the time are definitely relevant to notability. If you have additional citations of that nature, by all means present them. What do these trade journals say about Mr. Cooper? Are they just mentions in passing, or is there something more substantive there? If the latter, I think you could make a strong case that Mr. Cooper meets the general notability guideline. Include, if you can, (brief) quotes from the sources that discuss Mr. Cooper. The more independent sources that discuss him and his publishing, and the more in-depth those source go, the better your odds. Incidentally, I think you are right that many of our guidelines focus heavily on the more recent. 28bytes (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. Most references are to the music Cooper published, with occasional remarks about his business deals. They don't go much beyond news: "D. W. Cooper has sold the song to Joseph Stern, who is certain he has got the better bargain, as it is sure to be a hit"—that sort of thing. But perhaps there are one or two that focus on Cooper himself. I'd have to check. The case does not seem convincing to me, now that I'm getting a sense of what is required. But (last rant, I promise!) I don't think what is required is quite right for music publishing in its heyday (1880–1925). For a song composer, it would seem, "notability" is demonstrated by the importance or popularity of the songs produced—at least that seems to be the advice at Wikipedia:Notability (music). That's as it should be, I think—but why is that not also the case for a publisher? Cooper is a good example; the songs he issued are noteworthy for (a) their topicality and importance to local (Boston) culture and musicians, (b) their cover art, which is unusual in using local images and artists, and (c) their creation by important composers and lyricists who got their start with him. If Cooper (a publisher) were treated analogously to a composer, those would constitute a pretty compelling case, I'd think—even if he himself were not discussed at length in secondary publications or trade journals.

Anyway, I really can't do any work on this article for the next week or so—I'm buried in a recording studio for twelve hours a day right now. So if you think including more trade references of the sort I've described would make make the article viable, let's put it in my sandbox. Over the next month I would then rewrite it with more citations and a slightly different focus. If you don't think that makes any difference, let's delete it. If you choose the sandbox route, do I then contact you again when the article has been reworked? Wfbrooks (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wfbrooks. Per your comments I went ahead and userfied the article to give you time to work on it without the threat of deletion. It is now here: User:Wfbrooks/D. W. Cooper. Regarding your comments Cooper is a good example; the songs he issued are noteworthy for (a) their topicality and importance to local (Boston) culture and musicians, (b) their cover art, which is unusual in using local images and artists, and (c) their creation by important composers and lyricists who got their start with him.: if you can incorporate some reliable sources (from any century) that attest to those facts into the article, I think you will have a great shot at withstanding any further deletion challenges once the article is moved back to mainspace. Take your time, and if you have any further questions I may be able to help with, feel free to ask! Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Look at a bot

Hi 28bytes. I was recommended to approach you by User:Mark Arsten, as he said you are knowledgable about bots. I was hoping someone with bot knowledge could investigate Theo's Little Bot's Task 22 (to populate data on film articles that utilize {{Rotten Tomatoes score}}). The bot has not made a positive contribution to a template subpage since April 17, 2014, with the few attempts at the end of August/early September 2014 producing the template's error message. I have personally created a template subpage for use on a film page (Guardians of the Galaxy (film)), in hopes of intially "kickstarting" the bot to come by, but soon realized that I would have to manually update it (as seen in the edit history). I have attempted to contact the bot's owner, Theopolisme, as well as Technical 13 as they have previously helped with the template/bot, but did not receive any answer from either. I'm hoping you could maybe look into the bot's operation, the code, and how the task is being executed, to find out if the bot is the problem, or possibly Rotten Tomatoes' API has changed, preventing the bot from working as it needs to. This bot was really helpful for updating this data, and it will be a shame (though not the end of the world) if the task no longer works. Thanks in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm on the road at the moment, but I should have a chance to look into this for you tonight. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Really appreciate it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I see the errors that you are talking about, and I see that the source code is available, but unfortunately I do not have the time this week to dig through it to figure out what's wrong. Have you tried emailing Theopolisme? Ultimately he'll need to make any needed changes. 28bytes (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I did email them, and they did not respond. After I gave it possibly about a week for a response, I took my request to WP:VPT, WP:BON and WT:FILM, but failed to gain a response from these locations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, you've gone to all the right places. At some point it might be necessary to request a replacement bot if Theopolisme's not available to answer queries about his bot. You'd probably want to give it at least a few more weeks first, though. Other than trying to track Theopolisme down on IRC (which you may have already done), unfortunately I'm not sure what else to suggest. 28bytes (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for all you did though! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, how are you? Awesome work on your bureaucrat rights! --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 20:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

28bytes, I said "how are you?" and how long you've been actively edit on Wikipedia? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Doing just fine, thanks. I've been here on and off since about 2006. 28bytes (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy rename

Hi @28bytes. Thanks for your swift action on my username change request, I really appreciate the quick response. Cheers! Barny 04:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi I would like to delete the revision history of my page Praveen Anidil.Hope you do the needful soon. (Minnettu (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC))

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've undeleted that. Only the page history was asked to be deleted, for privacy reasons that have since been resolved, not the entire article. Huon (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. 28bytes (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dab quotes

Template:Dab quotes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

hi, i would like to add a page of popular artist in our city named prajyot mahajan, i would like to know the steps how a page can be made on him stating about the biography of the artist.

