0xDeadbeef
Index
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |              | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Hello, I'm 0xDeadbeef!
Feel free to ping me in reply to any comment made by me.
Administrators: if you disagree with any of my actions, feel free to revert it and leave a talk message so we can discuss it.
Disruption at Talk:SpaceX Starship
Hello! If you have any spare time, could you please review this discussion? It was created to contest the result of this RfC on the talk page, from which a clear consensus emerged to designate a recent test flight as a failure. This followed two previous RfCs, from which a similar consensus emerged.
Best regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- closed discussion and left a warning for the user who made personal attacks while bludgeoning. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I did not make personal attacks. I also will not take false accusations when I myself have been subject to personal attacks questioning my motives and character including false accusations of sealioning simply because I asked to see how a "clear consensus" was concluded from an issue that has seen 7 discussions happen and no resolution.
- I was repeatedly asked for evidence yet when I provided it, it was immediately dismissed and claims made about how success is measured and how the input of the conductors of the test is taken are inconsistent with many cases on this site. For example, PDL Space who have their first Miura launch listed as a success despite meeting the criteria that starship was called a failure for. This was also sourced as being from PDL space.
- JudaPoor (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for taking your time to reach out here. Your comments at the talk page has matched a lot of the checklist at the sealioning page, please recheck. About Miura 1: that seems to be a standalone instance, and inconsistencies on this site can either be deliberate or unintentional. See also Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 9#Flight unsuccessful:
Successful as a test, but not successful as an orbital launch. Our tables generally cover the latter.
That said, I don't think it would be a good idea to discuss the substance of that discussion here. - As for the personal attacks, you have indeed made personal attacks by calling people at that discussion uninformed and suggesting that they have less knowledge than you so your points must hold a lot of more weight than them.
- For consensus, polling is not necessary, since Wikipedia is not a democracy. What happened in the previous discussions is that most editors agreed that those launches should be considered as failures and should be listed as so. Resolutions were clear: keep the status quo. I'm sorry if you have a lot of emotional stakes in this, but it can be quite a waste of time for other editors to relitigate if it gets brought up again, which is why you might be blocked for disruption if it happens again in the future. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your swift reply. As for sealioning, This is not the case. I was not sealioning for asking for proof of an actual consensus when it looks overall like a still disputed topic.
- IFT 1 & 2 are not orbital flights and as I stated in the original post in the discussion I simply feel that a distinction needs to be made between developmental and operational flights. It should also be clearly stated that the failure and success isn't based on mission requirements but based on meeting a Wiki set requirement.
- I also did not direct personal attacks (although I did have a number thrown at me)
- I clearly stated that after I was first accused. My comment you are mentioning was in relation to NASA sources vs mainstream media. I feel it's indisputable that there is a vast knowledge gap there. I also clearly stated this in the comment after that.
- I feel your last two paragraphs highlight issues with Wiki as a whole. It seems like decisions are based on opinion not fact in lots of cases such as this and the comments about wasting time on resolving conflicts feel more like a lack of effort rather than an actual issue. An editor is an editor. They can choose to respond and can voice their opinion as they want.
- As for consensus, I still have yet to see any proof it's been cleared up. It doesn't seem like they agreed it seems more like a group refused to entertain the others side to the point the other side simply gave up or tried again.
- Hence why it's still an ongoing issue JudaPoor (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you are trying to engage with me, it would be nice if you actually read my comment, otherwise we would just be talking past each other with no one coming out of it any happier. Please don't consider me as someone that needs convincing or some sort of enlightenment of what is factual. That was not my role in closing that discussion and in this discussion with you here. There is really no point in arguing about it here.
