User talk:Cyde/Archive013

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

Everything okay?

Cyde: I've been waiting for days expecting for you to comment on the (so-called) Giano arbitration case (although I didn't expect to agree with everything, or perhaps even with much, that you wrote), and suddenly realized that you hadn't said a word there or anywhere else I've seen in some time, and your contributions log indicates you have indeed fallen silent. Given your dedication here, it's not like you to go on an unannounced 10-day Wikibreak. I hope everything is all right. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I got your message. Thursday is OK. 82.25.23.173 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 40	2 October 2006	About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added	News and notes
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
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. Ralbot 06:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI

This wasn't you, was it? ;-) Hope all is well, FreplySpang 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

concerning the retitling of List_of_hentai_authors

hallo, With just cause most liekly, you decided to retitle the above page from list of H authors to Hentai authors. This is a valid unles one spends hours on the stuff.

Unfortunately, it is pretty much impossible to divide said list into Hentai and Erogé/date sim developers, as in many cases they do all three (not always at the same time).

unfortunately I havent a clue as to where else to go as to recategorise the article, so i'll poke you for a resonse instead ^^

love 195.194.195.11 08:31, 4 October 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 16:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong Pages

There is a heated revert war on Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, Falun Gong Teachings and Suppression of Falun Gong pages. Some editors have violated the 3RR. Editors on both sides do not seem to be able to come to an agreement, can you provide guidance or protect the page so they can talk again instead of reverting? --Kent8888 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll start over

Cyde. I have been sarcastic in my last two edits to your page. I apologise, for my irritation at my previous attempts at communicating with you is no excuse for not continuing to try to talk reasonably with you. - brenneman ^{L} 00:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you back

I'm glad to see you are editing again. Your unannounced abscence had me worried. Raul654 22:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You're in the unique solution to actually be able to do something to rectify the problems that led me to take this break. I've looked at the proposed remedies on the arbitration thing, and there's lots of suggested actions against Tony Sidaway, but Tony isn't really the problem. Read the workshop pages carefully and you'll see a few persistent agitators who are turning the wiki into a really unpleasant place to be on. These are people who skirt the boundaries of incivility constantly and then have the gall to warn other people about being incivil, as if somehow a persistent campaign of harrassment isn't much worse than a few words said in a heated moment. --Cyde Weys 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I recall in the past you have protected the User page of someone who left Wikipedia. I am wondering why you have not yet taken that step with Kelly Martin's User page? Johntex\^talk 00:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you jog your memory? I don't quite know what incident you are referring to. And anyway, my action in that case was probably specifically related to the individual case and isn't a generalized suggestion that we automatically protect the user page of everyone who has left. That said, if Kelly doesn't return for awhile, and some people are doing vile things with her page, it would make sense to protect it, and I would endorse that action. --Cyde Weys 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explanation. I can't recall the specific user name but I guess it isn't that important. Thanks again. Johntex\^talk 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're back!

It's great to see you're back as well. I was worrying that something had happened to you during this long absence. Cowman109^Talk 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kappa

Um, regarding [1] he stopped that a week ago or so. I'm not sure therefore that a block at this point makes sense. Or am I missing something? JoshuaZ 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

He's one of the more vociferous school inclusionist warriors. He's definitely done this before, repeatedly. He needs to know that he can't get away with it anymore. This is the best way to do that. --Cyde Weys 14:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_block_review. Alphachimp 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This one might have been a little late on the draw. I'll stand next to you in stamping out votespamming, but blocking a week and a half after the fact was maybe not the best idea. Maybe it might be best to run something like this by someone who might not be quite as emotionally attached next time? Heck, even with Nicodemus75 I spent some time talking to Teh Seekrit IRC Cabal before actually laying the block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan

I think you're missing an understanding of how images get promoted to featured status. There may not be a notability requirement for images, but per WP:WIAFP Featured Pictures need to be representative of an article and be the whole "picture worth a thousand words" thing. Sometimes the images themselves are indeed notable, such as Image:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg, the first photograph ever. Sometimes they have enough emotional impact on their own despite not really representing a topic very well, such as Image:TamarackMiners CopperCountryMI sepia.jpg which was paired to Mining. In the majority of the cases, however, images get promoted because they are well executed and illustrate a particular concept well, which is what we have here. Wikipe-tan is a prime example of (and happens to be one of the few, if not the only one, that is also available under a free license) moé anthropomorphism and you'll notice that the POTD blurb focuses mostly on this concept. The image qualifies under all the criteria set in WP:WIAFP and all FPs are to be PsOTD eventually, so that's how Wikipe-tan ended up on the Main Page. One question -- if for some reason this had been an OS-tan or Moezilla that got promoted to FP status, would you even be raising these concerns? howcheng {chat} 16:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think it's appropriate to have something so absurdly navel-gazish as that picture of Wikipe-tan. It's made for Wikipedians, by Wikipedians, and has absolutely no hold whatsoever outside of Wikipedia. The front page is primarily read by outsiders (who outnumber habitual editors thousands to one), so I don't think it's appropriate to prominently put something on there that basically documents Wikipedia's fascination with itself. I would be slightly more happy with Moezilla or whatever, because those are somewhat notable outside of the context of Wikipedia itself. --Cyde Weys 16:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, concerns were raised about WP:ASR but it was agreed on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wikipe-tan and Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Wikipe-tan_as_POTD.3F that if the blurb was focused on the related article, it would not really be a self-reference. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But of course it's a self-reference, the -tan is about Wikipedia and we are on Wikipedia! My point is that not every POTD image is automatically eligible for the front page. I guess I can live with using a self-reference to illustrate something on the moé page because that's the only freely licensed image of that type we're likely to get, but using it on the main page is another thing entirely. The main page has a much lower tolerance for self-reference, and I believe that it was exceeded in this case. --Cyde Weys 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but what's done is done. I highly doubt there will be another case like this in the future. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ILP's block

I know it's been a while, but you weren't here when I said this and Werdnabot archived it.

You've been blocked for 24 hours for continued reinsertion of private material. If you do this again you will most likely be banned, as the community has really had enough of you. You haven't contributed anything recently and your edits have pretty much solely consisted of attacks on administrators, posting of private information, and agitating for the unblock of a particularly troublesome editor, which I assure you will never happen. --Cyde Weys 01:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've had quite enough of you. I'm sure I don't need to ask why.
Secondly, his "attacks" were hardly unprovoked.
Third, I assure you that he (or me, for that matter) will never be silenced.
What private material did you claim that he was "reinserting" anyways? Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 17:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, nobody's trying to silence you. Just give up canvassing for Nathan to be unblocked. It's never going to happen for reasons that go far beyond mere administrators. Just let it go and work on being productive in other areas. --Cyde Weys 17:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, you didn't answer my question. Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't see the irony in asking about the nature of private material? What exactly makes you think I have an obligation to answer that question? Other admins know what's going on here and have provided oversight, let's leave it at that. --Cyde Weys 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, you can be very convincing at times, and I already have enough battles to fight without you, so yes, let's just leave it here.

POTD

This is to let you know a Featured Picture based on one you originally nominated, Image:Giant planes comparison.svg, is scheduled to be Picture of the day on November 6, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, I'm glad that that one finally made it to featured picture status. I agree, the newer svg is definitely better. --Cyde Weys 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your attacks

Do not continue to make personal attacks against me, on or off wiki. You have spread absurd and dangerous gossip, which ended up damaging other people, though your intention was to damage me, no doubt. I have asked you by e-mail and I am asking you again openly, and very seriously: stop gossiping about me (and others), stop your personal attacks, and stop the aggression. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already e-mailed you about some of the gossip, asking you to stop it, so you know what it's about, and you know what you've been saying and to whom. It all gets back, Cyde. People who enjoy listening to gossip tend to be gossips themselves. No good will come of it, so I can only request again that you stop, before it escalates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please consider how immature and "unprofessional" this is. Administrators are supposed to work with each other, and respect each other, or at least act as though they do. The events of the last few days have shown very clearly that the community, at all levels, has had enough toxicity, and won't support the people who engage in it anymore. I hope you'll come down on the side of those who want more harmonious and respectful relationships between admins and productive editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I thought I'd just drop by and put you out of your misery, regarding your edit here [2], if you read my edit just a couple of centimetres above you will see you are merely echoing my thoughts entirely. So you have no need to anguish on behalf of wasted time by developers or anyone else. So you can relax. Regards Giano 19:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, non-administrators and administrators are supposed to respect each other too. If you don't want stupid emails, you shouldn't send them to other people (*cough*Nathan*cough*). Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 00:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your cryptic "cough, Nathan, cough" is, I take it, a reference to e-mails I supposedly sent to Nathandotcom. That was a banned user using my e-mail address, and he did the same to several other admins. The abuse was reported to his university who managed to identify him and it has stopped. Like Cyde, you need to learn all the facts before commenting on issues. Cyde, you're now calling me a "liar" over an issue that is my business, not yours, and that I know about, and you don't. I have asked you many times to stop raising the issue, stop gossiping about me and others, and to stop attacking me. I am hereby asking you again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Vandal Bot

I am trying to clean up the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Log and the specific dates. I am having issues with the bot reversing the removal of the redlined entries. The removals are basially blanking the page except for the page title as per the requirements at the top of the above page. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 8 and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 10 as examples. I wonder if it would be possible to have the bot ignore the Images and media for deletion pages? Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

