User talk:28bytes/Archive 36

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.

---

Heads up

Not knowing what your schedule is, or how big your watchlist is .. I thought I'd point this out. I'll also mention it to the editor in question. — Ched :  ?  13:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ched. I'll point them to WP:RFPP. 28bytes (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

words of reason and moderation with right bite
Thank you for speaking up with decency and humour, treating editors as living people, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (16 October 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the seventeenth recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda. 28bytes (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation

Aw, thank you for my awesome Barnstar ツ I'll definately be continuing to clean up behind what 28bot unearths. Y'all are my favorite bot, bot owner and admin. All the best. Fylbecatulous talk 17:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko

I see that you blocked the account for block evasion. It probably doesn't matter, but I wonder if that stated reason is technically accurate. His use of IPs has been disruptive (not to mention obnoxious), but (based on my incomplete knowledge of the history) I don't believe he was evading a block, other than his own self-imposed block. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Orlady. The block he was evading was Hersfold's; Hersfold had blocked 108.28.162.125 and then Kumioko simply switched IPs and kept on going. 28bytes (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it! I was aware that the first IP had been blocked. I should have put 2+2 together... Thanks for explaining. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. 28bytes (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, not that it matters in the slightest now but for the sake of clarity. My username was under a Wikibreak lock but I felt compelled to comment at a couple discussions. That's why I didn't use it. I did not vote. I did not do anything to imbalance a discussion. I simply left some comments that didn't even have any affect on anything, particularly at Arbcom where the Arb's rarely if ever listen to anything said anyway. The comments only serve to show how and who does not agree with the case and why. The 108 IP is my home and the 138 IP was at my work. I had no idea that the 108 was blocked until you blocked me for socking. Kumioko. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I saw your comment there. 28bytes (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you also know that my comment about Sarek (which I assume is the comment you are referring too) had no affect on the case or Arbcom's decision which was pretty much predetermined. All the banter that goes on in those cases is just wasted time. In 99% of the cases the Arb's decision can be determined by anyone familiar with the process as soon as the case is accepted. Every once in a while they drop in a curve ball but its rare and only by exception. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK

{{Did you know nominations/Ish Ledesma}}

Another great expansion! Keep up the good work, Strat! 28bytes (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Username change

Hi I would like to change my username. How can I do that ?

Best, Marek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek Wagner (talk • contribs) 13:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marek. The best thing to do is visit WP:CHU and follow the instructions there. 28bytes (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ish Ledesma

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! My76Strat deserves most of the credit; we seem to have developed a good relay race approach for building articles. He takes my modest starts and builds them up into something substantial. It's a great way to collaborate! 28bytes (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

nope - not gonna get drawn into the drama boards ... but...

re: your "Stupid question". One, nope, not stupid at ALL.

• A: two words: "Plausible deniability". Interesting that the term would come from an administration that many have referred to as "the brightest and the best". :-) — Ched :  ?  20:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If that's the reason (and I note Ryan seemed to think it might be as well), it's a truly terrible reason not to hire someone to handle this stuff. I'm with NuclearWarfare: this is not a task that should be delegated to volunteer editors, even the gluttons for punishment who decide to run for ArbCom. Then again, I'm a bit of idealist in that I think ArbCom should be mainly moderating disputes between editors, and not being the de facto Government of Wikipedia. 28bytes (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree in the least. I'm also self-aware that I often have a rather jaded view of "authoritah figures", so if my comment appears overly glib, then my apologies to anyone offended. Years ago I read up on some of the so called "legal" issues and how they were handled (I think an attorney named Goodwin was often mentioned). To be honest, there were times I felt as if the entire repository of the WMF statements were somewhat couched in "CYA" language. Given the society in its present state, I understand it - but like you I wish this (and other high profile sites) had a more proactive approach to things like this. Perhaps one step removed from the outright "predator" concerns, I think that even a lot of things which get glossed over in the line of bullying are completely unacceptable. I'm not sure how much weight it would carry if we (as volunteer editors) were to attempt to force an improvement in this area, but if it's something you decide to sink your teeth into - I'm more than happy to grab hold as well. — Ched :  ?  21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I know that User:Rschen7754 has also been in to these kinds of issues in the past if you're looking to build a formidable coalition. Go Phightins! 21:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

changing usernames

Hey, I saw that you oversaw the changes of a few user names today. I would appreciate it a lot if you could respond to my request. It's somewhat of a time-sensitive matter. I can further explain privately if you'd like, but simply changing the name should do. The sooner the better. Thanks!! Charles35 (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey so I'm a little confused with the way this is supposed to work. When I log in, do I still use my old username? Because when I try to log in, it only allows my old username, but then it brings me to this account. Did I do something wrong by logging into my old account? My computer automatically did it for me before I could use "Midnightrequestline" as the login name. Charles35 (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