Regards, Fredrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredrickEllifsen (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fredrick. You may find Wikipedia:Your first article to be helpful. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is another important page to familiarize yourself with, as the quantity and quality of reliable source references will be key to establishing notability. Good luck, 28bytes (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 11#Category:Awesome Wikipedians

I don't see how you closed this as no consensus. XfD is not a vote, and none of the keep !votes had any basis in policy whatsoever. Please reconsider your close and at least relist it, otherwise I will strongly consider taking this to DRV. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Two weeks is sufficient time for editors to weigh in in a deletion discussion, and no one had weighed in since the 20th (five days ago), so I don't see a compelling reason to relist it. Discounting the copied-and-pasted boilerplate !vote on the delete side and the "I like it" !votes on the keep side, we're left with the argument (on the delete side) that it violates WP:USERCAT by being a "joke" category, and the assertion (on the keep side) that it has "help[ed] the esteem and morale of good wikipedia editors, and hence the quality of this encyclopedia". Neither of those positions is unreasonable, but neither of them really got enough support to say that consensus was reached. 28bytes (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because an editor is copy/pasting xfd rationales between different xfds does not make it invalid. The fact that it doesn't help build the encyclopedia is a very valid and policy based rationale. Additionally, the lone keep rationale you considered is a very weak one. By that same logic literally anything on the encyclopedia, whether or not it actually helps build the encyclopedia, could be kept simply because it "helps the esteem and morale of editors." That's a very dangerous precedent to set, and as such I'll be taking this to DRV. VegaDark (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try getting rid of barnstars, cups of tea, and cookies after that Vega. INeverCry 02:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

For user categories? Already done. I have an extensive history of taking out the trash when it comes to user categories and this category is no different. Each segment on Wikipedia has their own policies and guidelines, and user categories abides by WP:USERCAT, I'm simply trying to enforce it by this action. If various other areas have their own policies and guidelines to tell them what type of stuff is allowed, then by all means that can be followed (which allows for barnstars, cups of tea, and the like). VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Since 28bytes wants to discount (i.e., not count) people's opinions, he or she should expect his or hers to be ignored as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, what exactly do you mean by that? Are you announcing a threat to retaliate for this CfD closure not going your way? That's not really behavior I would expect from an admin. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@VegaDark: I was taken aback to see the hostile comment above from Carlossuarez46, so I took a look at his talk page, where I see you have canvassed him. A look at your other recent contributions shows that you did not bother to similarly notify the "keep" commenters whose !votes I told you I gave less weight to. Notifying one side of a deletion debate is not really on, you know. I don't know what it is about this category that is making two otherwise respected administrators behave so poorly. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with alerting an editor that a closing admin has determined their participation was not worth counting based on reasons that I feel aren't backed by policy. I did not point him to the DRV nor contact any other participants of the CFD, keep or delete. I don't consider that canvassing at all. VegaDark (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Awesome Wikipedians

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Awesome Wikipedians. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you will do what you do

Hello 28bytes. Is usurpation a process that you are comfortable doing?—John Cline (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I can help you out with that. 28bytes (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be able to use simpler procedure, as the appropriateness should be self evident. I lost control of User:My76Strap irretrievably. It should qualify to be usurped by its light history, and the account's previous status as a valid alt can be seen in the diffs as well. I don't know how it gets done, or if you need more information, but if you've got what you need, will you get me back in control of this alternate account? Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order, so I went ahead and usurped the account for you. You should be able to re-register it now. Please let me know if you run into any problems. 28bytes (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes sir, everything was and is in full repair. I am good to go and thank you for all you have done. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Glad to be of service. 28bytes (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Special thanks for changing my username. Night Fury (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! 28bytes (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on noticeboard

28bytes Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct way to request comment from another admin, but I'm not satisfied with the unfair & misleading manner in which an admin has evaluated my report on edit warring/enabled the reported user's behavior, and I'd like for another admin to give their input (please take note of the comments section, and the primary issue). I'd really appreciate it, and please let know the correct way to go about it if this isn't.--Lpdte77 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lpdte77. The recommendations offered by Acalamari and 5 albert square are sound; I don't have much to add beyond what they've said. Good luck, 28bytes (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A request for your time and consideration

Hello, 28bytes, I was refered to you by Acalamari for your good judgement and participation at WP:AN. I've made an appeal to the AN board that has gone unattended by an uninvolved admin for some time. It's become rather stale and I'd very much like a resolution one way or another. I sought out two other editors whose judgement I've respected in previous instances. Please understand that this isn't an appeal for your help, that's neither appropriate nor especially constructive. Instead I simply want this matter attended to by competent people who can impart a measure of finality at WP:AN. I'll totally understand your declining to review my appeal but I hope you'll consider giving it some of your time, even if it's to refer another administrator. GraniteSand (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi GraniteSand. I've read over the thread, and am not really seeing a consensus to rescind the topic ban PBS placed. However, I do note his offer to rescind the ban if you agree avoid editing on the topic until the moratorium ends. My recommendation to you would be to accept his offer; that way once the moratorium ends you can resume discussion without any further appeals. 28bytes (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)