About Ali & Gipp

I'm not sure the stats for "Work Dat, Twerk Dat" are verifiable (sound too good to be true). Therefore I changed the numbers to dashes. I hope you understand (your AntiVandalBot reverted my edit) Tom Danson 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

An old category edit you made

Over at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Renaming of categories - edit history lost!, I have mentioned an old category edit you (or rather your bot) made. I am letting you know, in case you want to comment. Thanks. Carcharoth 08:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived talk page

Welcome back Cyde, you probably missed some messages which have been automatically archived. --Pizzahut2 10:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So about the image on your user page, could you reduce the size to 700px to make the navigation more user friendly for 1024x768 displays? --Pizzahut2 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You can change it if you want to (it's a wiki, after all!). --Cyde Weys 01:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Justinian I Award

Justinian I Award For unleashing an army of bots against the Vandals, you are awarded the Justinian I Award. --Nlu (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	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. Ralbot 16:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

MFDs

You asked on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kdinesh about how I was catching all those dodgy userpages. What you aren't seeing is 30 or so userpages that get speedily deleted as spam. What I do is choose a particularly spammy word (e.g. company, innovate, market, business, etc) and search the entire userspace for it. I look at every page I think is suspicious (e.g. no first person, no summary). I think the particular keyword I used on that day was "innovate". MER-C 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, very nice job then! I take it you're using the most recent database dump to do this? Also, once these have gone through I would suggest just tagging the other advertising userpages for speedy. Once it's obvious that these are being deleted at MFD, just save some time and circumvent it. --Cyde Weys 03:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't use database dumps because here in Australia the standard internet connection is fraudband. Instead, I do an ordinary wiki search, much like this one That particular keyword yielded 50 G11 speedies and the deleting admin blocked the users too. MER-C 04:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Another method is searching the wiki servers via google. e.g site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:User "a spam word" in google. I was told this method by someone else some time ago. A result of this was listing 100+ spam pages I found as you can see at my nom log. Try these links for spammy user pages - [3][4][5], I don't think anyone will be unhappy (apart from the spammers) if you speedy hundreds of them.. :) --Andeh 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that wiki search tends to find a lot of the one liners, such as "Acme Inc. is an independant company offering web services" while Google throws up the more obvious ones. MER-C 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with user you've run into in the past

Hello Cyde,

I've already posted a report at the Administrator's noticeboard/incidents regarding Buenaparte_Social_Club. Somehow I feel (since you've encountered him before from looking at this user's talk page) you'd feel much more inclined to help.

My situation involves this user repeatedly removing the No Fair Use Rationale template without adding a fair use rationale to his templates, using sockpuppets to harass me (calling me a dick and some other nonsense; see my talk page) and being rude. If you look the edit history section of his discussion page, you'll see his/her foul mouth in the edit summary. What's angered me even more is the fact he has reverted all my posts and Fair Use Rationale warnings on his talk page.

I am sorry if you don't have the time to deal with this user again (I'll be alright just waiting for a response at the Admin's noticeboard), but if you can help please take a look at my post here regarding those images and do what you can. He/she thinks what I do is a joke because I don't have administrative power like you do:

[6]

Thanks for your time. ResurgamII 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

- Thank for so much Cyde for your asistance. Regards and take care! :D ResurgamII 18:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot

Noticed some unusual edits to Cydebot and reverted them, assuming vandalism. User_talk:71.71.66.244 claims that you wanted these changes. Any truth to that? --NThurston 21:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I have no idea who that person is. --Cyde Weys 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

I hereby award Cyde the Da Vinci Barnstar for running two great bots on Wikipedia. --NauticaShades 13:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Might I suggest you refactor your evidence section in The Arbitration Case From Hell by striking or deleting the verbatim blog post and replacing it with a summation of the facts therein, something to the effect of: "In the past year, Kelly Martin has made over 7,000 mainspace edits, including nontrivial contributions to [list of articles]"? That seems to me to convey the point intended, viz., Kelly contests the charge of inactivity in article space, without providing an opportunity to further sidetrack the case in charges and counter-charges of incivility. Choess 04:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm, I was thinking along these lines, but I think any changes now would just allow allegations of tampering with evidence. What's done is done; I can't go back and try to change it now. Well, I can superficially, but it won't change anything. --Cyde Weys 05:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I was mostly thinking in terms of the "official record": obviously, as this particular episode shows, the Evidence page is still dynamic, and presumably you're still at liberty to refactor the evidence you present. If you struck out the post as it stands and replaced it with a neutral summation, as above, it doesn't, of course, undo the original action; someone could still introduce the diff in which you posted it to prove a point about you, or Kelly, or whatever. What it does do is avoid setting a precedent that gratuitious incivility in Evidence entries will be accepted by the ArbCom without sanction or comment. Otherwise, attempts to enforce some modicum of civility and relevance in that section will probably be met with calls to send you and/or Kelly to the execution block to prove that enforcement is impartial and that the "cabal" doesn't get "free passes". In short, striking out the post and replacing it provides a concrete acknowledgement that it wasn't suitable evidence and that introducing it was a mistake, but doesn't conceal it. A small formality, but of small formalities are bulwarks against wikilawyering made. Anyhow, do as you think best. At this point, I just hope the body count from the case won't get much higher. Choess 06:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi. Just a heads-up (incase it's not in your watchlist), a subpage of yours (/Wierd pictures) has been nominated under MfD. You haven't weighed in yet. I am abstaining from this particular discussion, although the nominator and Improv do have points. --Storkk 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref converter

