User talk:Cyde/Archive007

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

Archives
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N O
P Q R S T U V W
X Y Z 10 11 12

travb indefinite block

Hi Cyde, did you get my email yesterday? --Duk 15:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus1338's rfa

“ I could only support if this user were to be honest about his identity to the community ”

I already voted oppose, but this got me curious. Could you elaborate? Kotepho 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He wishes to keep his identity secret, so I will respect that wish ... but I personally have very strong suspicions about who he was prior to this Pegasus account. --Cyde↔Weys 16:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That is ok. I was just wondering what you meant (e.g. I (know/think/am pretty sure) he is (a former vandal/a troublemaker/a banned user/Jimmy Carter). ). I felt bad opposing as he seems to be trying to do his best. Kotepho 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Category: XX of Oz

Thanks for looking at that - am currently too much of a newbie to work out for myself what is a good or a bad addition to Wikipedia! Inner Earth 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bring back a page temporarily.

Cyde, I need some info from the Super Smash Brothers League page you deleted. Undelete it and let me get the info...If your scared to do so, talk to me...if not, do it, let me get the info and i'll let you do what you wish with the page (basically, deleting it) - NEPats17

Wiki source sent via email. --Cyde↔Weys 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't receive any email dude. Send it again to [[[mark_pare200@hotmail.com]]]. - NEPats17

User:Rex071404

Your indefinite block of this user is unwarranted. Rex071404 himself clearly is not a sockpuppet. 216.22.26.46 20:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

... says the anonymous sockpuppet. LOL. --Cyde↔Weys 00:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:JimboWales.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:JimboWales.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

—Hbdragon88 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a little question... How did you make a "print screen" of the whole web page without having to scroll down? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I use a 40" LCD computer screen with a resolution of 4800x2700 pixels, so it all just fit on one screen. --Cyde↔Weys 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, I have a screen with 73,553x800,475 pixels . So you have to do it the hard way, eat bannanas . Well, at least bannanas are soft --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Göteborg Botanical Garden

Hello, this text in it`s largest part is copied from http://www.gotbot.se/engelska/english_start.html, without permission.

Then slap a {{ copyvio|url=http://www.gotbot.se/engelska/english_start.html }} on it. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Copyvio}} should not be subst'ed. Kusma (討論) 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it messes up the template if you don't subst it, because I always see ~~~~ in the middle of it. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to have ~~~~ in it, to cut and paste into WP:CP. See WP:SUBST#Templates that should NOT be subst'd. Kusma (討論) 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New sig suggestion

Cyde, may I suggest that you take inspiration from this sig? :-) --Ssbohio 03:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Civility

I notice that you haven't reprimanded Tony Sidaway on the Personal Attacks and incivility on his Rfc.[1] Is there a reason for this double standard? ---Day 11:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "It's okay if I do bad because someone else is doing it and getting away with it" is a terrible, terrible argument. And secondly, my primary method of communication with Tony is not on-wiki. So you don't see most of the things I say to him, let alone any civility warnings. --Cyde↔Weys 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot and template categories

Cydebot has made a series of recent changes to templates due to a CFD. However, while updateing the templates it is also moving the categories to the bottom of the page, which is correct for articles however in templates this is taking the categories outside of the noinclude tags which is undesireable with template specific categories as all pages including that template will then be including in the category also. e.g. [2]. Shiroi Hane 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gahhh I thought I had already addressed this issue ... guess not :-( Looks like I'll be committing another update to pyWikipediaBot soon. Thanks for catching this. --Cyde↔Weys 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Another possible bug I noticed happened here. The bot deleted a comment out piece of maintenance code in the interwiki section. I'd copied that there to make interwiki copying and pasting faster. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, it didn't delete it, just moved it elsewhere. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stricly speaking, the commented code is the only bit that didn't move ;) Shiroi Hane 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Most recent edits by User:Cyde

Moved from WP:ANI. Please always take concerns about user behavior to their talk pages in the first instance unless there is an urgent problem.

In his continuing pattern of admin abuse, Cyde has modified the templates Template:Ref and Template:Note to claim that those templates are deprecated, despite the lack of consensus, or even majority support, for such a position. This vandalism continues Cyde's efforts to unilaterally impose the use of the tool he wrote, RefConverter, even where it directly contraverts article consensus. If ever an admin desperately needed desysop'ing, this is the one. LotLE×talk 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The templates are deprecated, though. RefConverter is the easiest way to convert articles to the new Cite.php. It's hardly vandalism. Will (^E_@) T 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No! They are not deprecated. It's only been the essentially unilateral actions by Cyde that have attempted to create that false impression. The actuall guideline, Wikipedia:Footnotes says:

Footnotes are an excellent way to cite sources, but they are not the only way; some articles use inline links instead, or Harvard referencing. Also, Cite.php footnotes are not the only way to make footnotes. Many articles use templates to create footnotes. For more information, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, which is the main style guide on citations.

A substantial minority of editors prefer m:Cite.php, but that does not warrant vandalism of template pages out of WP:POINT. LotLE×talk 22:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see metrics for that, as I've always seen that most editors prefer Cite.php nowadays. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't show up in the articles, though. He put it in a <noinclude> tag. It isn't vandalism, and so I'ved edited the section title accordingly. -Splash - tk 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, while Cyde's actions may have sparked controversy in the past, going around blatantly saying he is abusing his powers is not going to get matters anywhere. Your issues are much more likely to be taken seriously, no offense, if you calmly state what's wrong and give evidence through diffs and specific examples. Saying that he desperately needs desysopping can easily be interpreted as a personal attack or trolling, so you may want to be careful of your wording as well. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

GASP! Shocking abuse! Who does this SOB think he is, writing tools and leaving informative instructions on templates! Bailiff, whack his peepee! KWH 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

HOLD IT! This court of law has no jurisdiction to whack people's peepees! Will (^E_@) T 22:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

MOST RECENT EDITS are more than a month old? Aren't we being a little misleading here? -- Drini 22:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how edits from ONE AND A HALF MONTHS AGO qualify as an "incident" on the administrator's noticeboard. And I hardly see how they are "vandalism". I think Lulu's account has been hijacked. --Cyde↔Weys 22:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to this deprecation. - FrancisTyers 22:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I did make an error when I looked at the edit history. These bad edits by Cyde were indeed from a while back; I only noticed them when another editor pointed it out at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. But given there age, probably an "incident" isn't the right category of report. Nonetheless, they are bad, and the are an abuse of admin powers. LotLE×talk 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why bad? Just because you say so? And ever present the cries of "admin abuse" ? How is editing a page on wikipedia abuse. Have you heard of WP:OWN ? -- Drini 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, nevermind the trivial details, like that Cyde was right... FeloniousMonk 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Neither of these is a userbox. JDoorjam Talk 23:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

RepRap project

Hey!

The Wikipedia entry for the RepRap project, which I have been looking after and keeping up to date for the past few months, was apparently visited by your Cydebot. It left a message in the entry's history page dated 22 May saying...

(Robot - moving categories per WP:CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 11.)

Could you tell me what this means? It looks rather threatening.  :-(

Plaasjaapie

It's not threatening at all. We have a process called Categories for deletion (CFD) that's in charge of deletion and renaming of categories. On May 11 a decision was made through that process to change the name of the category. That's all that this means. --Cyde↔Weys 13:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a busy talk page isn't it?

Y'ello. Just thought I'd say hello and wish you a good day. I can imagine all this controversy that seems to be latching on to you with a fishing poll must be a tad stressful, so I thought I'd give you a cookie . Don't let it bother you, and take a bite and relax. Happy editing! Cowman109^{Talk (yes, the smile guy)} 01:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, I believe you have deleted Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Shivraj Singh / DPSingh. Your edit summary indicates that you have moved it to some other location. I am unable to find that location -- can you send me a link? Thanx in advance, ImpuMozhi 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It was moved here. --Cyde↔Weys 16:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Why is it that you can be really nice to other people, phrasing your "request" in the form of a question, being very polite, telling them to have a nice day, etc but when it comes right down to me, you're rude, "blunt", and demanding?

I'm wondering if you have the capacity to be consistent - nice to everyone or rude to everyone. Why do I deserve your wrath and not him, for example?

Don't worry, Cyde, I don't expect you to answer this. — Nathan ^(talk) 12:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that you learned from your experience dealing with Nathan, and as a result, now try to make extra sure that your reqeusts sound polite. Is that right? Where ^(talk) 16:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't change my actions any after dealing with Nathan. I just think Nathan has an altered perception of things which are focused on trying to get him to change his ways; he seems to find them more demeaning and derogatory than they actually are (if they are demeaning and derogatory at all). Nathan self-identifies as having some kind of mood disorder, and this modified response to suggestions seemingly impinging on one's self is a pretty typical symptom of some mood disorders. --Cyde↔Weys 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, with all due respect, you deserve a slap in the face. And I'll accept a warning for being incivil. You have insulted me, my "perceptions" and my mood disorder..what do you know of mood disorders? You're a philosophy student. Is there some connection between psychology and philosophy that I don't know? Please, do enlighten me. Now, since you don't know me, I'm going to spare the details. All through life, I knew there was something wrong with me. Psychological problems run in my family. My father committed suicide (no I don't want your pretend pity). So yes, I do have a mood disorder unless you are questioning my psychiatrist's qualifications, and questioning what I know. Exactly who the hell are you to come and tell others what I do and do not have, what my perceptions are and otherwise. You are not a trained psychiatrist/psychologist, and if you are, I would love to see your qualifications. You have absolutely no sensitivity to people with mental disorders. It is not an altered perception. It is what it is. I don't have to tell you my family history, so I will refrain from doing so. For your information, oh great philosophy student: A mood disorder has absolutely nothing to do with perception. It does has to do with the frequency and intensity of the person's mood.

Now about a mood disorder: I can't speak for anyone else with one, but if a situation came up that has someone say "x" and there are two ways to take it a) offensive b) AGF, I'm most likely to choose A because of my experiece of being attacked in the past. So yes, it does have something to do with my perceptions if you mean it in that context. Even in relationships, there's no way to tell how someone with a mood disorder may respond to communication, I know this from experience. If your comment wasn't an attack, please do let me know because it sure as hell sounds like one from where I sit.

It is not fair to judge anyone. Be a better person and stop this.

Now, as to the matter of the actual request itself, I believe you said, "Your signature is beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. Three images is beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. Please change it." You know as well as I do that "request" was a "DO IT NOW + please". It was an order, not a request and I don't take kindly to orders. You have been as nice as pie to others and actually explained why their signatures needed changing. You did not do so with me. "It's not acceptable" Why isn't it acceptable? Prove to me it's not acceptable. You didn't do this.

Block me for incivility for what I just said. I don't care. It needed to be said. — Nathan ^(talk) 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I read it, it was not incivil. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I may have to respectfully disagree with Nathan on this point. This is the comment that Cyde made on Nathan's userpage that triggered everything:

Willful disobedience of Wikipedia guidelines does not look good in a user. That means that people will not treat your opinions with as much respect, and you can pretty much kiss any chance of adminship good-bye.