And as you can see, my signature still uses my old username... Charles35 (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Log out, then log back in with the new username and old password. 28bytes (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The password doesn't work. My signature still says charles, but my user page says MRL.... Thanks for your help. Charles35 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that didn't work... you may wish to post a note on the bureaucrats' noticeboard; some of the old timers there may have seen this before and might be able to offer help. 28bytes (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You still owe me an element article.

Chop chop motherfucker (you will always be a little pre-admin to me, babe).TCO (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

One of these days, my friend, one of these days. I'd love to do something with unununium, but sadly it got renamed. (And could they have found a worse symbol for flerovium? One despairs.) 28bytes (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No excuses, little 4 short.  ;-) TCO (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

fish egg

A fish egg is ever smaller than a {{minnow}}.

In 20/20 hindsight the message to demiurge would have been better placed on their talk page; that way they could simply remove without the fuss that followed, and it would tend to lessen the involvement of the talk page owner. NE Ent 16:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A good point. Fish egg accepted. 28bytes (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Just in case

Please understand that I am not trying to cause any Wikidrama. As I read the block length change that you made here [1] it says that it expires April 16th. That would seem to lengthen the block since this is March. If I am in error in my reading of this please disregard this message and my apologies for interrupting you editing day. MarnetteD | Talk 15:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! That was a typo. Thanks for calling it to my attention; I've fixed it now. 28bytes (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I know there are some vagaries to the mop and bucket that I don't understand but I was afraid that, if I was reading it correctly, the drama might get needlessly amped up. Cheers and have a good editing week - even if there is an hour less of it. :-) MarnetteD | Talk 16:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your keen eye (hopefully) averting some additional drama! And a good week to you as well. 28bytes (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

About Gwickwire...

Hey, 28bytes. I wanted to ask you about Gwickwire and WP:INVOLVED. The background first: I've been chatting with Gwickwire on IRC, trying to get him to calm down a bit about the whole scenario. (As an aside, I consider myself involved when it concerns him, due to some stuff I helped him with earlier as an admin, which may or may not be relevant.) I definitely think he's majorly overreacting, and so I've been trying to talk him down a bit. In the course of the conversation, I mentioned that I was thinking of writing a message like this to you, so I'm probably the admin he's talking about. He did ask me to open an ANI thread as a subheading under Demiurge's section, which I think is highlighting the issue here. Gwickwire's basis for suggesting that you're involved is that he and Demiurge form a group, and so when you blocked one half of the group, blocking the other half could be seen as an involved action. I don't fully agree with that, but I can kinda see where he's coming from, and I do think it might've been a bad move for you to block Gwickwire yourself. Perhaps more for avoiding the appearance of INVOLVED, rather involvement itself.