It seems like decisions are based on opinion
- what an encyclopaedia includes and does not include is an editorial decision. Editorial decisions are made by humans, and not by algorithms that tell us what is true over what is not. The very existence of a disagreement over how it should be characterized should make it clear that arguments about its "closeness" to the truth holds no way on its own.wasting time on resolving conflicts feel more like a lack of effort
- Again, you probably think this is a very important issue that should be discussed over and over again until you are satisfied. Other editors may not think this way, and you have no reason to force your way, since you haven't given a sufficient justification for your side. Me personally? I really don't care about this insignificant detail in an infobox of an article that I won't read very often.As for consensus, I still have yet to see any proof it's been cleared up. It doesn't seem like they agreed it seems more like a group refused to entertain the others side to the point the other side simply gave up or tried again.
- This is also quite subjective, don't you think? If a majority of editors agree on something, that translates to consensus. Articles are not written to keep everyone happy, and engaging in a discussion should mean understanding the perspectives of other people in a discussion and acknowledging them when you make your point.- Final note: If you continue to display a failure to get the point, by either talking about the substance of the content dispute (I really don't care, please don't. It's like trying to convince an Atheist that religion A is better than religion B) or responding in a way that makes me believe you aren't really trying to engage with me here, I will kindly ask you to stop posting messages on this talk page. I would very much prefer to work on other things that are more important to me. Thanks. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- See also: WP:RUNAWAY. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 19:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for taking your time to reach out here. Your comments at the talk page has matched a lot of the checklist at the sealioning page, please recheck. About Miura 1: that seems to be a standalone instance, and inconsistencies on this site can either be deliberate or unintentional. See also Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 9#Flight unsuccessful:
Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Arbitration
- Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
- The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
January 2024
I've recently written Redacted II up at WP:ANI after what happened recently on the talk page for SpaceX Starship. They're getting all defensive, but if you look at the archives you'll see that they've repeatedly tried to game the system so I'm not backing down. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 18:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-02
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- mediawiki2latex is a tool that converts wiki content into the formats of LaTeX, PDF, ODT, and EPUB. The code now runs many times faster due to recent improvements. There is also an optional Docker container you can install on your local machine.
The way that Random pages are selected has been updated. This will slowly reduce the problem of some pages having a lower chance of appearing. [1]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 January. It will be on all wikis from 11 January (calendar). [2][3]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 01:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
V changes/reverts
Hi, just noticed the removal of controversies on the V page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_%28programming_language%29&oldid=prev&diff=1193878622 Claiming "primary sources are unacceptable" and own research. Beyond that primary sources require a certain extra consideration they're not banned. This chapter however seems to mostly use secondary sources and the editor doesn't seem to be the same person as the author of the linked articles so it doesn't look like original research. Am I missing something here or was there a mistake?
Thanks Webmind (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- It was original research per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Yes, we do sometimes allow primary sources, but it is hard to find secondary sources that cover Xe Iaso (confirming whether they are a subject matter expert). I would err on the side of caution when we have an entire section that is sourced only to primary sources. The sentence saying
despite claiming having a working C++ to V transpilation, this never materialised
is plainly unsourced and seems to be original research. Even if the editor didn't publish those blog articles, combining these sources to suggest something else is original research. For example, suggesting that "most" of the features are work in progress, when no blogs have claimed as such. (The "V is for Vaporware" does say that for the features from their website, but that doesn't imply in the same way "most features" in that section implies, as in most of [features claimed on their website] vs. most of [all features]) And also, thepattern of regularly overpromising
was never suggested by any of the sources (at least, not what was written explicitly in those blogs), and having an issue on the bug tracker doesn't warrant including that in the article. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
God
Thank you 2603:6010:3542:206B:EDAD:4582:E9FE:896E (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- what did he mean by this? Formerlychucks (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-03
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. [4]
- Gadgets and personal user scripts may now use JavaScript syntax introduced in ES6 (also known as "ES2015") and ES7 ("ES2016"). MediaWiki validates the source code to protect other site functionality from syntax errors, and to ensure scripts are valid in all supported browsers. Previously, Gadgets could use the
requiresES6option. This option is no longer needed and will be removed in the future. [5] - Bot passwords and owner-only OAuth consumers can now be restricted to allow editing only specific pages. [6]
- You can now thank edits made by bots. [7]
- An update on the status of the Community Wishlist Survey for 2024 has been published. Please read and give your feedback.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 January. It will be on all wikis from 18 January (calendar). [8][9]
- Starting on January 17, it will not be possible to login to Wikimedia wikis from some specific old versions of the Chrome browser (versions 51–66, released between 2016 and 2018). Additionally, users of iOS 12, or Safari on Mac OS 10.14, may need to login to each wiki separately. [10]
- The
jquery.cookiemodule was deprecated and replaced with themediawiki.cookiemodule last year. A script has now been run to replace any remaining uses, and this week the temporary alias will be removed. [11]
Future changes
- Wikimedia Deutschland is working to make reusing references easier. They are looking for people who are interested in participating in individual video calls for user research in January and February.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
Congratulations!
