User talk:0xDeadbeef

en:User:Meaghan/Sunshine

	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

White to move, so it's deadbeef's turn – check back later!

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.

HaleBot

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that HaleBot didn't issue its regular Empty Categories report as scheduled. I know that it is sometimes an hour or two late but since it looks like you've been on Wikipedia recently, I thought I'd let you know in case it's indicative of a larger issue. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was just a hiccup. It generated the report an hour later than usual. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Legoktm also created https://empty-categories.toolforge.org/, which you could use in case the bot doesn't update it in time. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Also, no Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories tonight. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have exams coming up this week. I will try to get to it this weekend.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, HaleBot completely shut down for a couple days but it updated a few pages today and then nothing else. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe Legoktm has fixed this and replied to you on his talk page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it's gone down again. I was having trouble with WikiMedia's server, edits not going through. So perhaps it needs a restart. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was generated one hour later than scheduled again. I will have a lot of time starting next week, so I'll look into restructuring the reports so the failure of one does not impact others. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

Request for edit allowance on IOS 13

Hi. Recently I made edits on unsupported iOS-related articles, but under another IP range, only to find out that my changes blocked by an EF on IOS 13 twice. Can you make my edit go "live"?102.159.74.62 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. And sorry if my IP address changed again. I have a poor network connection. Whenever I get disconnected and then reconnected, my address changes. I have a question: whenever my edits get blocked by an EF, like what happened to me with the pages Microsoft Edge and iOS 13, can I provide U any complaint(s)? That is, only if I received negative or no response from WP:EF/FPR(Please redirect this redlink).197.3.152.166 (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but go ask at WP:EF/FP/R first. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

メリークリスマス！ (Merry Christmas)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello 0xDeadbeef, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 05:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

A9 decline at Welcome 2 Tahland

I don't think this was a good decline. The CSD template reads "where the artist doesn't have an article". This clearly refers to the primary artist(s) of the album, not any artist who happens to be featured on the album. Normally if the album isn't notable but the artist has an album, one would redirect to the artist as an ATD (hence why the CSD only applies to redlink artists). You wouldn't redirect an album to a random featured artist, so it doesn't make sense to decline on that basis. If you're not willing to delete it yourself, I hope you'll revert and let the tag stand for another admin to look at. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings) which says none of the contributing recording artists has an article. If that wording doesn't follow our current consensus, then it should be changed. Anyways I don't think that article has any chance of surviving a full AfD so it is probably better to speedy? Self reverted. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I read "contributing artist" as whoever you would put in the artist parameter in the infobox. Some albums have multiple main artists - think split albums or collaborative albums like Cheek to Cheek. Hypothetically, let's say that wasn't a notable album. If both Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett also weren't notable, you could A9 it. If Gaga wasn't notable, but Tony Bennett was, you couldn't A9 it. I appreciate you being willing to reconsider. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

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!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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/enwiki/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, the pattern 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)