Anyway, I do think it would be a good idea for Gwickwire to stay away from Wikipedia for a while (and have told him so), but I'm not sure that keeping the block is the best way to do it. As you know (I don't mean to be lecturing you on this stuff, you know it better than I do, but it's just how I'm thinking about it), cooldown blocks aren't a thing; I unblocked another user on this basis earlier today. I would posit that your replies to Gwickwire are not the pinnacle of class, though he's also being kind of a dick too (and I've told him that, as well). With those replies, it just looks like maybe you're taking this a little personally? I dunno. I don't really know what action I'm asking you to take, if any. Like I say, I consider myself involved, so I'm not going to be doing anything on my own (including starting an ANI thread). I guess I'm just asking you to try to re-evaluate from a fresh perspective? Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Writ Keeper, thanks for the note. I'm sorry you think my comments on Glickwire's talk page have been phrased poorly, could you clarify what you think could be phrased better? I'm happy to revisit any comments I might have left that that may have given a poor impression. To your main point, I am really concerned that Glickwire simply does not understand what the problem is here. I noticed that they posted a completely made-up claim on AN/I that I'd told them they weren't ever allowed to say "fuck" on Wikipedia, or somesuch. Despite my final warning to, basically, stop making things up about people, they didn't seem to slow down much in that department. I let that one go, but once it was clear (with the renewed false claims that Kevin had personally attacked them on-wiki) that this editor wasn't, to put it bluntly, interested in speaking honestly about people, I placed the block. Ignoring the problem didn't seem to work, I thought perhaps a block might. (Of course, it might not.) But if you can think of a better approach to this editor, I am certainly interested to hear your thoughts. 28bytes (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much the phrasing; it's more the message of "you can use your week off to brush up on our policies and guidelines" that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. It's actually good advice, but as a reason for not unblocking...I dunno. ("See you at ANI" is also pretty confrontational, but that's just response in kind to Gwickwire being confrontational, so it's whatever.) Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that Gwickwire is very sensitive about this issue, and bringing it up for discussion and letting someone else make the call might've been a better idea. I don't think the issue was so desperately serious that it required immediate action. But like I said before, I'm not sure I can trust my own judgement in this regard. Who can say? Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry to but in here, but just one observation. Outside of this "group" thing, or perhaps part of it, idk, ... anyway - there seems to be a tendency to encourage each other to buck against the grain as it were. I'm seeing it especially here, but also in general where a particular "sub-set" of editors seem to band together and encourage each other to challenge our standard procedures and policies. It's one thing to have a go at an RfC on a policy talk page, but when it starts becoming disruptive, then I think it's a problem. Pushing the gray areas of WP:PA is nothing new, but I think it's a slippery slope to look the other way when people are making things up, telling lies, and then trying to justify it with "I just assumed". We actually do have a couple things on "assume"; AGF and ABF, and I think these editors are headed down the wrong path in the WP:IDHT sort of way. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  20:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• You're right, Ched, but the hell of it is: what do we do? I don't think blocks will fix that. It's a murky area for block justifications to begin with, and then when you do block, it causes them to entrench themselves against The Man even more. I mean, I wish there was a "look within" button that would cause people to actually stop and seriously think about what they're doing, but we don't have that. Blocking is a way of stopping people from going further down the path (by brute force), but it doesn't make them stop wanting to go down that path, or even realize that that's what they're doing. We can make them do the "stop" part of "stop and think" (sometimes...), but not the "think". It's the old "you can lead a mule to water but you can't make him drink". I don't have any solution for it. Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

First, just a quick note as today has been one of those IRL hectic days, probably that lost hour of sleep. :) Anyway, and this is all just IMO, I think 28 pretty much has a handle on the general idea. You tell them nicely, talk to them, explain why, and hope they learn from it. When they repeat the misbehavior, then you escalate the firmness and tell them, and explain why again. You still listen, but you remain firm in the resolve of what is or is not acceptable. When they simply keep at it, then I'm sorry - you send them to their rooms to think about it. If they "get it" in a day, then fine - if it takes a week then fine; and once they get it, we have a productive editor. Sure, you allow them to mumble "poopy-head admin" under their breath on their talk page (but you don't let them throw eggs at ya :)), and you just kind of smile and hope that eventually they'll realize we actually were trying to help both them and the project. In this case you have an (understandably) irate child over something that happened off-site. They're blowing off steam at us because we have a "wiki" in our URL too. There's nothing we can do, and they've been told that. So they start building a bigger and more fantasy filled story hoping to get attention - mistake number 1. Lie. When they get called on it, and told to stop - they try to "LIE" their way out of it. Mistake number 2. It's gotten to the point of the little boy who cried wolf, and they've spent their credibility to where it's next to nothing. Personally, if I caught wind of my grandkids acting like this on ANY website - well, let's just say it wouldn't be pretty. Hey, there's times I'm not exactly thrilled with Arbcom either - I'm allowed to voice my opinion, even find fault with them to a point, but when the rules are handed out then either accept and move on (if I want to continue here), or I go out in a blaze of glory. The problem with going out in a blaze of glory is that if you want to come back a month, a year, 3 years later - then you pretty much have to eat crow to do it. I'm a big fan of allowing a person to keep their dignity, but they have to understand the rules. Both TOS and our policies. Anyway that's more to the kids than to you Writ Keeper (one can always hope that something will be seen and the "Now I get it" light comes on); but I don't have all the answers either - so yep, I'm right with ya. I guess we just keep on trying, and hope in the end that everyone develops a higher level of clue (including ourselves). Anyway - I really do appreciate your help in all this. And a nod to the Ent below for his help as well. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. Cheers all. — Ched :  ?  23:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(side note) - and if it's not a child, but rather a "persona" - then you have a classic troll. Same actions. Same results. And ... buh-bye. — Ched :  ?  23:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more of coming to hasty assumptions than lying, but otherwise I'd largely have to agree with Ched. --Rschen7754 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ched, those are the wisest words I've read this week. Thanks for posing your thoughts here; it's really encouraging to see someone who thoroughly gets it. 28bytes (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Article naming/Moving for AFC