Congrats on becoming the top administrator! I am happy to relinquish the position to you, and wish you the best of luck with the truly strange emails you may receive by virtue of being the first administrator on the list. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I realized that yesterday, and it explained some of the weird talk page comments I have received since I became an admin. I hope I don't have to reconsider my username choice because of this! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 23:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a rather big fan of #God above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's a nice message, actually. Though I mostly referred to a comment I got that is now suppressed from the history. (from a wmf-banned user asking for my email) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that's not so fun. Anyway, now that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeadbeefBot 3 has been approved, how soon do you intend to set it loose? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I spent some time doing housekeeping on the code, but it looks like PetScan is down. I do have some lists saved offline, but I'd rather go off from a fresh list that the bot definitely knows how to process. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like it's up again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- this week is quite busy for me. I'll try to get it up and running this weekend 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like it's up again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I spent some time doing housekeeping on the code, but it looks like PetScan is down. I do have some lists saved offline, but I'd rather go off from a fresh list that the bot definitely knows how to process. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that's not so fun. Anyway, now that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeadbeefBot 3 has been approved, how soon do you intend to set it loose? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's a nice message, actually. Though I mostly referred to a comment I got that is now suppressed from the history. (from a wmf-banned user asking for my email) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a rather big fan of #God above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-04
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- A bug in UploadWizard prevented linking to the userpage of the uploader when uploading. It has now been fixed. [12]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 January. It will be on all wikis from 25 January (calendar). [13][14]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
Books & Bytes – Issue 60
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
- Three new partners
- Google Scholar integration
- How to track partner suggestions
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-05
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Starting Monday January 29, all talk pages messages' timestamps will become a link. This link is a permanent link to the comment. It allows users to find the comment they are looking for, even if this comment was moved elsewhere. This will affect all wikis except for the English Wikipedia. You can read more about this change on Diff or on Mediawiki.org. [15]
- There are some improvements to the CAPTCHA to make it harder for spam bots and scripts to bypass it. If you have feedback on this change, please comment on the task. Staff are monitoring metrics related to the CAPTCHA, as well as secondary metrics such as account creations and edit counts.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 January. It will be on all wikis from 1 February (calendar). [16][17]
On February 1, a link will be added to the "Tools" menu to download a QR code that links to the page you are viewing. There will also be a new Special:QrCode page to create QR codes for any Wikimedia URL. This addresses the #19 most-voted wish from the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey. [18]- Gadgets which only work in some skins have sometimes used the
targetsoption to limit where you can use them. This will stop working this week. You should use theskinsoption instead. [19]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
Rollback Request
I have been waiting for an actual response for a while now on my rollback request for perms. I looked through the list and decided that asking directly would be quicker to just get it over with. May you please consider my request?
(P.S: Rust > Go) jayhawker6 (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
- Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
- Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
- Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
- The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Permissions
| This user is being considered for Pending changes reviewer. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer#User:A.FLOCK. |