Nathan responded by claiming that Cyde issued an order for him to change the sig and then accused Cyde of violating WP:DICK [3]. However, I do not think this interpretation was accurate. I personally view Cyde's comment however as a statement of what he believes to be WP policy and as an attempt to dissuade Nathan from violating what Cyde sees as policy. At worst, it could be seen as mildly uncivil in tone. (Note that I am not denying that Cyde's subsequent comments were quite uncivil). My point is that Nathan does occasionally overreact to situations, which is what Cyde stated. Hopefully, Nathan will address this so future conflicts don't come up as easily. Perhaps speculating on the nature of Nathan's mood disorder shouldn't have been made publically so as to not upset Nathan; however, I think it was an honest mistake on the part of Cyde. Please note that all criticism in this post is meant merely as constructive criticism :). Where ^(talk) 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, please do review this addition to my userpage. I view speculative comments on my mood disorder (such as yours) as rude and incivil whether they were meant as such or not. If you have any questions about my mood disorder and how it affects me, please do ask me (I would rather you ask than see you jump to conclusions which may or may not be valid), as it's me we're talking about. Please ask questions or refrain from making such comments, which are not helpful and can be viewed as disruptive. Cheers. — Nathan ^(talk) 23:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Job for your bot- subst on spam series of templates

{{spam2}}, {{spam3}} and {{spam4}} are incorrectly named (they should be spam3,4,5 respectively). There has been talk for a long time about re-naming these, but first the existing ones need to be subst to prevent messages on talk pages changing. Could your bot do this? Cheers, Petros471 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm substituting them now. --Cyde↔Weys 16:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Am I right in thinking that the only things now showing up using the 'what links here' are linked like I did above, rather than placed as message on a talk page to a spammer? I.e. it's ok to go ahead with the moves? Petros471 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, go ahead with it. --Cyde↔Weys 19:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris Userbox

Dear Cyde, I noticed that after nominating the Chuck Norris Userbox for deletion (which failed) you seemed to have a change of heart and included a funny "fact" in the userbox. I think this showed good faith on your part and I apologize for every nasty thing I've ever said about you. Love, --FairNBalanced 07:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably Cyde changed his mind in view of the wrath of Chuck Norris that was sure to descend on one who TfDed the CN userbox... Joe 06:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I found God. He was in Chuck Norris' stomach. --Cyde↔Weys 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection at Japanese spider crab

Japanese spider crab has been semi-protected for two weeks now. Is it time for the semi-protection to be revoked? --Stemonitis 10:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ya caught me!

Argh, I woulda got away with it too, if it wasn't for those rascally kids and that dog. ;-) --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

CSD C3?

Does CSD C3 apply to templates that have not been deleted? —Ashley Y 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Read up on what's colloquially being called "The German Solution". All of the templates are being deleted and recreated somewhere in userspace (in fact, I think all of the religion ones already have been). --Cyde↔Weys 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, you removed categories from templates that I had already "Germanised" into my space. But C3 says it only applies to deleted templates, while mine still exist in my space (and, I hope, are not threatened).

I'm not against removing all categories from User: space userboxes if that's how people think things should go, I just want to be sure of the process. —Ashley Y 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Subpages in userspace are not templates. The templates were deleted, the categories should go. (Note that Cydebot was enlisted for this purpose, I'm trying to get out of this stuff actually). And yeah, it's definitely looking like getting rid of userbox categories is the way things are going. --Cyde↔Weys 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so it's not a template. But C3 says "If a category is solely populated from a template..." which it isn't if it has my subpage in it. So C3 doesn't apply? (I'm referring to this edit.) —Ashley Y 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems like Wikilawyering to me ... that category existed for many months and was populated solely by a template ... but because, a few days ago, you moved it into a user subpage, it suddenly no longer qualifies? I don't think that works. --Cyde↔Weys 01:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me the point of C3 is that it applies to orphan categories: it's not populated by templates (because they've been deleted) and it's not populated by any other kind of page, so go ahead and delete it because it's not being used. This isn't the case here. —Ashley Y 01:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

re: political and religious user-categorizing The problem with the userboxes using categories is that it turns them from harmless cute little things into rallying-people tools. It's one thing to say "Hey I'm anti-mathematics" (to say something) and other different thing to turn such statement into a network of math haters which could be contacted for instance, vote stack at an AFD about mathematics and push the anti-math bias.

Here's a pearl of wisdom from [from the site's owner:

The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else. We actually are extremely tolerant about this, and I see no reason for us to change that. However, the issue with userboxes is that they are templates, and as such, they are categorized and easy to replicate and easy to use for campaigning and so on, and so they turn individual advocacy behavior, which is bad enough, into group campaigns.

so, removing such categorizing makes userboxes stand on a firmer ground and shuts down one of the antiuserbox arguments usually stated. -- Drini 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, just don't call it CSD C3. —Ashley Y 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Censoring

WHY do you have to censor peoples userboxes? Why can't you just calm yourself down and let people have userboxes on their pages? Raichu 01:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh for chrissakes, if you're going to misrepresent things that badly I don't really feel any need to respond. --Cyde↔Weys 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot removing cats

Cyde - check out [4] ... FYI ... when your bot substed categories, it seems to have badly messed up formatting. If you want to re-run it to remove all cats, that's fine. At some point, I might just have a macro do it - I have no use in being in all of those categories. If it isn't a trivial thing for your bot to remove all of them and it's causing a problem, feel free to just delete the pages on User:BigDT/Userbox Index. I thought it would be something useful to have a library of substed ubxen to assist if/when the German plan became the law of the land, but considering that nothing links here, I don't know that it's of any use. BigDT 03:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, I think I just accidentally ran Cydebot with the experimental category-mode enabled :-O I did not mean to do that ... as you can see, it's not quite ready for primetime yet. --Cyde↔Weys 03:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok ... no problem ... I've reverted the three pages that got messed up ... and if having links to non-existent categories causes a problem for anything, go ahead and wipe them ... I think having a copy of everything that existed before userboxes were moved would be useful, but it isn't anything to lose sleep over. BigDT 04:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just re-checked and I wasn't running Cydebot in experimental mode ... that was default category mode. It was built for articles, so it moves all of the categories to the bottom of the page for formatting reasons. Obviously this doesn't work so well for other things, so in the future I'm going to use AWB for removing template categories until I finish up with my experimental mode on pyWiki (which is designed to get around this problem). --Cyde↔Weys 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Moe Epsilon/haha

Ya right! [5] ;-) Cheers! The King of Kings 05:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AGF!!! AGF!!! --Cyde↔Weys 12:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The listmaker at it again

Greetings Cyde, I couldn't help but notice mention of your name (relative to User:Pegasus1138) again on a new list created by User:Raphael1. Granted it's in the "history" part of the list but I think if I was an admin I wouldn't want my name floating around like that even in the history and I'd probably delete such a page on sight. Netscott 23:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how that'll pan out? It would be nice to be able to finally get past User:Raphael1's non-stop nonsense and get on with devoting more time to improving this encyclopedia. Netscott 01:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't just wonder how it'll pan out ... affect it. As far as I'm concerned you're even more involved with this guy than I am, so you might want to add yourself as a party and post a statement. --Cyde↔Weys 01:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We'll do. Netscott 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd be mentioning that he has repeatedly posted very questionable things in his userspace. You also might make link to the WP:ANI posts that User:Zoe made. And to illustrate the proxy editing he's been doing link to this WP:PAIN report Raphael1 filed against me. Netscott 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this is your evidence it needs to go in your statement! I've already made my statement ... it wouldn't make sense for me to list a lot of things from his interactions with you. --Cyde↔Weys 01:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

changed the userbox on my page.

Cyde, your bot changed the userbox on my page. I was wondering if maybe you could help me with something. that changed the box from having a cross as a logo, and saying, "This user is interested in christianity" to, "This user is a christian" and having a christian fish as a logo. please help me change it back to its original text and logo. thanks. the old template was "{{user christian}}" Mshuflin 05:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Cyde↔Weys 14:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! much appreciated Mshuflin 23:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Germanize

I was wondering if you might please Germanize your MrDucky userboxes. Thank you. --Cyde↔Weys 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Thanks for the link, hadn't heard of Germanizing(?), I think there is just the one left.  theKeith  Talk to me  11:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My sig

Is this better? I removed some of the links and I removed a lot of redundant <font face="Book Antiqua" color="#CC0000"> from it. the_ed17^(T)_(F)^(P) 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

*ahem*

If Tony can do it, so can I. So, either you stop, or scuttle on over to his talk page and revert him as well. Search4Lancer 20:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between trolling and warning from administrators. Also, you should know that "someone else gets away with it, so I should too" is a terrible argument. --Cyde↔Weys 20:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cent

Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. This is quite all right and I encourage you to help keep it current. But please don't forget to log your changes at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John Reid 21:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Añoranza

[6] Please advise. Haizum 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT by a user other than you =)

[7] Thought I should at least let you know. --mboverload@ 03:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Signature.

Hello Cyde, I'm Daniel. Nice to see you in Wikipedia. I know that you work so hard in wikipedia such as solving problems in Wikipedia. There are many your comments in other's discussion page on about Template, Vandalism, Open Proxy, Suck Poppet, bot problems..., and nomination for administrator of Wikipedia. I realized that you change your signature every month. Anyways, you must send me message. Thanks. Cheers!! '''*Daniel*''' 06:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure

what happened on my discussion page, but I think I owe you a "Thunbs Up" for you part in cleaning it up. Carptrash 14:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lonely no more

Thanks hon, I can really feel the Wikilove. ;) IceKarmaॐ 16:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For instance....

Using Vandalisim Test 4 warning I should use {{subst:Template:Test4}}? ForestH2

Just {{subst:test4}} works fine. The curly braces already indicate that it's a template transclusion so you don't need to put Template: in there. --Cyde↔Weys 18:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect bypassation

I know you're an experienced editor and all, but I think this bears repeating: WP:REDIRECT#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken (in the example I'm railing against, Pasteurize has nothing wrong with it). Edits are more expensive to the server than calling up a redirect is, so there's no real performance gain. --Sam Pointon 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:-( Cyde↔Weys 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Your signature

Of course. -- Миборовский 19:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Newbie admins and deletion

I think we may need to hand hold our newbie admins a bit. I share your concern re:deletion policy but it's really common for people to think they can do it all and that the site will fall apart if they don't. I think the deleting admin was genuinely trying to clear the speedy deletion candidates and the fact that they reverted less than 10 mins later means that they a)realised they messed up b)didn't know image deletion was permanent. I'm thinking that the answer is for some of us to be mentors of our new colleagues but I'm not sure how that would work in practice. The more Wikipedia grows the more "normal" our editor base is (this is a good thing) and the more contentious some of our sex related articles become. Images in all of those articles seem to be contentious. We need to be astute - the person crying wolf/pornography/discrimination is often taking us for a ride... Secretlondon 21:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:uuuuuuuuuuu

I'd like to know just who the hell I'm supposed to be a sockpuppet of, and the reason for that person's block. There is no information on my talk page about why I am blocked, or who I am supposedly a sockpuppet of. I hardly find that very informative. 132.205.64.90 23:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC) To leave a message use User talk:uuuuuuuuuuu

No offense, but that user name appears a tad innapropriate for Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Username) due to the difficulty of typing it correctly (so many u's) and that vandals often make accounts with simple names such as one with all of one letter. It was likely Cyde's bot that blocked you automatically for having the name. Under inappropriate usernames on the link above it reads "Names that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers". Cowman109^Talk 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Report.