Cold I get my hand on it? _→AzaToth 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question? Ref converter is released under the GPL and is available directly from a link within the tool. I'm guessing you just missed the link? I'm guessing that your interest in the source means that you are interested in working to help develop it. I can setup CVS and give you dev access if you would like. --Cyde Weys 18:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

yupp, missed that link, one problem I have is that the autosummary doesn't work for me, I'm using FF 1.5. _→AzaToth 18:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have heard reports of the auto-summary not working, I really can't think of any reasons why that might be, however. I use Firefox 1.5 and it works just fine. Do you have any extraordinary extensions installed? Could you try Internet Explorer and see if it works in there? Maybe it's some JavaScript you have installed in your Monobook.js ... I don't really know, but you could try messing around with these things and see what fixes it. It's not going to be a code issue with Ref Converter; it's a simple issue of one of the fields on the page being passed in as a URL parameter, and something is blocking that. --Cyde Weys 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I can not use IE (I'm using linux), the js I-m using is the VoA package minus lupin. _→AzaToth 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you try it in Opera, Konqueror, or one of the many other browsers available on Linux? I want to make sure this isn't a Firefox issue. --Cyde Weys 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tested in konqueror, didn't work. _→AzaToth 18:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you try emptying out your Monobook.js, force-reloading, and then trying the link again? Also, can you paste in here one of the sample links with the auto-summary intact so that I can try it out and make sure that it isn't the actual link itself that is somehow getting munged by the copy-paste buffer? --Cyde Weys 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have found the problem, autosummary is defined in User:Lupin/popups.js, but as I disslike popup.js, I'll write a simlar then. _→AzaToth 19:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what what needed:

function getParamValue(paramName, h) {
	if (typeof h == 'undefined' ) { h = document.location.href; }
	var cmdRe=RegExp('[&?]'+paramName+'=([^&]*)');
	var m=cmdRe.exec(h);
	if (m) {
		try {
			return decodeURI(m[1]);
		} catch (someError) {}
	}
	return null;
}
addOnloadHook(function () {
var summary=getParamValue('autosummary');
if (summary) { document.editform.wpSummary.value=summary; }
});

Ref converter broken?

Apparently one user has converted a {{ref}} into a {{citation needed}} template, instead of <ref></ref> (see diff), while having your ref converter in the edit message. I have no clue how a legitimate program could ever make such a "mistake", so I guess the guy wasn't actually using your ref converter? Or if it's supposed to work like that, then why? [Respond here, I'll be watching your talk] -- intgr 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the ref converter did what it was supposed to do. The use of the ref template there was utterly broken and didn't work anyway, so the converter did the best thing it could. The way {{ref}} is supposed to work is with a corresponding {{note}} that gives the actual content of the reference at the bottom, not {{ref|website URL}} as that diff shows. --Cyde Weys 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks for the quick response. -- intgr 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence

Thank you for redacting the blog posting (you may have seen my comment on the talk page asking whether I could do it myself). I think I would have added an ellipsis (something like [...]) where something was deleted without any replacement, but I think you have dealt with the offending parts, so thanks again. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good point, I'm still not totally comfortable with editing other people's comments like this. I haven't had much of an occasion to do it before. Usually I just write my own stuff. --Cyde Weys 18:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Think of it as quoting only the relevant parts.

