User talk:28bytes

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 39
Archive 40	Archive 41	Archive 42
Archive 43	Archive 44	Archive 45
Archive 46	Archive 47	Archive 48
Archive 49	Archive 50	Archive 51
Archive 52	Archive 53	Archive 54
Archive 55	Archive 56	Archive 57
Archive 58

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 28 sections are present.

May music[edit]

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about Samuel Kummer, one of five items on the Main page - more musing on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

last offer in May: photos of the river Rhine, and the adjacent Eltville rose garden, - high water and interesting weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Numberguy6[edit]

As this was the first running of an experimental RfA, I'm not sure that less than 3 hours was enough time to see how it would pan out. I would say that the candidate hasn't presented themselves well, and, as it stood at the point you closed it, I would have opposed; however, it might be the case that under this experimental system that a lot more objections would surface early on. Or that when a candidate can see how their behaviour is giving concern that they may start making amends that will cause people to start supporting. We just don't know. SilkTork (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork. Fair point on the 3 hours. It was around 1:00 AM my time when I saw the RfA, and if there hadn’t been over 20 opposes already, I would have just gone to bed and looked in on it again in the morning. But seeing the numbers where they stood, I felt like the chances were very low that the result would be anything other than the guy getting beaten up for another 8 hours with hurt feelings on all sides and questions about where the ’crats were and why no one did anything to stop it, much like in last month’s RfA, which was halted at 0/0/0. Realistically I don’t see how this RfA could have succeeded, and I feel like letting the oppose count get up to 30 or 40 before calling it off would have done a disservice to the candidate, but I’m certainly open to the idea that I’ve misjudged it. 28bytes (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In cases like this it comes down to a judgement call, which you made as you saw it, and I don't see any real advantage to re-opening it, but I'm thinking that moving forward more information may be gathered if an experimental RfA is left to unfold a little longer. Just between you and me (and your talkpage watchers) when I saw that RfA in its early stages I wanted to put an end to it because it was clear that the candidate was not the most appropriate one to be trialling the new process because of their unusually limited approach to communication. I feel sure they would have failed under the traditional RfA, but they might have gathered more support early on which might have led to a more balanced discussion. Perhaps this is indicating that the new system is quicker at highlighting a candidate's weaknesses. SilkTork (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. Another thought I had was that it would be nice if people “held their fire” on additional opposes once there were 15 or 20 opposes already (in cases of <10 supports) so that things could run a little longer without fear of a pile-on. But then again, we’re already asking them to wait 2 days before opposing, so that’s probably not realistic either. 28bytes (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My anecdotal observation of various polls or consumer reviews is that when a trend starts, a pile on follows. I guess we are communal animals, and there is something instinctively reassuring about following the herd and being part of the pack. Emotions are infectious - laughter, fear, joy, anger, etc - it's difficult to remain aloof from these emotions when they are swelling around us. Intellectually someone can think: "This doesn't need my oppose/support", but emotionally they get gripped by the moment, and want to be seen as part of the community. Especially as on Wikipedia we put a deal of weight on being part of the community. SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Un-redirect userpage to talk page[edit]

Around a year ago, I redirected my userpage to my talk page, according to WP:UP , to get rid of the red font that my username would appear in every time I made an edit. However, I discovered today the joy of user boxes and am interested in making a userpage. I can't seem to figure out how to un-redirect my userpage to my talk page, however. So, I searched up active admins and your username popped out the most to me so I'm here asking you this question. Thanks! InfiniteSword (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Happy editing! 28bytes (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just out of curiosity, how did you end up doing it? Also, is there a way to change it so that only autoconfirmed users can edit the page? You know, to avoid vandalism and stuff. InfiniteSword (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you open a page that’s been redirected, there’s a line right under “From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia” that says “(Redirected from such-and-such)”. Click on the such-and-such link and it will let you edit the page and replace the #REDIRECT with whatever you like. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and per WP:UPROT, user pages are automatically protected from editing by unconfirmed accounts and IP editors. That should be sufficient for now, but let me know if you run into any problems with vandalism and we can bump up the protection if needed. 28bytes (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last question (hopefully), is there a way to edit my user page with the visual editor instead of the source editor? It's much harder for me to edit using the source editor, since I don't really know where to put brackets and curly braces and such. InfiniteSword (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I believe I need to sign my posts on talk pages like this? Idk, I've never done this before, this is just a test. InfiniteSword InfiniteSword (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ohhhhh all I need to do is this InfiniteSword (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should be able to use the Visual Editor to edit your user page. WP:VisualEditor should give you the information you need to enable it. 28bytes (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Technical Barnstar
	Someone on Discord just pointed out that Conway's Game of Life has a playable version of the game. That's a delightful and unusual level of interactivity for a Wikipedia article -- cheers for that. — `Rhododendrites ^talk` \\ 02:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! When I saw that gadget on Spanish Wikipedia I thought it would be nice to bring it to our wiki as well. 28bytes (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thought you created it. No matter -- barnstar still deserved. I just need to give out another one now. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had! It’s a cool little gadget. I may try my hand at creating one at some point, though; a three-body problem simulator came to mind. Xaosflux and Pppery deserve thanks for helping get the gadget going, as well as the gadget’s creators. 28bytes (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]