User talk:28bytes/Archive 13

Please review your close
Your close of Articles for deletion/Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland has caused a problem. An editor has taken your close Literally as a Keep when it clearly was not ment so. I attempted a merge&redir (as WAS consensus, to preserve the information) but that has been reverted with attempts to talk it over going nowhere exceptionally quickly the only option of DRV being presented by the reverting editor. May I ask that you clarify your decision. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, be happy to clarify. It was indeed literally a "keep": no one except for the nominator wanted to actually delete the article, and the nominator didn't really say why they felt the article wasn't notable. So deletion wasn't a tenable closing option. That left two editors advocating it be kept as-is, one editor (you) advocating for a merge, and two advocating for a redirect. If you can build a consensus to merge or redirect on the talk page, then that's fine... in fact, I suggested as much in the close. If you want to go the DRV route instead, that's fine too: you might be able to get the close changed from "keep" to "no consensus", but that will essentially put you in the same position of needing to establish a new consensus either on the talk page or at another AfD if you want the article merged. 28bytes (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying that 2 Keeps outweigh a deletion Nom & 3 'not keep as is' ? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you can group the !votes in all sorts of different ways... "delete" vs "not delete", "keep-as-is" vs "don't keep-as-is"; the bottom line is that no reasonable closer would have closed it as a delete, and all the other options can be negotiated on the article's talk page. You don't need an AfD for a merge. If you want to interpret my close as "keep without prejudice towards a successful merge or redirect proposal on the talk page" instead of just "keep", I think that's a pretty reasonable interpretation. 28bytes (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * no 'negotiation' is possible when a simple ILIKEIT will revert quoting an AFD technical keep... bugger it ... I am just gonna unwatch it. But I would request you attempt to articulate what consensus is, better. Your close in this case was a dodging of the issue, not a clear statement of what consensus was. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I called it like I saw it, but I'm only human, so it's always possible I'm wrong. 28bytes (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel there is the possibility you were wrong, you should have an equal double check, but that's up to you. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland. 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. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Page-move edit filter
Is it possible to make an edit filter for pagemove vandalism?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think one could be made for something like "Unusual page title move" or something like that? I really don't know if I know what I'm talking about.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there already is a filter (possibly more than one) for this. What page got moved? 28bytes (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be nice if things like the move on here by socks of could be filtered.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Not sure whether it's worth tweaking the edit filter for that or not. Might make more sense to just move-protect articles of that nature if the page move vandalism recurs. 28bytes (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Stewardship
Let me know when it comes time for you to become a steward :) . You definitely know enough and have the right qualities.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jasper. :) 28bytes (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Steward Questionnaire

If the long absent heir to the throne comes to the fortress city you have been stewarding over, would you:

A) Cede power, take your golden parachute, and relocate to an elven paradise before any enemy hoards happen to arrive B) Have a mental breakdown culminating with setting yourself on fire and jumping off of something exceedingly tall C) Slit the heir's throat while he sleeps and then frame some hobbit that just entered your royal guard for the deed D) Make an impassioned speech about how the heir, having no governing experience, should not assume power during a time of crisis, then hand him the golden parachute and relocate him to an elven paradise

If you answered anything but "B", congratulations, you exceed the industry standard for stewards! If you don't get he reference here, I pity you!

This concludes the Steward Questionnaire.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what the reference is, but it amused me nonetheless. 28bytes (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lord of the Rings....  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, should have figured that from the hobbit reference. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a reference to the death of the Steward of Gondor in the movie adaptation.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that 28bytes knows the implications of global blocks (blocking an IP address or range from all of Wikimedia) and account locking. It would've sure served this guy right :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Cozzetti & Gemmill
Dear 28bytes,

Our client created their wikipedia page "Cozzetti_&_Gemmill"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozzetti_&_Gemmill), but it appears you deleted it on June 15th. It appears the reason was G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement.

What does our client need to do to either restore or recreate their page?