Hi, Cyde, I was just wandering why you were ignoring my message. I suddenly saw that this userUser:Cfcrule1 vandalized your own page. But I considered that somebody blocked this user User:Cfcrule1 indefinite. Let's me explain the way of user receiving warning for vandalism. First, When He/She made their ID then did only vandalize the User's page, article, This user must be blocked indefinite. But racism should be blocked for one month. I mean I discovered some user edited the article like this Israel to Palestine in last week. That's means He is prejudiced against the Israel. Racism is not permitted in Wikipedia. It's one of Wikipedia policies. If this userUser:Cfcrule1 is not blocked indefinitely, you must block him for indefinite because He didn't follow the Wikipedia Policies. Anyways, I hope you could send me message. Please, I suggest you do not ignore user's page. '''*Daniel*''' 01:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Propa1gat

Thanks for blocking the vandal named Propa1gat. He seems to have a grudge against me but I have no idea who he is. Al 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:CydeWeys userpage.png

Thanks for uploading Image:CydeWeys userpage.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Converts

Category:Catholic Converts

Why did you change without discussion (at least I can find no record of any) the Category:Catholic converts to Category:Roman Catholic converts?

This is a highly disputed POV act and is regarded by many Catholics as hostile. From at WP point of view, there is no ambiguity about the term "Catholic convert." What could it possibly mean outside a reference to the only entity which bears the name, "Catholic Church?" It is absurd to call someone a convert to the vague concept of the catholic church. This really should be discussed before making such changes. --Vaquero100 16:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That category was moved to Category:Roman Catholic converts per discussion at CFD by my automated robot. I do not think your beef is with me. --Cyde↔Weys 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs No Answers in Genesis Pazu National Center for Science Education White hole Creation (theology) Public Security Section 9 Random access memory Daisuke Aramaki Operator (Ghost in the Shell) Think tank (mecha) Cyberbrain Sclerosis Ghost in the Shell (video game) Togusa Creator deity Super Famicom Wars Boma (Ghost in the Shell) Closed Shell Syndrome Ashbury College Ishikawa (Ghost in the Shell)

Cleanup Ilaria Graziano GISM Compatibilism and incompatibilism Merge Teleology Omphalos (theology) Coherentism Add Sources CreationWiki Workplace Shell Cum shot Wikify Constructivist epistemology Marcin Coacervate Expand Ghost in the Shell (manga) Analysis of flows Galaxy morphological classification

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove!

Here's a slide for you! Slides somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! --☆TBC☆ 05:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a slide for User:Cyde. Get it? Slide and Cyde? Anyhow keep up the good work, as you've contributed a lot to Wikipedia! :D (another ackward attempt at comedy by ☆TBC☆) 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

New talk page, new sig

I just archived my previous talk page, so ... it's time for a new sig! --This user is Cyde↔Weys. 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Or how about this sig? ↔ 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it have to be so freakin' pink? It hurts my eyes! And if a part of it could link to your talk, it'd be a lot better. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, pink is dank. Don't be dissin' it.-- The ikiroid  21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pink is the new black.--Anchoress 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this sig?  ↔  17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the pink myself. Every time I see a pink signature I doin't even need to read it - I know it's you. The only thing that slightly confuses me is the double arrows that appear when I hover over it, but ah well. It's very short and doesn't intrude upon the editing window in any way. Cowman109^Talk 18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not pink, it's light red. --Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

umm... This is light red. This is pink ~Chris (e) 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I think I'm the only person who likes the sideways cursor.--The ikiroid (talk desk advice) 16:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey

User_talk:The_ed17#Blocked I happened to see this. I agree with the block, but have lowered to block to two days... 1 week seems a bit BITEish. Hopefully he'll learn from a 2-day block. NSLE _(T+C) at 13:36 UTC (2006-06-09)

Next one's indef. This guy has done absolutely nothing useful and a lot that was harmful. --Cyde↔Weys 13:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you see my talk page quickly? (on the block subject) the_ed17 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who was the other guy? the_ed17 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. He had nothing to do with you, we just happened to be dealing with two people at once. --Cyde↔Weys 00:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok the_ed17 00:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My Apologies

I'm sorry for failing to alert you about opening an RfD on your user page image; I explained elsewhere that I suddenly had to leave the computer briefly. I hope you understand as this is the best explanation I can give. I would also like to point out that you removed a deletion alert from the image page, which is against policy (although I understand why you did so). —Cuiviénen 01:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to apologize, just apologize and leave it at that. Don't equivocate and try to Wikilawyer with me. You don't get the privilege of breaking my userpage for seven days while the process runs its course, because the initial nomination was filed for invalid reasons. --Cyde↔Weys 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Wikilawyering, though now that I have withdrawn the nomination, it does not matter. Please, I know we've had disagreements in the past, and I know that this may have seemed like a hostile action, but it was not intended to be. I would like to make amends rather than the hostile truce that seems to exist. —Cuiviénen 01:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 12th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 24	12 June 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: RSS returns
English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 Featured Articles	Administrator desysopped after sockpuppeting incident
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot category duplication

Hi there. I just noticed Cydebot duplicated a category at Self-declared art movement. Anyway, rather a cosmetic issue. --Nikai 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just what pyWikipediaBot does. Oh well. At least that doesn't break anything. --Cyde↔Weys 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyde

Feel free to tell me to buzz off but, I posted this on Tony Sidaway's RfC 3:

• Without disrespect whatsoever, Cyde, I'd appreciate if you'd consider changing your sig. I find the cursor to be disruptive. Thanks

Honestly, the sideways cursor bugs me a bit when I'm moving the mouse down the page. Appreciate if you'd consider changing it. Cheers and hope you're enjoying adminship -- Samir धर्म 15:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh ... disruptive? Really? What sense of that word are you using? I've never seen any disruption caused by my sig, whereas I can't say the same for a couple of other users ... Cyde↔Weys 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps disruptive was the wrong word. I guess I'm icon dependent and it takes more than a second for me to clue in when the sideways arrows come up. I agree that many other sigs are far more disruptive, but when I e-mailed less responsive editors about their sigs, all I got back was vitriol. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but I also find it disruptive. Whenever my computer (which happens to not be the best computer in the world) scrolls the cursor over yuour signature, my computer tends to freeze for a few seconds as it searches for the right cursor (I use an alternative cursor set). This is especially disrupting when I scroll down pages. Thanks. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you also experience the same chugging problem when you perform other activities in your interface that require cursor changes, like moving the mouse over a text box, resizing a window, mousing over a weblink, etc.? --Cyde↔Weys 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact, I do not. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you see a different cursor when mousing over my signature than you see when you move your mouse over a vertical edge of a resizable window? --Cyde↔Weys 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I do. :-) Netscott 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What OS? Are you using any custom cursors? --Cyde↔Weys 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest version of Firefox on PowerPC version of OS 10.4.6 . The cursor looks like this:

<-|

On the latest version of Safari (same system) it looks like this:

<----

No custom cursors. Netscott 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The point, Cyde, is that it can be dusruptive to many people. Please remove it. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please answer my question. --Cyde↔Weys 15:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Cyde, I am not using custom cursors. I am using the alternative cursor set from windows (Cursor_inverted_small). Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

(Repeating the question from above) Do you see a different cursor when mousing over my signature than you see when you move your mouse over a vertical edge of a resizable window? --Cyde↔Weys 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

True, I've just gotten back from a 3 day weekend where I had intermittent access.. I'll be adding my 2 bits later on this evening. Netscott 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what your comments about vacation were about... ? Netscott 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I see they were directed at User:Vegaswikian.. no further need for explanation. Netscott 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

RfD

You left a comment on several cross-namespace RFDs as "Per nom". Could you please clarify what that means in those sections as some of the cross-namespace redirects have an alternate within-namespace disambig/abbreviation pages, and "Per nom" isn't exactly clear. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. I think? :D Cowman109^Talk 00:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I love your adminship criteria. Cowman109^Talk 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA questions for Gwernol

Thanks for the thought-provoking questions on my RfA. I've added my attempt at answers. Best, Gwernol 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please consider.

Regarding our past dealings, there are still some lingering negative feelings regarding everything that was said. It will take some time for the healing process to end. I don't think a request not properly worded as a request would really help at this point and it would make matters worse not to mention causing tensions between us to rise. I do assume good faith that you mean well but I would appreciate it if you would be a little more delicate with your words.

I don't know why you're watching my page anyway when you've ignored any and all attempts for a truce. I would appreciate being left alone. Thank you very much. — Nathan ^(talk) 04:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My signature

Hello! Is my signature short enough? (( Anonymous_Anonymous )) Anonymous anonymous 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Note: You can remove my signature after you have replied to this message. Thanks and take care)

You might have a problem with that font face "Croobie". A good number of systems simply aren't going to have that. --Cyde↔Weys 14:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I'm changing my sig's font to "Arial". Anonymous_Anonymous 17:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Arial the default font on here? Changing it to arial doesn't seem to make any difference to the display on my screen. See as follows:

• Anonymous_Anonymous
• Anonymous_Anonymous

Why don't you just use the second signature? It's shorter. --Cyde↔Weys 17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Sorry. The font style looked different at that time because I wasn't wearing my glasses. I am now using the second one. Anonymous__Anonymous 14:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

m:Cite.php favour?

Hi. Do you know who is doing the automation-assisted footnote conversion? I need to reorganise Stregheria, and it would be a real pain to redo the referencing by hand. Jkelly 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can do it on your own, just check out User:Cyde/Ref converter. It's very simple. --Cyde↔Weys 01:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That was very simple. Thank you very much. Jkelly 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Crab Nebula

I just noticed you semi protected that article, and one thing has been bugging me for a while. Why is it not standard policy to semi protect featured articles on the day they're featured? I've read the semi protection page, and I realise that it's not supposed to be used as a pre-emptive measure against possible vandalism, but surely an exception could be made with featured articles where high levels of vandalism are almost guaranteed? Sorry for asking such a newbish question, but it's baffling why Wikipedia allows this vandalism to happen when it can be prevented. -- Steel 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm, I didn't even realize it was the featured article today, if I had, I wouldn't have sprotected in the first place. --Cyde↔Weys 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

It would be easier if it were the right side up. Skinnyweed 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't be cydeweys, now would it? --Cyde↔Weys 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how long were you saving up that pun for?--205.188.117.5 11:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the name's been "Cyde Weys" for years now and it's been that pun the whole time ... I wouldn't say I've been saving it up at all. If you didn't notice the pun until now, well then, I guess that's a bonus for you :-P Cyde↔Weys 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I never noticed the play on words. That's brilliant. :) Cowman109^Talk 17:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A request

Hello Cyde,

I have a request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed

The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.

