This is an archive of past discussions with User:28bytes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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.
Must be a caching/lag issue; the change wasn't showing up in history or my contribs until just a moment ago. 28bytes (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed that too. Oh well, that works. We need to keep an eye on other Hanna-Barbera articles though. Courage the Cowardly Dog got one edit already by one of the SPAs. SilverserenC05:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Something vaguely similar happened a year or two ago, when a series of Russian IP's was constantly posting spam in Beatles song articles. I think the admin ended up semi-protecting virtually the entire Beatles catalog. If it comes to that, maybe there's a category or some other easy way to identify the articles? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Dethkro blocked, the IPs seem to have paused. Best continue the conversation over at AN/I, I'm going offline for the evening in a moment. 28bytes (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar
For your outstanding support and dedication in getting Yogo sapphire from a new article to DYK to GA to FA and FOUR. The team effort of the uncountable people involved in getting this unique article to FA is a textbook case of teamwork in article improvement, ie, what Wikipedia should be, not what it all too often is. I can never thank everyone enough. PumpkinSkytalk23:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I found your response to Dannyboy1209's impersonating account's claim to continue editing under a different name to evade a block rather hilarious. I'm used to reading administrators' paragraph-long comments of what could be said in a single sentence or less. But you, you sir, nailed it. So yeah, thanks for the laugh! Rotorcowboytalk contribs19:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Clicking anywhere on the page leads to a website called "fluttershy.us" (which just times out when opened). I can't edit it, I can't open up the talk page, I can't open up any links to other Wikipedia pages from it, anything. Every click sends me to this fluttershy website. Spartan198 (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Are you inquiring if he will return to using that username, or simply if he will return? The last part has been answered and in case you missed that fact, he already has returned under a different name and is editing quite productively. I did not link the user name for I am not completely clear what actions might constitute outing; it is a relatively well known fact however. My76Strat (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Howdy MZ. Looks like my friendly neighborhood TP watchers have beaten me to it, but yes, he's been back as User:PumpkinSky for some time now. I offered to restore the Rlevse pages in the interest of transparency a while back, and he recently took me up on the offer. 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, I knew about him violating the right to vanish. But the restores were very recent (June 22, it looks like). They signaled some of change, so I was curious what kind.
Wehwalt: Rlevse never liked me very much and I was never quite clear why. But his actions after abandoning the "Rlevse" account were... it would be an interesting development if "Rlevse" were coming back. That's why I was curious about the restorations. Anyway, off to more exciting affairs. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I take issue with your suggestion that Rlevse violated the right to vanish. I am sure you sincerely believe this to be so, yet I feel strongly that it amounts to a mis-characterization. Having been on the receiving end of similar quips, albeit different circumstances, I know first hand the destructive potential of flippant candor. I hope it never befalls you; or another! My76Strat (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not wish to appear as if ignoring your last, nor do I desire escalation. I think in this matter we simply disagree. And that seems a fair outcome. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
"violating"? deep breath grasshopper ... you are wise and exceptionally talented; but don't lose sight of the goal. Improve the project, that is the objective. — Ched : ? 02:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Justice Roberts
His Wiki page gives his title as "Chief Traitor of the United States." That should be changed at once! He's the Chief Justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.149.223 (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Since a concern with stray-click reversions or filter-blocks is that users often make a stray click as well as make constructive changes to an article, why not just have the bot do a partial revert? Have it excise the stray text, but leave all other changes in tact. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the exact breakdown, but I've noticed that a good proportion of the "bold text" etc. edits are accompanied by vandalism, so I'd be hesitant for a bot to do a partial revert that removed the mouse click stuff but left the vandalism. Take a look through the recent article history of some of the articles listed in the "Edit tests found by bot, fixed by other editors" section of User:28bot/edit-tests-found/2012-June for some background; there seem to be more "mouse click + vandalism" edits there than "mouse clicks + good edits", but there are enough "mouse clicks + good edits" that make me wary of using an edit filter, which would prevent the good edits from ever appearing in the article history, where they could be retrieved if needed. 28bytes (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep, the building the bot lives in lost its power during a storm and the electric company hasn't brought the power back online yet. They're saying power won't be restored until July 4. 