I am wondering what would be the best article name for the Atari 2600 game Snoopy and the Red Baron. I thought you may help because you seem to like Atari stuff. The suggestions are below:

• Snoopy and the Red Baron (video game) ←What it is currently
• Snoopy and the Red Baron (Atari game)
• Snoopy and the Red Baron (Atari 2600 game)
• Snoopy and the Red Baron (Atari 2600) ←What it is on the Peanuts template thing

This template is just to verify the last title suggestion.

Even though the article is still up for review, I want it to have a very likely chance to pass. Tell me which thing you think is best, or if you have another title to add to the mess. The page for the article is here. Thanks!!! My dog is furry.-MgWd (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)MgWd

Hi Meltingwood! I'm always happy to see people working to turn those red links of notable games blue. As for the title, consensus seems to change occasionally on what the disambiguator should be, but at the moment the thinking seems to be that [[game name (video game)]] is what's used if there is a single video game with that name, and [[game name (year video game)]] is used if there are more than one. Examples: Combat (video game), Adventure (1979 video game).

That said, it looks like your biggest hurdle right now is reliable sources; while AtariAge is a great source, you're going to need some sources other than that for the best chances of having the article created and kept. The notability guidelines suggest "multiple" sources, but the more reliable sources you can find that discuss the game in a meaningful way, the better its odds of being accepted at AfC. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to help you source-hunt this week, but here's one: http://videogamecritic.com/2600snz.htm - The Video Game Critic is a reliable source who often has interesting things to say about some of these old games, and it looks like this game is no exception. Anyway, good luck! 28bytes (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and suggestions! Nice of you to take some time out of your day to respond. Whatta nice admin....-MgWd (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)MgWd

Post block

Those of experienced in the dispute resolution areas of Wikipedia know that anything involving personal attacks / civility et. al. is just a huge muddle; last year's arbcom spent months trying to deal with it and gave us These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced (Thanks guys!) Personally I'm ambivalent about the gwickwire block (neutral) but obviously the comments are somewhere in the great gray zone of Wikipedia drama, you're not "involved," and you're not acting with maliciousness. I am concerned that your responses to other editors on AN/I, and their talk pages, seem uncharacteristic of what I've observed the past; allowing yourself to get drawn into the drama isn't helpful to the project. At the risk of breaking "Ent rule #3 (thou shall not suck up to admins)," I'll note with WritKeeper, Ched, Dianna aware of the situation there's lots of admin talent on scene so perhaps a little real-life time wouldn't hurt. See also Other Duck. NE Ent 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

NE, thank you again for another thoughtful post. I always try to keep this in mind when considering whether to respond to posts that seem to have been based on wildly incorrect assumptions, but I try also to balance that with my experience that sometimes, when you do make a compelling case, or at least question those assumptions, reasonable people will reconsider their position. All that said, I think I will answer a couple of questions asked of me in the current threads and then take some time away to let people come to their own conclusions. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made this extended comment at AN/I, and with that I will take your advice and enjoy some real life activities for a while. 28bytes (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling all that out. Appreciate it. Kevin (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm very pleased to see you've received an apology for the false accusations you've had to put up with. You have my respect for the calmness and politeness with which you handled those accusations; it's not easy to keep a cool head in such a situation and by doing so you've really set a good example for the rest of us. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking a step back is never a bad idea if things are starting to get on top of you. I've commented on Gwickwire's page, hopefully it will have some effect. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for following up on this and (hopefully) bringing this chapter of the drama to a close. I'm really pleased to see that an apology has been offered to Kevin, and I appreciate the part you played in making that happen. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I would like to apologize for my comment from yesterday in which I suggested that you should be blocked. In retrospect, it was not in any way beneficial and was based on incomplete information. I regret that you were hurt by my statement and hope that you will accept my apology. Sincerely, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Cool. The place could use a little more of this. It's not easy to step back and reconsider, and then say "I was wrong". Like — Ched :  ?  04:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, AutomaticStrikeout, and apology accepted. As Ched says, any time someone is willing to look at a situation with a fresh perspective and rethink their position, they have my respect. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pleased to see this, thanks to all three, precious! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

word

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_Fm7lBr_BM — Ched :  ?  04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)