Thanks,--Aminz 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, Just wondering if there were no dispute, then why did I ask you to help resolving the dispute? --Aminz 18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) interesting expression!!!(I mean "see no evil,...") I just understood its meaning --Aminz 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Typo in your new category

Hello, your robot created Category:Organisations based in Hugary but it has a typo: there is an "n" missing in "Hungary", so it should be Category:Organisations based in Hungary. Please move the category to the latter name with its contents. Thank you! Adam78 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: I think it would be highly appreciated if you could insert a country-related sorting key into the new members of "Organisations by country", like "|Hungary" into [[Category:Organizations by country|Hungary]] in the Category:Organisations based in Hungary. Look at the categories listed under the letter "O" in Category:Organizations by country and you'll see what I mean. Adam78 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Campaign

Say, I was wondering, Cyde. I recall you promising up and down during your campaign for adminship that you were through with touching userboxes. What's the story on that? Just wondering what your side of that is, since as it is, it looks pretty damning. D. G. 07:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do I know you? --Cyde Weys 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Er. No you don't; I don't believe we've directly interacted before, if that's what you mean. That's not the point. Do you not wish to disclose an answer to my query? D. G. 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already answered this, read further up on this page. --Cyde Weys 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I already have read through this page, and that isn't true. The closest I can find is a statement to the effect that you will follow through on your word and stop involving yourself with userboxes after all of your goals with respect to them are met. This isn't a question to the answer, it's a restatement of the question. I would not have wasted your and my time posting this question for your consideration if an answer were not already available for my consumption. Thank you, Cyde. D. G. 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this question to you seems to have come right before you did an archive of your talk page, so it was lost there. I've copied it here and my question stands as before. Thank you, Cyde. D. G. 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting rather sick of assumptions of bad faith. Every single time when I've archived my talk page, without fail, someone has accused me of doing it to cover something up. --Cyde↔Weys 21:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... The only bad faith assumption I see here is yours. DG just pointed out that the question had been lost in the archival. TheJabberwʘck^help! 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The tone of his message makes it quite clear what he meant. And please, for the love of God, can you fix your sig?! --Cyde↔Weys 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're both ABF'ing. By "fix," do you mean shorten? I'm about to transition to a new username, so I'm not gonna change it yet, except to remove the help part from the end. TheJabberwʘck 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean shorten. It's three lines long in my edit window ... it tends to overwhelm comments. Cutting out the various unnecessary font formatting would help reduce its size a bit. Look at my sig: it's just as colorful as yours, but it does it all inside of a single tag. --Cyde↔Weys 21:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As requested: not as short as yours, but not too bad either. Λυδαcιτγ 04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You still don't seem to have answered the original question. CelestialRender 01:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't implying that the archival had been done intentionally. The sentence would likely have been inverted, I think, were that the case ("You archived right after I made my question to you" rather than "I made my question to you right before you archived"). I'm sorry if this tends to happen to you a lot, but it's to be expected (by both you and me) and you should be used to it, seeing as you are someone with a high-traffic talk page. With so much talk, there is bound to be something going on anytime that you archive. As for "tone," we all know about the effectiveness of reading tone on the Internet. Retroactive pardon for any misunderstanding, then. Anyway, wonderful little thread of conversation here going (I might add that yes, that 3 line signature is obnoxious!), but I am still waiting for an answer to my original query... Thank you again, Cyde. D. G. 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and patiently repost this request for an answer. Thank you, Cyde. D. G. 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is really a poor time to start bugging me about this again. Change comes from within, not without. --Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems a bit odd to call it bad timing, when you haven't responded in three weeks. Raphael1 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Way to examine the situation before responding. --Cyde↔Weys 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, Cyde, I'm not sure I really understand what that last message from you means. Poor time? I'm not aware of why this is a poor time. Is something going on in your personal life? I can't be expected to read minds... sorry if that comes off as snippy, but, I just plain don't understand what you mean to say. Change comes from within? Good philosophical tidbit, but I don't understand what you mean either. I've just been asking a simple question for what will probably soon be a month, that's all. Do you refuse to respond, and if so why? I hate to assume that that's what you're doing, but that's what it seems like it. Thanks again, Cyde. D. G. 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. DG still hasn't gotten a response, almost a month after the fact? This is a Great conversation. -Silence 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This question is based on a false premise. There's really nothing to respond to. --Cyde↔Weys 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What false premise? I'm sorry, I've tried hard to assume good faith for the last month (nearly) now, but this has gotten silly. All that's come out of you are vacuous statements, some of which go in circles, some of which go nowhere, and others of which go to the convenience store to get themselves a drink. I can't be expected to read your mind, which is all you seem to have done. Just because you believe that "justly" my question is beneath you or "invalid", whatever that might mean, does not entitle you (does it?) to be cryptic and simply dismiss the question without explaining what you mean. I'm sorry if after a month I finally have to start appearing a bit hostile, but it seems you've just been stringing me and others who would like an answer along all this time yourself. As an admin, you hold a public trust, and I think we're entitled to hear your side of your story. If you disagree, and feel that adminship is more of a privilige than a responsibility, just say so, out and out. But for God's sake, shadowboxing like this just makes you look frightening, and I mean that. D. G. 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, since you say there's nothing to respond to, let me restate what there in fact is to respond to: "Why did you promise you'd stay away from userboxes when convincing people to vote for you for admin, and then shortly break that promise?" I don't understand your reluctance, seeing as your words on this matter can only improve your standing in the community, seeing as it looks very bad as it is, not hearing your story but only that of others. D. G. 04:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me spell it out for you. The false premise is that I ever promised to stay away from userboxes period. There were conditionals on it that maybe you just didn't see (like the then-policy succeeding). But look, it's been months now ... can you please stop hounding me and get over it? There's much more important stuff to be worried about, like writing the encyclopedia. Hell, even I have largely moved on to more important things. --Cyde↔Weys 04:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

AntiVandalBot

Just curious, is AntiVandalBot still in testing mode? Or is it fully operational now? --Ixfd64 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a clone of Tawkerbot2, so it's just as ready as TB2 is ... is TB2 fully operational? Not my call to make :-| Cyde↔Weys 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Where is your AOL now?"

oh for the love of... can you stop giving punative range blocks to AOL users? please.../: ? You're just feeding the trolls denial of service vandals--205.188.117.5 18:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made no such rangeblock. --Cyde↔Weys 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I for one would support a change in handling the AOL ips. AOL is simply a vandals paradise due to the way the IPs change so frequently. There is simply no effective method of handling AOL vandals. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A few things

Neat userpage! Oh yes, I apologize for my comments during your RfA, still hasn't left me. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the subst and sig notices. I've read them and modified the signature appropriately and hopefully my signature is now better, too. :) -- Shadikka 15 June 2006, 12:58 (UTC) 12:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

Cyde your userpage is scaring me :o . I don't know which way is up anymore. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind changing your userpage to render up and down? Thank you very much, Chuck^(contrib) 05:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and changed it myself (please don't take offense). In the past, user's with confusing userpages have been asked to change them. Later, Chuck^(contrib) 07:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And someone else was bold and changed it back. So my original request to change it stands. Later, Chuck^(contrib) 07:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

you can always opt to change it and "show preview" -- you reap the benefit of a cyde's userpage being rendered the way you like without inflicting your change on cyde or anyone else. frymaster 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpages are supposed to be readable, not sideways. Chuck^(contrib) 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

i concur. which is why i keep my userpage in an uppy-downy fashion. however, cyde likes his sideways for whatever reason and who am i to give him grief over it? -- frymaster 15:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sig

You don't think changing the user's cursor is kind of obnoxious? Stevage 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

don't go there. trust me. frymaster 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My Sig

Used to be:

 NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)}

Now is:

:NikoSilver:

I shrunk about half. Please vist my signature shop and its talk for details on the issue. (I am a little bit of a deranged schizo myself so don't push it further please!) :-) :NikoSilver: 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on ANI 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to reply there but realise that isn't the place for this (especially after the edit conflict comment that appeared by JDoorjam in between), but I still feel it should be said so:

Well if you feel that why don't you delete the LGBT one? After all in your delete summary you said you were not biased... (disclaimer: I am not really suggesting you go and delete that one out of process, it just seems like you're being inconstant, which could lead to accusations of bias, which is why we have 'proper processes'.). It does not seem to be an 'outrageous violation', at least not to everyone. Violation possibly, but people are disputing the point, and the debate should be allowed to happen. The proper place for that debate is MFD. Petros471 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Kent Hovind article

Hello Cyde. Love your name. You reverted a number of edits I made to the above-referenced article, with the edit summary "Why were all of Hovind's political views removed from the article?!" I explain my reasons for removal on the talk page. In short, I did not think they were relevant, as Hovind is known for advocating creationism, not for his other views. If you do not agree, please discuss this on the talk page. Most of my edits were aimed more at making the article better organized and deleting material that was repeated. I also added a section on the Hovind and the Big Bang. Please review these changes and explain why you think they should be deleted. --JChap 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you been to a Kent Hovind performance in person? I have. Or, hell, you can just download one online (he releases all of his stuff into the public domain). Half of Kent Hovind's shtick is on topics other than evolution. He rants, at length, about exactly the kind of stuff you excised from the article. Kent Hovind is notable for being a lunatic, not just a specifically anti-evolution lunatic. It's relevant. --Cyde↔Weys 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I watched some of his stuff while researching the changes for the article and I agree that he talks about politics a lot (mostly in relation to evolution). However, my non-original research was unable to establish that anybody pays much attention to his views on these topics, other than on the websites dedicated to him. I discuss this on the article's talk page. Most of my edits did not even involve the discussion of his political views, though. I was trying to make the existing article read better by organizing it and deleting repetitious material. I also added a discussion of his "refutation" of the Big Bang theory. I don't understand why you found it necessary to revert these edits as well. Best. --JChap 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

substing {{deleted page}}

What's the deal? Do we do it? Do we not? It's on low traffic pages, and template talk says not to subst to save diskspace - so I started adding long comment tags to prevent appearance on Special:Shortpages. Any particular reason why you are substing it? Thanks for clarification. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Disk space? Don't be silly. The full text of the template is less than 3KB. I could substitute that template 100 million times and it'd fit on a single hard drive. In general, don't worry about hard drive space or CPU utilization or whatever; the dev team worries about that (since they actually know what's going on), and if they actually see a problem, they will let us know. But it isn't worth worrying on their behalf over such trivial things as a few kilobytes. Hell, everytime you save a revision to WP:ANI you're using up an amount of space equivalent to one hundred substitutions of {{Deletedpage}}. So instead of coming after me, go after the people posting nonsense or trivial contents on there.