28bytes (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I restored a comment that seemed to be inadvertently deleted, at the same time as you revdel'ed it. If I've erred and the IP needs hiding please do the same to my contribution.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds00:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Seeing you appear in my watchlist jogged my memory of User:28bytes/Religion, Inc. (film). Do you think we should revive the project? As it stands, it would meet the defacto film guidelines (at least to the extent that I've seen film articles get created), but I'm unsure whether or not it shows evidence of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (films). The guideline specifically discounts Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide as establishing notability, and I doubt a Rotten Tomatoes review does any better. RyanVeseyReview me!15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. There are apparently a couple of reviews for it behind newspaper paywalls (searching Google News Archive for "Jonathan Penner" plus "Religion Inc" or "Fool And His Money") so it might qualify depending on how in-depth the reviews are. My on-wiki time is quite limited this month but if you have any spare time to toss at it, that would certainly be welcome! 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for taking your time to read this. On The 8th Generation Video Game Consoles page, I keep on adding Ouya there, where it's supposed to be, and someone keeps on deleting it. It even says on Ouya's Wikipedia Page that it is, indeed, an Eighth Generation Console. Can you please look into this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis55789 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. It looks like it's being discussed here, so that's probably the best place for you to make your case for inclusion. Good luck! 28bytes (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Entirely baiting toward me, by a user who repeatedly instructs other editors to be civil, including me, constantly.
I did not ask for this hypocritical user to involve himself in my life at WP. He has been a constant source of baiting, and intentional harassment, whenever an opportunity to harass has presented itself.
This user instructs others to follow WP:CIVIL?? Can someone please explain the tale of User:Guy Macon to me, because, all I experience is incivilities from him, in complete hypocrisy that is plain for anyone to see. (Is he so comfortable with his WP position, that he feels he can taunt and bait and harass to heart's content? I really don't understand the politics that support a user like this, I'd like to understand this.)
28, did you need me to "shut up" about it, and let him taunt, bait, harass?
I suppose it's moot now, as the AN/I thread has been closed. But yes, I see your point, the other editors are indeed acting like smartasses, which is seldom helpful. However, you've said a few daft things too (like or not, people are seldom inclined to respond cordially to comments like "WP-friend of User:Toddst1, my undesired nemesis") so please consider the possibility that a more conciliatory and less accusatory approach on your part may help you avoid conflict (and AN/I threads) in the future. 28bytes (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your followup, 28. But what Macon wrote is clearly intentional baiting, clear outside bounds of WP:CIV. The words I used, were attempt to describe a situation, all a user would have to do is reply "No, you are wrong, I am not his WP-friend." Also, term nemesis is objectively how I did and do feel (for an admin, looking to eject me from WP, on any basis whatever, valid or not, fair or not; there is no doubt in my mind the meaning of the word, it was not an insult to anyone, it is my description of a reality I face). So there is "difference in kind/category" here, between what I wrote, vs what Macon wrote. He flagrantly violates CIV, intentionally, without reservation. Whereas I had no plan whatever to do anything like that. So how could these offenses be equal? Balanced? (I don't get it! Why isn't he blocked? If I did what he did, I'd be blocked in one flat minute. What makes him so special that he can get away with? He's no Malleus.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Civility enforcement is a very tricky endeavor. What might seem like harmless sarcasm to one person might seem like a clear breach of WP:CIVILITY to another, and vice versa. As a practical matter it's generally best to just ignore any sarcasm, baiting or taunting lobbed your way than to hope for some sort of "justice" in that regard, because Wikipedia is not very good at dispensing civility justice, if there even is such a thing. 28bytes (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Understood. But there is still an entirely unbalanced thing here, where one editor is advised to be "perfect in every way", and another editor gets away with a free-for-all party of blatant, flagrant incivility, essentially thumbing his nose against WP:CIV. I don't think there's a fine line there. (It's unwillingness for those who could act, to do it. There's no question about Macon's blatant incivility. And I'm asked to "trim my imperfections"?? It is truely a crazy-making environment at WP, besides its qualities of abusiveness, hostility.) Thanks for discussing this w/ me. I do value your professionalism. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm lost. Was not referring to an admins, rather User:Guy Macon. (How does he get by blatantly thumbing his nose at WP:CIV?? He's no Malleus. If I did what he did, I'd be blocked in a flat minute.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