It makes me sad how people have fallen out over this in recent weeks, when we should be off building the encyclopedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish it was over too. Nothing major had happened in a week, and then Giano makes some utterly inexcusable personal attacks, a bunch of enablers rush to defend said personal attacks, and the cycle starts all over. Not everyone is equally to blame. Until Giano and his enablers are reigned in (or leave), this will never end. It won't even be the same people on the other side; Tony and Kelly were pretty much "taken care of", but then tensions just flared between the same old people on one side and a new crop on the other side. --Cyde Weys 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Topalov cheating allegations

Hi there. Seeing as the Kramnik-Topalov match has just finished, and there has been extensive reporting in the chess media about cheating allegations during the match (eg. the 'Toiletgate' scandal), I thought you might be interested in revisiting the case you mediated on. See your comment here. In particular, it is likely that the particular point may arise again at Topalov. I play and follow chess a lot, so I'd be happy to help if you don't want to follow this up. Carcharoth 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh. I've been distracted by the bit above about the Giano case. Must resist... :-) [...] After reading bits of it, I find it all rather distasteful. I, too, read posts at Kelly's blog once you had pointed it out, and I thank you for doing so (though in the context of that RfArb, it might not have been the best move). She made some good points in some of her posts, but in other posts she really is turning into a parody of herself with some of her language. Anyway, apart from this, I'm going to try my best to keep out of it. Carcharoth 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

ANI

Oh, spare me the patronising. You're hardly one to talk, having been driving vast portions of recent drama. I was well aware that I was bomb-throwing, so as to point out to Mackensen and co the stupidity of the "well, I don't know how to fix this, so let's stir up drama instead" attitude. Rebecca 02:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you just admitted that you knowingly did something wrong. So please don't do it again. --Cyde Weys 02:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I did something that was entirely justified, and I stand by it. You're awfully good at throwing stones from glass houses, you know. Rebecca 07:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"I was well aware that I was bomb-throwing" — this is something you're saying was entirely justified? You may need to take a break, you don't remember what we're here for anymore. --Cyde Weys 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I rather think Rebecca knows exactly why she is here, she is entitled to have an opinion without harassment from you. So please stop Giano 17:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, because it only got brought here because she was harassing someone else on ANI. I tried to defuse the situation by bringing it to talk pages. But here you are, sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, and only making things worse. --Cyde Weys 17:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya Cyde

Methinks by your contribs you're still on and will recieve this message: we're getting a bit backed up and AIV, can you jump in and knock off a few vandals? --172.193.16.56 03:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Strike that, we've got a few admins prowling who just showed up and are clearning it... --172.193.16.56 03:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref converter again

Some thought that might improove the converter:

• wikilinks.pl, abillity to specify the params used in wikiref and forward them (like small ref etc.)
• wikiref.pl, abillity via some fancy javascript automatically open the page and replace the text so you don't need to copy/past your self
• wikilinks.pl, abillity to have an offset, for example showing pages 100-150
• wikiref.pl, option to mark some refs to not be converted
• wikiref.pl, option to merge references
• wikiref.pl, a note specifying "ibid" (see Ibid), should connect to the previous note
• wikiref.pl, notes containing same (truncated) text should be merged
• wikiref.pl, abillity to specify the name for references (fn_4 is a really good name, dont you think :))
• wikiref.pl, optional abillity to convert plain external links to references (an external link that only renders as a number), and then also remove the brackes.

_→AzaToth 12:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to become a developer? I can easily give you CVS access. A lot of your suggestions are really good, I just don't have the time to work on ref converter a lot anymore. --Cyde Weys 15:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Perl is like a second language for me, I can see what I can do :) _→AzaToth 15:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoskeptic opinion wanted at AfD

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum evolution (alternative) ? It seems like complete bollocks to me, but I'd like an expert opinion. Thanks in advance ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot on Genesis

Your antivandalism bot reverted my edit. My edit was to revert "Genesis" to the article on the book of the Bible. A vandal had changed that to the article on the band "Genesis."

So fix it again. --Cyde Weys 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A Barnstar Just for You!

For creating the incredibly awesome AntiVandalBot, I award you the RickK Anti-vandalism Barnstar. Keep up the great work! Jam01 08:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi there; you may notice that your talk and userpages have been the subject of conflict; why, I know not. Could you please tell me where and what that structure on your userpage is?--Anthony.bradbury 21:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Work of JGA Pocock

a bot of yours just reverted a valid edit of mine. i removed all content because it is all wrong, i.e., the citations are all mixed up, they all belong to other articles. if you can, kindly delete ASAP, lest others be misled (i was the creator and only person who has worked on it). thanks, Stevewk 21:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have since edited this article. Stevewk blanked both the article text and the talk page text, which was inappropriate. If the citations are wrong, they should be fixed. This page was a split off of an existing article, and deleting it will remove valuable information. Akradecki 22:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bots

Hey mate, I don't know whether to ask you or Tawker this, but is it OK if I start my own bot that also reverts vandalism (probably running the same stuff)? The only thing is, I have no idea how to start it, get it flagged, run it, etc. so could you help me? Thanks! Also, if you don't usually, can you also reply on my talk page? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

Cyde, I just realized how very alike we were and how unfairly I had treated you in the past. Even though some things that you have done seemed irrational, I'm sure you had a good reason to. So I just wanted to apologize... Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 23:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. This is not trolling, so don't remove it as such. I really mean it.