As for substituting {{deletedpage}}, I do it because userspace templates should be substituted unless there is a compelling reason not to. Templates change over time ... and old deletedpage templates that weren't substituted are now pointing to Afd rather than Vfd, which isn't correct, because the article's deletion discussion was held on a Vfd subpage, and those subpages weren't moved over. Substitution preserves the exact look of that page which won't change over time ... for stuff like user page templates, this is a wise idea. --Cyde↔Weys 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that made it clear. Except it's not a userspace template. But the rationale would be the same anyway. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sidekick

Cyde, what was your rationale on the deletion of the Sidekick AfD? Could you expand it, since I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

this edit

I think your bot missed. --Bachrach44 18:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Collective nouns

Btw. my "little set of restrictions" are known as "policy for administrators". LotLE×talk 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

s/are/is/ for great grammar --Cyde↔Weys 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't grade you down if you used a singular verb with "set" in my class, but I'd circle the error.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs)

It's a collective noun, it takes the singluar, not the plural. Good thing you're not an English professor .. --Cyde↔Weys 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• The gaggle of geese is*/are crossing the street.
• The bunch of grapes is*/are tasty.
• The Congress is*/are considering a bill.
• The data is*/are conclusive.

See the pattern? Your error is common though. What on earth gave you the idea I'm not an English professor? LotLE×talk 19:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

See the pattern in what? The first one is "is", the second is "is", the third is "is", and the fourth is variable depending on whether you take data to be singular or plural (theoretically the singular form of data is datum, but really no one says it that way). The only pattern I'm seeing is that you're consistently wrong. --Cyde↔Weys 19:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? You'd use "is" in (1), and consider it in (4)!? The plural does tend toward British-ism, but the singular sounds absolutely dead wrong to my American ear in (1) and (4). In a more formal style, I'd definitely always use plural in (3), but I think newspapers split on this. I can "get" the singular in (2), though it wouldn't be my first choice. I wonder if the trend toward singularization is a mid-Atlanticism (you're from Maryland, right?). Oh well, I've been in New England for 15 years, and I still can't imagine standing "on line". LotLE×talk 19:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"The geese are crossing the street", but, "The gaggle is crossing the street." Gaggle is a collective noun, thus making it singular, not plural. "Of geese" is just a modifying clause. You're doing the plural agreement to the modifying clause rather than to the actual subject noun, which is incorrect. --Cyde↔Weys 20:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, I mourn the decline in American university education. Thankfully, at least my publishers still have some editors with a good sense of the English language. And I suppose I'll be dead before spoken language is entirely doggerel, hopefully occasional mellifluous sentences will survive until then. LotLE×talk 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how you're being so melodramatic about grammar rules while at the same time so wrong about them. --Cyde↔Weys 18:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

AntiVandalBot blocked due to malfunctioning

I hated to do this, but I've blocked AntiVandalBot (talk · contribs) due to malfuctioning. It was reverting edits outside of the article namespace, which it was not supposed to be doing. Several legitimate editors had been warned for testing on the introduction page. [8] [9] Tawkerbot2 also made some reverts outside the main namespace, but I didn't block it since it wasn't making bad reverts unlike AntiVandalBot. After all, we should still have at least one anti-vandalism bot running. Could you please look into this? Thanks. --Ixfd64 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a recent change we made to increase the number of namespaces it fixed vandalism on, obviously it needs some work, so I've reverted the change and I'm running him just on main namespaces now. --Cyde↔Weys 18:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• him? you gave your anti-vandal bot a personal pronoun?--172.167.8.165 19:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well he does have a boolean variable in his source cade named "isMale" that I have set to True, so yes, I do call him a him. --Cyde↔Weys 19:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The William H. Block Company

As a first time contributor, please enlighten me as to why I am blocked from the web site after posting a historical reference article on a defunct department store company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EssEff (talk • contribs)

You're not blocked and you never have been blocked. Also, plese sign your posts. --Cyde↔Weys 19:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• could it be an autoblock?--172.167.8.165 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Could be. This guy just hasn't given me enough information to act on though. He doesn't cite the edit that he was supposedly blocked over nor does he cite his real account name or IP address that he edited from. There's nothing I can do because I have no idea what he's talking about. --Cyde↔Weys 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • He seems to have only ever edited William H. Block, which btw looks a bit too much like an nn-bio/advertising, so I'd guess he's referring to that--172.167.8.165 20:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I've never even seen that article before and thus I haven't taken any admin actions on related editors, sooo, I'm wondering if this guy is confusing me for someone else? --Cyde↔Weys 20:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:172.167.8.165/monobook.js

would you mind terribly if you could create this page for me? you're an admin so you should be able to not only create a new page, but edit a page that in theory is protected by defualt. Once you create it, I should be able to edit it myself--172.167.8.165 20:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Monobook.js isn't even going to work on an anonymous account. You're going to need to register a real user account. --Cyde↔Weys 20:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't clear your browser cache after logging off, they actually seem to keep working for a little while, I've been vaugly curious if they would work on an ip, I guess you answered my question--172.167.8.165 20:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it might work, I have no idea. We just don't give JavaScripts to anonymous users for entirely different reasons. User interface scripting is limited on a per account basis, as there's no guarantee multiple users aren't going to end up using any single IP address (even static IP addresses end up being re-assigned after someone cancels their account). The potential to allow setting user interface adjustments is too dangerous, so it's strictly limited to registered accounts. --Cyde↔Weys 20:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Dead People

Is there a point in recreating this category as {{deletedpage}}? That way, it exists, and can be added to articles. Kusma (討論) 22:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to prevent against recreation, but actually, pages can be inserted into categories whether the category exists or not. --Cyde↔Weys 22:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, but a redlinked category at least alerts editors that it doesn't exist. Too bad we don't have a way to mark a category as "This category shouldn't exist". Kusma (討論) 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

AntiVandalBot

Yay! More bots on the patrol! (which is also bad since it steals my reverts =]) I'm just curious; how did you get around to running...well...an anti-vandal bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk • contribs)

I'm just sort of heavily involved in Wikipedia's inner workings, and I'm pretty good at programming, that's all. There's all sorts of back channels of communication for Wikipedia if you're really interested ... try starting out with the IRC channels. --Cyde↔Weys 03:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your bot

seems to be malfunctioning and is doing something weird to this page: [10] I've posted on alerts and hopefully someone can block it until you can fix it. --Crossmr 03:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually it's working perfectly fine, there's just a lot of categories that have been deleted. --Cyde↔Weys 03:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• you couldn't find a way to put that in a single edit? Its making a mess out of the history of that page.--Crossmr 03:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'll look into modifying pyWikipediaBot to allow it to remove multiple categories at once, I already did so for templates. --Cyde↔Weys 03:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• That is a good idea because its very easy to mistake for a malfunctioning bot in that circumstance. --Crossmr 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, a lot of pages on popular models got very interesting today. Also, running this bot revealed some pretty weird errors wherein some pages were included in the same categories multiple times! That really doesn't make any sense. --Cyde↔Weys 04:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ouch, well I'd certainly hope that you can find a way to make it a single edit. Otherwise I'd question how much benefit a bot is that needs to sit on a page for what looks like 3 hours making edit after edit after edit. It makes it hard to revert vandalism with that going on (which is what I was there to do) because you can't do a simple revert while you sit there trying to figure out what that thing is doing. --Crossmr 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• It shouldn't be too hard to figure out ... the bot is quite obviously explaining what it is doing in every single edit. It is kind of sad I had to go through and delete all of these categories though ... someone did spend a bit of time populating them. I just wish they had consulted with someone first, and they would've realized this wasn't exactly a good idea to start off with. --Cyde↔Weys 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'll know the next time I see that kind of flood whats going on. Glad it was working as it should have been. --Crossmr 04:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hopefully there won't be a next time. I've done a lot of Cfd work and this was the first time I've seen pages that have been in literally dozens of categories that all needed to be deleted. It's really an edge case - not exemplary of typical Cfd work at all. --Cyde↔Weys 04:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can help with some advice

I've run into a problem user. I've posted it on a couple abuse boards but I haven't received any feedback, but this one I know there is a problem. I found this person User:Eep² over-linking pages. It goes against manual of style, and I consider it abuse when he goes through and links every single word he can find even to wikitionary if there isn't a wikipedia article on it. He marks every edit as minor Special:Contributions/Eep² and has done this to a lot of pages. I've started to clean it up..but its a mammoth task, and its not simple reverts because people have just added to the pages without bothering to revert first. He's expressed a disdain for wiki policy on his user/talk pages and was previously noted about not doing this. --Crossmr 04:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me some specific diffs? Thanks. --Cyde↔Weys 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup sorry. This is where I first discovered the overlinking. SOmeone on the talk page mentioned it had to be cleaned up so I dug through the history to find out who did it and found that it was him [11] this is when I started digging through his contribs and noticed that he had a history of doing this to a tong of pages. I'll dig up some others for you. Thats a pretty solid example of what he's done to big articles. --Crossmr 04:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

here is another example of his handywork here: [12] one edit.

3 more if you want them to establish a definite pattern here: [13] [14]

[15]

Oh wow, I didn't realize it was this bad. I've left him a stern warning. I have a lot on my plate to deal with, so if you'd just keep track of him and let me know if he continues with this, that'd be great. Overlinking is actually one of my pet peeves. --Cyde↔Weys 04:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is only the tip of the iceberg from what I can see on his contrib list. I just noticed he edited again now. I'll keep an eye on what he does. This is why I'm saying its going to take a mammoth task to clean up and it may be worth a mention somewhere that someone will pay attention to it because its probably well beyond me to revert all the damage he's done. --Crossmr 04:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

if you want a complete list, I've gone through and tagged the rest of the articles that need clean up with explanations and citations what this user did on each page, along with a note saying I'd try to clean them up as soon as I could, but making readers aware. There are a handful of additional pages but they were small and I quickly edited the few overlinks he put on them. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] plus about 6 pages I haven't linked that were small. SecondLife is now completely cleaned up. But there are still about 10 pages that need cleaned up, and his most recent seems to be about 10 days ago. So it doesn't appear to be something he's gotten out of his system. There are also 2 or 3 more pages that might be overlinked but I don't know enough on the subject matter to be sure. --Crossmr 07:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL range vandal

I noticed that we were getting frequent vandalism from the vandal's IP range 207.200.116.0/24. The telltale sign for now seems to be closely spaced vandalism originating from 207.200.116.*, usually one every 30 seconds or so. Most of the recent edits seem to have fallen into the category of intentionally screwing up Wikimarkup [22] or adding nonsense [23]. It is possible that the recent edits from this range were simply a coincidence from different users, though the fact that they occured within a few seconds of each other seemed suspect. The vandal's last confirmed MO (earlier today) was inserting gibberish [24] or malformatted equations [25] across multiple articles. The vandalism seems to have stopped following the expiry of a 15 minute block I stuck on the IP range. This and past patterns exhibited by the vandal leads me to suspect that we are not dealing with a bot. The most recent edits from that range seem to be mostly okay so far. This would appear to be consistant with his/her past behavior of disappearing for several minutes to hours after a range block. -Loren 04:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate you removing the Incident report launched against me. Not because I believe it wouldn't have been resolved overwhelmingly in my favor, but because it's a huge waste of time for everyone. Haizum 05:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory Comments

Please cease making inflammatory comments on my page, I promise that the next personal attack you make will be deleted.--GorillazFan Adam 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you stop accusing other users of making "inflammatory comments" and "personal attacks", especially when they've done nothing of the sort? You seem to think anything anyone says is an attack against you, and you respond in a really inflammatory manner that only serves to escalate conflicts. You need to look inwards and adjust your attitude. --Cyde↔Weys 05:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

rm threatening nonsense

Plenty of other users have disclaimers on their talkpages so why can't I? Myrtone