Thank You,

Michael Woods --64.65.185.242 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Michael. The page was deleted because it copied text from the web page http://www.musicontheweb.com/biography.htm (now offline, apparently). Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material unless it is released under a free license. Take a look at the information here, which describes how to submit copyrighted material that you own the rights to.


 * Now, the fact that the page was deleted for copyright infringement should not be taken to mean that there were not other problems with it as well; in fact, there were quite a few problems with it. What I would suggest is that instead of re-creating the article directly, you or your client go through the WP:Articles for creation process to ensure that everything is in order. Going through this process will improve the odds that the page is not deleted again.


 * Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Chris8888 - sock?
I can't think of a possible sockmaster, but it seems that this user is either just a troll or a sockpuppet as well based on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea. Presumably Alexf can handle it. (And calling someone rude isn't really a personal attack. It's seldom a helpful thing to say, but it's not really removal-worthy either.) 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the most logical explanation is that it was an IP who created an account. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably right. Perhaps Alexf will know which one (or perhaps not). 28bytes (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't have reverted the edit. It is not obvious vandalism and it was on a user talk page.  I am usually of the opinion that things like that should be left to the user in question to remove.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. 28bytes (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Protect my userpage
Given that some vandals are so determined, and the vandal who just vandalized my userpage is known for page-move vandalism, I think it's safe to indefinitely move-protect my userpage. Also, is it possible to make an edit filter to disallow all editing by users without the "rollback" and/or "reviewer" permissions? That'll be a sure way to protect my userpage. No-one else should be editing it in any case.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to propose a ban on all of Wikimedia for JarlaxleArtemis. The previous ban had been removed. Given that this vandal vandalizes many other wikis and has no intention to stop, I think it's merely symbolic, but it'll give all of Wikimedia an excuse to RBI without any questions.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Move-protect ✅. Edit filters for specific pages aren't really encouraged, so I'm afraid you'll have to pick between auto-confirmed-only or admin-edit only. There is a handy workaround that would let only you and admins edit it; let me know if you'd like me to set that up for you. I wouldn't worry about JarlaxleArtemis, there are plenty of admins paying attention to such things. 28bytes (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I know what you're talking about, and yes, I would like it.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I see. Just fully-protect my actual userpage (not the css one) and it's all done. Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Now only you and admins can edit it. To change the content, edit User:Jasper Deng/userpage.css. 28bytes (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're around...
...could you take a look at User talk:Jasper Deng? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Looking at the edits in question I obviously share the concerns you and Reaper have expressed; if either of you feel action is warranted, I will support you. Jasper means well, but we obviously can't have edits like that happening. 28bytes (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Need myself to disable Twinkle for a week or so.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, probably so, but I don't think that entirely addresses the issue. It doesn't matter a whole lot if you put that COI template on there using Twinkle or by hand, either way it was wildly inappropriate. I'm thinking at the very least you'll need to agree not to template or otherwise accuse anybody of COI until you have a much, much stronger grasp of what COI actually means. If Floquenbeam or Reaper Eternal or another admin thinks your disruption rises to the level of a block (and again, no one things you're being intentionally disruptive), you'll probably want to spend that time studying up on the relevant policies and guidelines. In a way, it's a good thing that Lugnuts is a long-term editor who knows the ropes – if you'd done that to a newbie you might have driven them off the site forever. 28bytes (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is here, that if TW is disabled, I will spend more time on what I write instead of dashing off a template. The ultimate thing is, don't rush. For COI, I think that COI accusations must occur w/o the template. I understood COI right there, and based my judgement off the page involved.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you understood COI right at all. Why do you think Lugnuts had a COI? 28bytes (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Explained on my talk. The problem is that I'm seldom wrong when I make a judgement based on an article's tone, until now that is.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 28bytes, if it's OK, I'm going to comment to both of you at Jasper's page, rather than here, so others can comment. This is just a pointer to that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)