If you really are sorry then you can start by modifying your rant where you speak of me specifically in a negative manner. There's no reason for old and buried enmities to appear to be alive and kicking in some places, right? --Cyde Weys 01:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right. I forgot about that. Actually, I'll just delete the damn thing. Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
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. Ralbot 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Cynical

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is desysopped. Marudubshinki may not use a bot. Should Marudubshinki use a bot he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marudubshinki#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on RFAr page

Hello Cyde, :-) Please consider reverting your comment on the RFAr page. It contradicts Fred's comment and to my mind a recent ruling that says that users can express their displeasure with decisions. Feel free to ignore me, and revert this comment if it is not helpful. Take care, FloNight 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to discuss, it's another thing entirely to continuely agitate over something for months on end. --Cyde Weys 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice one

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=83103209  ;)--Konst.able^Talk 00:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I try to stop it when things get unproductive. Hopefully it'll stick. --Cyde Weys 00:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock site (2nd nomination)

You know, I don't object to the WP:SNOW conclusion, because the conversation was going nowhere and consensus was clear. But I do object to the way you handled this. I think my complaint that the article is troubling as original research is reasonable, and your closing comment that "of course shock sites are notable" really bugs me because no one was saying they weren't. And as an early closer here you should just give a reason why the debate doesn't need to continue: when you give your own personal opinion like that, it's very dismissive of those on the other side -- have whatever opinion you want, but when you state it in a WP:SNOW closure, it's like you're elevating your own opinion so high, you feel no one else's matters. Mangojuice^talk 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not an article contains original research is irrelevant in an AFD discussion, that simply means it should be improved, not deleted. Notability is really the only thing that matters in an AFD discussion. Even if the article is absolute 100% rubbish, if the topic is notable, we should keep the article and let it be improved. --Cyde Weys 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do see your point, of course.. and I accept that my argument wasn't taking hold (though it's frustrating). I think (and was trying to express) that this article can't be anything other than original research: there just aren't reliable sources about the topic we can use to write it. But you disagree, I respect that. All I'm asking is that if you're going to use WP:SNOW, don't attach it to your reason -- your reason wasn't why WP:SNOW was appropriate -- it was appropriate because consensus was crystal clear, and the discussion wasn't necessary anymore. Mangojuice^talk 16:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I'm doing is I'm interjecting my own personal opinion into the AFD closing, because, by definition, I didn't yet have a time to voice it (if I had already voiced it in the discussion I wouldn't be an uninvolved party able to close the AFD). So pay attention to the result, which is "keep per WP:SNOW", and don't put as much stock into my own personal opinion. --Cyde Weys 17:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Robotwars

Can you do something about the wars that Mathbot have with Antivandalbot? Agathoclea 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of what you're talking about? --Cyde Weys 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict [7], [8] and User talk:Mathbot, perhaps? ;-) Misza13 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

See links of User_talk:AntiVandalBot#Please_whitelist_User:Mathbot Agathoclea 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
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. Ralbot 06:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW

Hi Cyde,

I see looking at the WikiProject user warnings page, that you are a participant in this project. I have recently started an undertaking to harmonise all user page warnings and templates. For this I would like your assistance. I have listed a number of ideas on the project template page here as a first draft. I fully appreciate that as with most editors and admins, that you are fairly busy. Therefore I am not looking for anyone to carry out the actual work, I am willing to do that myself, with help from a number of other RC Patrollers who have come forward. But what I am looking for is your invaluable input, on the draft ideas and also to suggest other ways you believe we may improve the templates. I do however require the services of a couple of administrators to put into effect some of the new templates, as they are currently protected. Please take 5 mins to look through the new templates page, and both the project and templates talk pages and leave any ideas or suggestions that you may have. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Need Some Advice

Hi Cyde,

We've run across each other from time to time, most recently on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatse.cx page. Anyway, I'm hoping you can help me out. I'm concerned about this section of the brassiere article... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassiere#Male_Bra ...which I don't think even needs to exist and which I think that most people would agree with me on. However, I don't want to just outright remove it in fear of starting an edit war, and only one person has responded to my comments about this on the article's talk page. How do I best proceed from here? Any ideas? —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WerdnaBot

You don't think you're being a bit melodramatic? If I had wanted to do any harm I wouldn't have reverted all the damage. I just wanted to test how secure the system was, I put everything back myself. I noticed a vulnerability, and I brought it to your attention, as long as no one else notices it, there isn't any problem, and a very minimal risk of any vandals learning about it--64.12.116.9 01:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an absurd view on security. Once a vulnerability is discovered it has to be fixed immediately. You can't simply pretend like it was never unearthed and hope that nobody else notices it. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's easy enough to go through the list and manually confirm all the WerdnaBot users to make sure they're all legit, for now, they all are--64.12.116.9 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and in a single second someone can easily add a bunch more pages to that category and cause this ruckus all over again. That's not security. --Cyde Weys 02:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Scottish regiments