Try something like this <!--Personal attacks are not welcome on this page.--> rather than something like this <!--Personal attacks will be deleted.-->--GorillazFan Adam 23:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Or how about just not assuming bad faiths and not say anything about personal attacks. That "warning" implies that you are going to be perceiving any sort of criticism as a "personal attack". There's no need for the disclaimer, as real personal attacks can just be deleted anyway. --Cyde↔Weys 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ok

lmao ok. well, how long does it usually take a person to get a bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.23.82.33 (talk • contribs)

Well you have to get an account first, that's a given. Then you need to make enough positive contributions that people will trust you. Then you write a bot proposal and write all of the code, go for a week trial period, and then the bot is evaluated. If the botmeisters like it, it gets the full bot flag, and the process is complete. Otherwise you need to keep working on it, rewriting it, etc. By the way, please sign your posts. --Cyde↔Weys 21:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Write it as in with html code? I don't know how to do that. 63.23.82.33 21:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I beleive it is written in javascrpt not html, you can go to this site to learn javascrpit: [26]--GorillazFan Adam 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Gahhh!! Both of you are wrong. HTML and JavaScript are used for writing websites. If you want to use a bot, you have to use a real programming language ... pyWikipediaBot is written in Python. There's also a bot framework written in Perl. And yeah, if you don't know how to do this ... you won't be running a bot. Just like how you wouldn't be allowed to fly a plane without a pilot's license. --Cyde↔Weys 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• So, how long does it usually take to learn Perl/Python?63.23.19.225 22:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I dunno, what other programming languages do you know? It took me about a week to get familiar with Python ... but that's after the benefit of ten years experience working with literally a dozen other different programming languages. If you're trying to learn Python as your first language it might take awhile, because you'll have to learn all of the basics ... what a function is, what conditionals are, what loop structures are, how arrays and lists work, etc. --Cyde↔Weys 22:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Can we use C++?--GorillazFan Adam 23:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, you can use any language, but I would highly recommend Python. Why? The pyWikipediaBot framework is very extensive, and using it saves a lot of time. It happens to be written in Python. Duplicating it would take months of effort, time which is better spent actually programming bots than duplicating effort on writing the framwork. I didn't know Python at all before I started my work with Cydebot (and I know C++ fairly extensively), but I went with Python anyway, because learning Python took a lot less time than rewriting the entire framework from scratch in C++. --Cyde↔Weys 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR RFD Closure

You closed the 3RR redirect as a delete (ref: Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#3RR .E2.86.92 Wikipedia:Three-revert rule). However, within that debate, several other redirects were included (Three-revert rule, Three revert rule, 3 revert rule, 3RV). Since you closed the debate, something needs to be done with these as they are still tagged with {{rfd}}. If you don't believe the debate conclusion was sufficient for them, they should probably be re-listed. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing them to my attention, I just hadn't seen them the first time around. --Cyde↔Weys 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

You may want to consider semi-protecting your userpage. It gets vandalized quite often.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Awww, but if I protect it then I won't be able to update my vandalism counter as often. --Cyde↔Weys 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

True, lol. My vandalism count amounts to 1 (which happened today, or yesterday according to UTC :P).--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you much

For this edit. The links on your page work again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CFD/W

you tagged some that bots cant do, Why cant they? Betacommand 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they can't. Try it. Bots can't (yet) figure out templated category syntax, e.g. {{foobar|Category=U.S. trains}} on the article and [[Category:{{{Category}}}]] in the template. --Cyde↔Weys 13:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

HuRay :) I sloved the problem My Bot can fix it it was User error. users were using nation=Argentine instead of nation=Argentinia Betacommand 06:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Haizum

You just deleted my complaint at AN/I. I would like to know what you suggest if a user vandalizes a user page, personally attacks repeatedly, [27] [28] incites others not to assume good faith and refuses to resolve the conflict on his talk page? [29] [30] Añoranza 05:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, the first link goes to an innocent question I was asking this user, the second set of links go to harmless comments that clearly aren't personal attacks, and the third set of links go to my own talk page that has been bombarded with empty NPA and AGF tags with unenforceable blocking threats[31][32][33][34]. I'm sorry and embarassed that your talk page is now home to this clutter. Haizum 05:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

All of you involved, please bring this to WP:RFC or Mediation or something. It doesn't belong on ANI, which is the administrator's noticeboard. We don't work out disputes between users there. --Cyde↔Weys 05:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply look at this user's recent contributions; it's systematic reversion[35]. If anyone dares challenge these actions it becomes an AN/I or RFC. Haizum 05:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with him here, the use of the link text 1982 Lebanon War makes a lot more sense (and is a lot less POV) than the use of the link text Operation Peace for Galilee. Frankly, the latter just smacks of propaganda, and I've never heard of it ... is it a charity? Is it an ironically named war, and if so, where was it and who was involved in it? "1982 Lebanon War", however, tells you everything you need to know, and it does so neutrally. --Cyde↔Weys 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I think that is a separate discussion. Just look at the frequency of these reverts. This user obviously has these pages marked so that reverts can be made periodically without violating 3RR, in other words, "Gaming the System." On top of that, the focus of this user has been on US actions, not the actions of militaries all over the world. If this user is truly acting in good faith, where are universal corrections? I'm not seeing anything that would allow me to AGF...not to mention the TP spamming. Haizum 05:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, look at the contribs now, they are clearly focused on US operations and US military equipment. I refuse to believe this is done in good faith. I mean come on. Haizum 05:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, please, RFCs lead nowhere, they just end up with users throwing mud at each other. I listed very specific violations of Haizum, vandalism, and severe and repeated incivility, justifying a block. This can be done on sight, no RFC needed. Añoranza 06:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just trust me on this one. I've been around for awhile and I've been involved in a fair number of these things myself, so I do believe I know what I'm talking about. RfCs may seemingly end up going nowhere, but in the end, they actually do quite a bit. You'd be surprised. Especially when it comes to arbitration (if it has to come that far), having a previous RfC is a pretty important requirement for getting the RFAR accepted at all. And there are a fair number of admins who will act on RFCs ... it's not uncommon that, if bad actions are conclusively established in an RFC, that admins will pay very close attention to the user and reign him in if he continues. --Cyde↔Weys 06:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to spend half of my wikipedia time answering to innuendo posted on RFCs. Just look at what Zer0faults does since the complaint has filed. Just as before, only a page more to look at where he tries to mislead others. Haizum violated some very specific policies. If a user is blocked for such things, he won't do it again. If he is invited to more spread more mischief, he will spread more mischief. Añoranza 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You can file an RFC, spend a good amount of time on it over the course of a week and then be done with it, or you can continue this squabbling and edit-warring for months to come with out-of-place comments on WP:ANI and such where nobody will actually do anything about it because it is the wrong venue. Please, for the love of God, use the dispute resolution process, including but not limited to RFC, RFAR, MedCab, and Mediation Committee. Anything is better than the status quo, which is causing a lot of strife but is solving nothing. --Cyde↔Weys 06:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess we have to agree to disagree here. I have no week to give away to someone violating policies, the Zer0fault example shows this leads nowhere. His continued incivilities clearly justify a block, if you do not want to enforce it, what can I do? Añoranza 00:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith here. Let me rephrase your argument so you realize how absurd it sounds. He's making corrections to a bunch of pages, but because he's not doing it across the entire encyclopedia, he's doing it in bad faith? Huh? The encyclopedia is huge. He's making some good edits in a field that he's interested in. Remember, this is a volunteer project ... you cannot reasonably expect him to take on this mammoth task. I'm not commenting on any alleged talk page spamming or revert-warring, but I do think these edits to remove propaganda names are reasonable. --Cyde↔Weys 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am deductively assuming bad faith here; just look at what he is reverting. You're telling me that the UK, Frace, Germany, etc don't have military operations with code names that could be considered propagandistic? Haizum 05:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all countries have propaganda military operations names. And all of them do need to be cleaned up. But I don't understand how Anoranza correcting a few of them in a certain subject area immediately qualifies as bad faith. I happen to live in Maryland. Let's say I go around editing on Maryland-related articles and modify the categorization scheme. Are you going to accuse me of being a bad faith editor because I'm only editing Maryland-related articles? Would I only be a good-faith editor if I went around and took on the monumental task in all fifty states? --Cyde↔Weys 05:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't believe the analogy is fair. You really don't see a whole lot of active interstate criticism going on outside of the court system, or situations where one state is singled out for abuse. The United States on the other hand...well, in your analogy is just another "state" of the world. But let me even counter that analogy. With regards to states, my personal interest on Wikipedia is to see that gun laws in various states are accurate; that covers states like my own, VA, which has very lax regulations; it also covers states like MD, which has some of the strictest regulations in the country. However, you won't see me making edits in only the restrictive states, and you won't see me making edits in only the lax states. Haizum 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So what if his edits are focused on US operations and US military equipment? I mainly edit evolution-related biology pages and steer clear from pages on other scientific disciplines ... does that make me a bad-faith editor? No, it just means I'm editing the stuff that I'm interested in and that I have know-how in. It's entirely reasonable to think that this guy has know-how on US military operations but not on the operations of other countries. Hell, that describes my knowledge, and if I was interested in editing military articles my editing pattern might well be similar to his. --Cyde↔Weys 05:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely reasonable until you actually get a taste of the rhetoric. If it were possible to prove it, I'd bet $1000 these edits are not done in good faith; mainly because I can only afford to bet $1000. Haizum 05:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree here. I just want you to know that I'm very set on my position regarding this user. Haizum 05:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but you are coming off as unreasonable here. You seem intent on assuming bad faith without providing any actual evidence of this other than "you would bet a bunch of money on it". And you're being stubborn about this user. We cannot possibly hope to determine the intent of a user's edits; we can only judge the user on the merits of his edits alone. And in this case I do believe all of the edits were quality edits that helped improve the quality of the encyclopedia, because "1982 Lebanon War" is a much better, unbiased term to use in articles than "Operation Peace for Galilee". P.S., I find it very ironic that the name of a military operation has the word "peace" in it. That is classic propaganda. --Cyde↔Weys 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There are, of course, reasons to question whether the motivation for these edits might not be somewhat misguided. (Sorry to see that you've been dragged into this, incidentally.) Kirill Lokshin 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading that comment. I don't think he's actually sympathizing with Nazis, he's simply (rightfully) pointing out that hardly anyone feels sorry that the Nazis have vanished. --Cyde↔Weys 06:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant the fact that he seems to be basing his decision of which names to replace on how people feel about the conflict in question, and the fact that he seems to think that using any term invented by one side is a priori unacceptably biased. Kirill Lokshin 06:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because only the US (its military operations, its equipment, and its supporters) are being targeted for edits and criticism, I'm going to assume bad faith. I know there is little I can do to prove it, and nothing I can do to change it, but nevertheless, I'm assuming bad faith. Haizum 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe how brazenly you are admitting to violating one of Wikipedia's policies. And frankly I really don't understand how editing in only one topic area is a bad thing. Correcting the usage of propaganda terms is a good thing. So what if he's only correcting certain propganda terms; this is an all-volunteer project, so we accept the help we get. We cannot reasonably tell this guy, "Hey, I see you're correcting propaganda terms, but you're only focusing on the United States, so I'm ordering you to take on all propaganda terms used by the more than 200 nations on the face of the Earth." --Cyde↔Weys 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm admitting to violating it in my mind, and I have no problem saying so on talk pages. AGF was created so reverts wouldn't happen based upon assumptions, not so people wouldn't have an opinion. Haizum 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly urge one of you to file a general subject RFC on the usage of propaganda names for military operations. This needs to be solved with wider community input, something you aren't getting with the current "style" of argumentation. --Cyde↔Weys 06:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I somehow doubt your suggestion will be accepted; guess how far mine (admittedly somewhat more limited; to discuss it at WP:MILHIST) got? Kirill Lokshin 06:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in playing guessing games. Please link to exactly what you are talking about. --Cyde↔Weys 06:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the initial suggestion (repeated here by another user)? Or the shortcut (which point to the Military history WikiProject)? (It was, in any case, a rhetorical question on my part; sorry for not making that clear.) Kirill Lokshin 06:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, now I know what you're talking about. It might be a good idea to talk to the military WikiProject organization to get some ideas, but you can't really make a decision with just them, as WikiProjects are entirely informal. RFC, however, is part of the formal dispute mediation process, so that's why it'd be a better idea to go through there. Of course, there's no reason you wouldn't post a naming conventions RFC on this topic and then post a notice to the MILHIST guys, who may be interested. Actually, that's probably the best route to go through. I strongly recommend it. --Cyde↔Weys 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:1500e