I moved the Scottish regiments in Canada back to Category:Scottish regiments; they were inadvertantly moved to Category:Regiments of Scotland, which they aren't ("Scottish" referring to the traditions and uniform, not nationality; like Hussar or Rifles). You may want to check some of the others; it'd be easier with a bot, I did the Canadian batch manually. --SigPig 06:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point I'd suggest taking it up at WP:CFD; they're the ones who made this mistake, not I (Cydebot was simply doing what they told him to do). If they were confused as to the difference between "Scottish" and "of Scotland" you should probably tell them what the real meanings are. --Cyde Weys 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't exactly sure how bots worked. I'll take it up over at CfD or maybe at the military History project. Thanks. --SigPig 18:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark sockpuppets caught

You may want to look at this Raul654 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with him. I'm sure he has better things to do than harassing an online community for months after he was disinvited. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Old West Lawmen

(moved discussion to Kbdank's talk page.) - jc37 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti Vandal Bot

Hi Cyde, I'd like to replicate this AntiVandalBot of yours in a wiki I help administer. Any pointers?. --Matt57 23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalbot is open source now ... (ask Tawker where to get it, I don't remember). As for running it, you're going to need a Linux server to put everything on. Vandalbot uses a live IRC feed of recent changes, so you'll also need the software to do that (I never learned its name). And you'll have to run an IRC server to provide the bridge. Of course, that's only the way it's done on Wikipedia because it all takes place on different servers; since you'd be running it all on one server it might make sense to totally replace the IRC bridge with some simple sockets communication. --Cyde Weys 14:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI

I am considering re-creating the Encyclopedia Dramatica page as it passes notability It has been mentioned in numerous media sources so it is clearly notable and worthy of inclusion. Would I face repercussions for doing this? Whirling Sands 03:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I recommend taking the matter to WP:DRV to be on the safe side. And make sure you have a lot of sources from mainstream media to back it up. JoshuaZ 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

instrument categories

The reason I did that was to encourage the use of those categories over the instrument babel categories, which will be my next priority. I understand you're not too keen on all this, but at the end, I think those categories will be a lot cleaner and less objectionable.--Mike Selinker 22:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I see your point now. The point is that those userboxes didn't previously lead to categories at all, and you didn't want them to. I guess that some of them do and some of them don't. It's OK with me if they don't.--Mike Selinker 23:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly, renaming existing categories is okay (I suppose), but it's not really worth it to make a whole boatload of new categories where there really isn't any reason, nor demand. --Cyde Weys 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 44	30 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway	Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles	Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia	News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins	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. Ralbot 05:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp^TC 09:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

WT:CVG protection

I've unprotected WT:CVG. I'm not sweating ALTTP venting, and I don't think the best way to deal with this is to protect the talk page of an active Wikiproject, especially since there's a rather large template redesign project going on with numerous edit-summary links pointing to that talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on this, plz

You made a comment on the suggestion to delete the WikiFur template. I nominated the Wookieepedia template for deletion for the same reason. Take a look. Robocracy 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not too worried, because neither of these are used in actual articles (and of course if they were I would quickly remove them). --Cyde Weys 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Could you please move Spike Spiegal to Spike Spiegel? Thanks.--Kross ^Talk 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the proper spelling? Do you have a cite for it? --Cyde Weys 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If "Spiegel" is good enough for Amazon's summaries, good enough for the main CB article, good enough for Google to want to correct "Spiegal" to "Spiegel", well, it's good enough for me. --Gwern (contribs) 23:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A google search is hardly a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. What about Amazon's descriptions? What about our own CB articles? What about the Spike article itself - the only instances of using 'a' was in the page title and lead. --Gwern (contribs) 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither Amazon nor other WP articles count as reliable sources. Someone needs to cite a reliable source that gives the name one way or the other. -- Donald Albury 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sony Pictures has it as Spiegel, but one must click on About Cowboy Bebop, then Speigal's icon (first on left) for his bio. I am sure there is something better, I will look. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also SciFi.com's page on Cowboy Bebop has Speigel. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be Spiegel. ;) --Pizzahut2 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I got the a vs e in the second syllable correct... I'm going off to add my dyslexic typing to other pages... :/ KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I asked for confirmation despite being a huge Cowboy Bebop fan and believing that the "Spiegel" spelling is correct, because we often see many alternate transliterations for the same name from anime, and often, no particular one is considered more correct than the others. In anime, you'll frequently see different transliterations of character names even within literature produced by the Japanese animation studio. They don't really put any effort into standardizing the English transliteration, so you get all sorts of variations. I'm glad that this isn't the case with Cowboy Bebop (listening to the OST right now :-P ). --Cyde Weys 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween, Cyde. Hope you're not too busy to enjoy yourself. ~ Flameviper 16:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