It didn't show up on my page. Can you help me, or give me the code? GangstaEB EA (comments welcome!) 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? --Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem on Gülen article

I've run into an odd problem here. As you probably remember, User:Rgulerdem was blocked from editing after an RFCU I initiated a propos his sockpupetteering on the Fethullah Gülen article. He has subsequently returned as User:TheLightning and with 2 ip addresses, editing the same article, and tried to edit-war over it on the talk page. I had his new puppets blocked too. Still he managed to file on WP:AN/I against me and got the attention of admin User:Nandesuka, who then wanted me to work together with Rgulerdem's new puppets and compromise with them.[36]. I managed to convince Nandesuka that this not an acceptable option for me, but Nandesuka continued to claim that I have no right to mark the article with a NPOV tag. I repeatedly and in great detail presented my objections to the article as it stands now, and said that in order to substatially improve it with proper sources instead of just my recollection of things, I'd have to consult a bunch of books and articles on the subject, which will take some time that I don't have right now. Nandesuka then alerted (with very uncivil wording) [37] User:Aaron Brenneman, who now threatens to block me for disruption should I reintroduce the NPOV tag that Nandesuka removed, because "he hates it".[38]. I'm not only not disrupting anybody with the template (except Rgulerdems sockpuppets, nobody else it editing the article at the moment), but I also feel I'm in conformance with Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup. Now what? Thanks, Azate 14:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than keep the NPOV tag indefinitely, please fix the article on your own. It looks like all of Rgulerdem's latest round of socks have been dealt with. --Cyde↔Weys 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad bots break pages by doing more than they should.

This bot (Cydebot) - when unleashed for a specific task (i.e. removing a deleted category) SHOULD NOT do general cleanup. It breaks pages. It should stick to the task at hand and do nothing else. - Davodd 19:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A policy question

You recently stated on the RFD for BJAODN that ...unless someone can give me an actual reason why our policy against cross-namespace redirects should be ignored in this instance, I'm going to go ahead and delete it. Just because a redirect is "well known" does not make it any less of a violation. I fully agree with you on deleting the redirect, mainly per WP:IAR as the redirect does not really benefit Wikipedia in any way (just a link to a list of Wikipedia-related jokes, and a cross-namespace redirect). However, my question is about policy for deleting cross-namespace redirects. I cannot find any policy that states all cross-namespace redirects should be deleted, as WP:ASR is a guideline and WP:RFD states that you "might" want to delete a redirect if it's a cross-namespace redirects, followed by a list of possible exceptions. For the purpose of clarifying the issue, do you know if there is any policy that specifically says cross-namespace redirects should not be used? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy is simply a codification of common practice. Maybe this one just hasn't been written up yet; regardless, it's been common practice for quite some time now. There needs to be a very clear delineation between the actual encyclopedic content and the other stuff that is part of the process of writing the encyclopedia. One of the worst examples I've seen was when I saw a cross-namespace redirect occupying an article name that could legitimately have an article written on its own merits. Now that's simply absurd. --Cyde↔Weys 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of N'zoth

I noticed that your bot (or I think it was) filed the Battle of N'zoth article under a list of Star Wars fanfic. Just to be clear, I had a typo on the page... "fictional battle in the Star Wars universe". It has been promptly changed to its correct state: "battle in the fictional Star Wars universe". Just clearing it up. Nice bot, by the way! I could 'never make that myself!

RelentlessRouge 20:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template issue

You deleted Template:User 1500e, which is fine by me, but you wrote in the summary "Redirect into userspace." Where is it in the userspace?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Zappa.jake/templates/1500 edits --Cyde↔Weys 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cyde.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks! (Might be spam, but still...)

Thanks for voting! Hello Cyde/Archive007, thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA, and congratulations for WP:100ing it! I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100 by you of course, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

Glad you didn't let our "userbox differences" get in the way :) --Pilot|guy 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 25	19 June 2006	About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director	NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs	News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs PS-Algol Hot 100 Singles Sales House of Style Epiphany (feeling) City Lights Bookstore Tulip Era in the Ottoman Empire Tyson Beckford Penology Mauna Kea American Dialect Society Knuthput Fart Mudstone The Dana Carvey Show Algol Object Code George P. Bush Hot Digital Tracks Random access memory Samuel Colt

Cleanup Supermodel ProSpace Parameter space Merge Nuremberg Laws Word processor Second Battle of the Aisne Add Sources ZOMG Ashley Hammond John Dillinger Wikify Constructivist epistemology Grottaglie Marcin Expand Space programme of Brazil Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Life-critical system

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RfD

Hi Cyde. Whilst I see you are dealing somewhat forthrightly with cross-namespace redirects, I think that where one is being discussed, in a divided debate, on RfD one should allow that to conclude naturally. There is no harm in this, and no hurry. There is also no outright prohibition against cross-namespace redirects, although they are discouraged out of article space in particular, and no policy that actually backs a blanket move to dispose of them. Gently does it. (All of which is to say that I've reverted your early closure of the Protologism RfD; please do join the debate, though.) -Splash - tk 13:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How NOT to Steal a Sidekick 2 on Deletion review

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. (Just trying to make sure that admins are made aware of DRVs for *fDs that they've closed) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunholm a bot?

You are joking right? Assuming you are please re-phrase your block reason to something more in line with the actual block reason. Whilst removing WOW from banned users list was undoubtedly a very strange thing to do, I'm not sure that justifies an indef block on its own. Obviously if your block reason is more than that it would be good for you to say so. Petros471 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bots are routinely indefinitely blocked until they are fixed such that they have stopped malfunctioning. I have posted an explanation of Sunholm's botness to the thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard. --Cyde↔Weys 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted the above message before I saw the AN post (it had only just been made). I'll follow up there. Petros471 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:WillMak050389#Please_cease_internal_spamming

Please see my message here. NSLE 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

modelling category removals

Dear Bot,

I think you missed a couple -- Sports Illustrated (swimsuit) models and Playboy models. Why not remove those as well as the fashion model categories?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.9 (talk • contribs)

Take this to WP:CFD: it seems like a slightly different situation. --Cyde↔Weys 22:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Atheism?

Hi Cool Cat. I was reading your user page and I saw that you're a Computer Engineering major... cool! I am too. Furthur down I saw that you put an exclamation point after Atheism. I'm not sure what that means. Did you intend to emphasize that atheism is not a religion, or something else? I'm just curious. ~MDD4696 21:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it is just that being acused of being an atheist and a muslim was kinda funny since the two religions arent compatible. I do not reveal the faith I believe in or weather I believe in one. ;)

Atheisms claisfication (weather its a religion or not) is a contraversial issue which I'd rather not get indulged in

--Cat out 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll get into it though ... of course atheism isn't a religion. In addition to the simple meaning of the word, it shares nothing in common with religions ... there's no organized hierarchy of atheists, there's no irrational beliefs, no faith, etc. --Cyde↔Weys 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, some argue the absense of religion itself is a religion...

Many wars are fought over religion even in this century. The idea of dieing in the name of a religion is a very dangerous ideology. It basicaly allows one to shut off moral center.

My view is that religion is a topic best kept alone. Everybody is free to believe in what they believe in and no one should impose their beliefs on others. If only we followed a Prime Directive, life would be much better on the planet.

--Cat out 22:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone argues something doesn't mean it's a valid point of view. Saying the absence of something is itself that same thing is nonsense. And religion is a topic that is only ignored at extreme peril. See this series by Richard Dawkins for an in-depth explanation. --Cyde↔Weys 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Procedure?!

Unfortunately, like most things I see in your admin actions, the latest rather alarmed me for procedural reasons. You just closed the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2; but you had participated in the AfD discussion, so were not a neutral administrator. This is just wrong.

FWIW, I completely agree with the action to delete. I voiced that opinion myself (and also did some work to refactor the AfD to indicate more clearly the large number of brand new editors who were recruited from outside WP to express "keep" votes). It was clearly the strong super majority opinion. And moreover, "delete" is just plain the right action per WP notability guidelines. But someone else should have taken that right action to close as delete. LotLE×talk 18:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell do you mean "someone else"? For Christ's sakes, you're never going to get over it and you're never going to trust me to handle anything, is that it? --Cyde↔Weys 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not when I keep seeing this sort of thing, no I'm not. A closing admin on an AfD should be one uninvolved with the article and the AfD discussion. Period. This is pretty basic Admin 101. There are hundreds of admins who never contributed to that AfD discussion... one of them should have been the closing admin. This is my major problem with your pattern of actions: it's not really that your actions are wrong per se, but that you show such complete contempt for procedural fairness; I believe you have a belief that you are so much smarter or better than all other admins that you have some right to act even when you have a direct conflict of interest.

Likewise with that AfD about the GWB impeachment thing. You were a strong partisan of the issue, and also closed it prematurely. In fact, I believe that after it was reopened, the reasonable "keep" turned into a "delete" largely in reaction to your improper action. I voted the same way as you, so it's not about the outcome, but the procedure.

And also likewise with your vindictive 3RR on me. As you'll recall, I activiely solicited my own block from another admin who had no conflict of interest when I realized I got carried away and, in fact, 3RR'd. So again, the outcome wasn't wrong (well, you also 3RR'd several others without justification simply because they were on "my side"). But given your very recent history of animosity towards me, this also should have been something carried out by any other admin.

And also likewise with your modifying protected template pages to advertise for your own semi-bot tool. If anyone else had done it, it wouldn't be a direct conflict of interest... but it was you.

And... ad nauseum. All of this adds up to extremely irresponsible use of admin powers. A good admin should recuse him or herself from issues s/he is directly involved in. With 1.2 million pages to choose from, that leaves plenty of places to use an admin hat... but instead you use it primarily as a form of bullying. LotLE×talk 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Those templates were protected because they were high-visibility vandal targets, not because there was any sort of editing dispute. Administrators can edit permanently protected pages at will. --Cyde↔Weys 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand your closure, and he does have a point, it is suggested that those involved with the debate not close. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article is incredibly non-notable. I do suppose this questioning of motives is inevitable anytime a "hotly contested" Afd is closed. --Cyde↔Weys 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So how did you judge notability in the close? Because by any relevant standard or guideline, this met it. That's where my personal confusion lies, and you didn't expound much in your closing statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I say above, I firmly and absolutely believe that delete was the correct action. I wish, wish, wish, Cyde that you could get it through your head that procedure matters. There were plenty of admins who never voted in the AfD, nor edited the page. You were not one of them. LotLE×talk 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if delete was the correct action. I didn't even realize he was involved in the debate until I saw this comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure about the outcome. If you look at the votes, there were a number of keep votes, but virtually every single one of them was cast by either an IP address or an editor with fewer than 10 edits (usually just one or two total; obviously joining just to vote in the AfD). Of the voters with an established history, well over 90% voted "delete", and many of those "strong delete". Moreover, even if you look at the "established" voters, you might notice that most of the few "keep" votes come from editors with rather brief edit histories: more than 10 prior edits, but mostly in the 20-50 edit range (in other words, definitely not sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but also not editors well steeped in WP's conventions). So the outcome seems pretty clear, and would have been a no-brainer (IMO) for an uninvolved admin. LotLE×talk 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and of those 90% or whatever who voted "delete, nn," all of them were wrong - notability was firmly established by a variety of media attention taht would get any other article that didn't involve a web meme to be kept. We don't vote count, contrary to popular myth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Media attention doesn't make something notable. The media reports on lots of stupid, non-notable shit. Every week there's some random cat in a tree that gets national media attention. This is an encyclopedia, not a news compendium - can you honestly say that, down the line, this little theft of a PDA is going to be remembered by anyone? --Cyde↔Weys 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly yes, I can. Every single possible applicable guideline for notability was met by this article, I have no idea how you come out with saying this isn't notable. If you can explain why either a) the guidelines don't matter in this case, or b) what guideline(s) the article didn't meet, then I'll be glad to drop it, but you have to offer a little something to work with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lulu - here's a problem with your little set of restrictions. Rather than having a comment in that Afd, I could've just closed it then (it had already run long enough). Would that have made me more or less "evil" from your point of view? Getting to close Afds is much, much more power than a simple comment (which is all I had previously made, a simple comment). I wasn't involved in the large argument over that page in any real way. --Cyde↔Weys 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it had quite run long enough when you opined. You also refactored the AfD slightly by changing the titles about "new/established" editors; which is a minimal "involvement". But, yes, if you had waited a day or two, not commented, and then closed it as "delete", I would have been utterly happy with the behavior. The point of recusal isn't that someone with an interest will necessarily reach the wrong result, it's that they cannot be sufficiently neutral... even the appearance of conflict is disruptive (both to more important things like judges on courts, and to less important things like admins at WP). LotLE×talk 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have left a comment on the deletion review regarding this. As a fellow editor, I am thoroughly disappointed that an administrator has behaved in such a manner. I am sure you may be capable and hardworking, but this is surely irresponsible. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 01:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mountains out of a molehill. This thing is done and the correct (but difficult) decision was made. It's now on DRV with an overwhelming support for my actions. At this point, I would say, just move on. --Cyde↔Weys 01:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN

Considering the enormous number of pages listed in special:whatlinkshere/BJAODN, I think you should make an exception and leave it as a redirect. -- RHaworth 08:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rory can take care of fixing the redirects in less than an hour with his bot. Don't be worried about that. Be worried about upholding policy. --Cyde↔Weys 12:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Which policy? Kusma (討論) 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy against cross-namespace redirects. --Cyde↔Weys 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The one that isn't written down anywhere? Kusma (討論) 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That same one that's been followed very closely for months now. --Cyde↔Weys 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There's only about 200 links - some redirects have had several thousand links. Also, the redirect to BJAODN doesn't necessarily build an encyclopedia (it's just a list of humorous things), so another reason to remove it would be WP:IAR. Cowman109^Talk 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is still significant opposition to this, and it has never been written down as a policy. You were even reverted by me when you tried to add it as a WP:CSD). Also, I find the reasons to keep WP:BJ while deleting BJAODN rather unconvincing. Both are rather weird acronyms with no real-world significance (i.e. no possibility of confusion with encyclopedic content), and both were cross-namespace redirects. I think this would be worth discussing, and I ask you to please stop referring to it as a policy when it is not. Kusma (討論) 16:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:, WT:, and CAT: with a very, very low possibility of collision with any encyclopedic topics. All of the other cross-namespace redirects are strewn about, mixed in with the articles, and a significant number of them did have collisions with possible real encyclopedic topics. Your reversion of CSD was unwise, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am all for deletion of cross-space redirects with a potential for confusion. I just don't see the potential for confusion with encyclopedic topics at BJAODN, and I am not sure whether other useful shortcuts like MoS:DP wouldn't have been deleted by your new speedy criterion. Also, I don't see what is unwise about "be bold, revert, discuss" on policy pages. You were bold, I reverted and stated my reasons on the talk page, and now there is a discussion. That might be a bit slower, but I hope we get a better end result. Kusma (討論) 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many of the remaining cross-space redirects are to category pages. They are not really self-references, but I actually agree with you that they should go anyway. If they aren't speedied, we can discuss whether the best course of action is to write a stub with a link to the category page instead and what to do with the incoming links. All I'm saying is that there's no reason to be hasty about cross-space redirects. Kusma (討論) 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sig

Hi, in response to your comments on my talk about my sig, I think you may be refering to my older one which streched out for over 5 lines, as it had borders around the images. I like to keep in the images, they're tiny both in the layout and the Wikisource (even though the name of the Australian one is rather long, but that's for clarity's sake, not my fault). They're easily identifiable and distinguishable from my actual comments, even in wikisource. I went through several sigs in the last fortnight, so if you could just enlighten me as to the one you're refering to. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, images are depreciated, not banned. I have stopped using images for the reason of unnecessary server load (due to me welcoming new users a lot, which caused the pix to be included in quite of lot of user talks), using ASCII characters instead. But you claim that my sig owerwhelms code, which isn't true in my case, it does not overwhelm any code, it's blatantly distinguashable from my comments. But if it will make you happier I'll stop signing my posts all-together, perhaps that will stop overwhelming them. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 13:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed bug in monobook tool

I have fixed a small but significant bug in User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. Feel free to update your version. You are doing great work. Keep it up! Regards bobblewik 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Doug Ellis

Copy of note put on Anti-Vandal Bot page:

Hi Anti-Vandal Bot. As a Villa fan, I can tell you that the above page is going to get repeatedly trashed unless you put some sort of 'George W Bush' type protection over it. He's hated with a passion by a lot of Villa fans - me included - and whilst it pains me to say so, and why part of me wishes all the graffiti could remain, to keep Wiki's integrity I think you're going to have to do something proactive about it. You'll be firefighting vandalism until the day Eliis goes/dies otherwise.

I'll put a note on there to try and effect something if that's OK with you. Please edit it as you see fit. Cheers Martyn Smith 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC) FORZA VILLA!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AntiVandalBot" Martyn Smith 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird shit

I remember that you had a "weird shit" page. I can't seem to find it right now, but here is another addition (if you don't already have it).

I can't help but think that image is fake, though... it looks like water...

Anyways... -- infinity0 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, you already have it, I just saw the "pages which link this page" at the bottom. -- infinity0 23:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your bot

Please tell it to not fix redirects on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion; piping them on that page is a bit weird. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 00:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fringe physics

It appears that Cydebot misinterpreted the CfD result here. The decision was to keep, and only to merge a few articles. As the articles with these talk are subject to continual edit disputes, with the Fringe Science vs. Pseudoscience categorization being a major issue, if you could quickly revert these changes, it would be greatly appreciated. --Philosophus ^T 00:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot just does whatever people ask of it on WP:CFD/W. Looks like someone moved over the results from CFD to that page incorrectly? --Cyde↔Weys 00:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, someone listed it as an "easy" merge. --Philosophus ^T 00:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Early closure of review of be bold deletion

Cyde, I am somewhat puzzled by your comment in closing the discussion of "Be bold". You said "Close listing. Nothing was deleted here; this is DELETION review. If you want to bring this up again, do so at WP:RFD. This is the wrong place."

However, Wikipedia:Deletion review says under "purpose", "Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion ... ." My understanding is that DRV is the appropriate forum once xFD has been used, even if the content has not actually been deleted. Is this an incorrect understanding?

The original RFD debate was closed as a change target despite no consensus to do so. Thus, that decision became reviewable on WP:DRV. BigDT 02:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's a valid interpretation ... Cyde↔Weys 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Without referencing this actual discussion, DrV contributors have generally referred back to article talk any debate which would not require adminstrator intervention at its conclusion. Just as an XfD decision about where to redirect isn't "binding" neither would be a DRv decision. So, normally, not a DRv issue.
• With reference to this particular issue, when someone as experianced as Rossami opens a debate in the "wrong" place it's usually good to have a long think before doing anything else. And once discussion starts, it's almost always a good idea to wait for discussion to finish before doing anything else.

brenneman ^{L} 05:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Shoe on head

Hi. Just thought I'd take this to my favorite rouge admin, would you mind speedy deleting this nonsense and saving everyone an unessesary headache?--205.188.117.5 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

re: your comment on Rory096's Talk page

You said "Game set and match." Not hardly. That barely wins a point in this debate. You are interpreting the policy far more literally than is supported by the page, by the nuanced discussion on Talk or by our long tradition with these redirects. Rossami (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My Sig

It has been reduced since then. I took off the comments welcome. GangstaEB EA 17:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• how do you get it to be so short? and still have so many colors?--Bee(y)^Ti 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

{{note_label}}

Since when has this been deprecated? Not everyone likes footnotes, and in-line harvard style citations are perfectly acceptable by wiki standards. The {{note_label}} and {{harvard_reference}} tags make an excellent pair for those of us who cannot stand cluttering up the main space with citation references but use the {{cite #####}} style templates. Where was a policy decision made? -- Avi 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Deprecation is a simple fact ... you don't need an official policy decision to determine that. The usage of the old ref/note system has been decreasing steadily while the usage of Cite.php has been increasing very quickly. There are many significant problems with old template ref/notes that have been well documented. This debate was over two months ago. --Cyde↔Weys 22:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Opinion

I need someone like you to express your opinion on my RFA Criteria. Thanks and have a lovely day. Anonymous__Anonymous 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone already did. :-) Anonymous__Anonymous 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)