TFD

I'm not criticising your decision to delete the template {{High-traffic}}; it's your decision to nominate it. Either way, I've kept a copy in userspace should it be deleted and mentioned on WP:DRV --SunStar Net 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was merely offering a counter-point to your claim that it helped guard against vandalism. Discussion is not only allowed, it's encouraged. --Cyde Weys 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, Cyde. I agree with your point on discussion. There's nothing wrong with keeping a template for DRV purposes is there?? --SunStar Net 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my screaming in IRC

But IP 145.97.39.143 is the toolserver, you block it and it screws AntiVandalBot up.... big time. Very very very big time. Aka.... I think we're gonna have to edit the block ip page to warn people not to block that IP. So... thats why I unblocked. Oh, and yeah, it's werdnabot that's screwed up -- Tawker 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was WerdnaBot, but I didn't realize that WerdnaBot ran on the toolserver. How long has it been running there? Guess I should have made the block anonymous-only. Is there any way to prevent something like this from happening in the future? WerdnaBot somehow lost its login cookie ... shouldn't it abort when it realizes it's editing anonymously, rather than continuing? --Cyde Weys 17:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!) Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach. Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. What's New? The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one! A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived. There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia. The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested! In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias. A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted! Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Mass deletion of criminal subjects

Hello, I noticed that in the past few hours you have deleted about 100 articles relating to historical (deceased) criminal figures with the statement "(Sourcing problems; please rebuild from a larger variety of different sources.)" Does this represent a change in policy that I was negligent in following? Please let me know what the larger issue here is, and where discussion on it has taken place, so that I may help in removing similarly inappropriate content. Andrew Levine 02:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

At this point you should ask Jimbo, as I'm not aware of how much we're putting out into the clear just yet. --Cyde Weys 03:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Levine, this is specific to these articles. Can you help find new sources? That is what is sorely needed. :-) --FloNight 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD on Admin Standards pages

Please see this deletion debate. Carcharoth 00:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for cat rename

Hey Cyde, I would appreciate your advice or perhaps help. This is regarding Talk:Antisemitism#Survey and corresponding User talk:Humus sapiens#Renaming per Talk:Antisemitism#Survey. Is there a way to automate the cat renaming? Thanks much. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's being discussed on WP:CFD already. --Cyde Weys 15:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Neb

Hey. User:RJNeb2 is making a very polite apology and request to come back. I don't want to do a Wheel War, so perhaps you could head over to his talk page and answer him yourself? DS 14:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, just keep an eye on him. As you can see, he's admitted to lifting text wholesale from many different sources ... you sure you want to take that risk again? --Cyde Weys 15:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mock Duck

The above article has been recreated, but I haven't a clue what the original looked like. While I've marked this version for speedy deletion, I thought I should tell you about it as the admin that originally deleted it, so that you can check. Cheers, Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 05:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What was the speedy criteria that you used to delete the page? Your reason " "sourcing problems" is a little cryptic. Was it copyright problems? Ansell 12:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's sourcing problems. Hopefully Jimbo will make a statement soon. --Cyde Weys 15:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your reason of second speedy deletion of an article that, as far as I know, has accurate information? Contribution included other source than Nash - Skysmith 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that you deleted the article when the AFd process was still unclosed - Skysmith 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this all hush-hush, and if it were actually an Office action, why did Danny or Jimbo not do it themselves? That would have been far clearer than having you delving in and speedying something twice with an extremely vague reason "sourcing problems????" Ansell 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I found this... Why wasn't this link just posted or referenced as a reason in the first place? Now I am more satisfied than I was a few minutes ago. Ansell 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I just found it too. I had no idea it was written up in the Signpost many months ago. --Cyde Weys 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_5#5_November_2006 on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_5#5_November_2006. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. MadMax 15:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox code request

Hi. May you please provide me (on my talk page) with the code used in the Template:User secular humanist userbox which you recently deleted under T1? I would like to migrate it to userspace as per the German Userbox Solution. Thanks in advance. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 11:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I think I'll pass. And I'm sure there's already a copy of it in userspace somewhere; you just have to find it. This was the fifth time or so it had to be deleted from templatespace, so pardon my lack of empathy. --Cyde Weys 15:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to insist, but by my interpretation of WP:UM you should have only deleted the template after a redirect to userspace had replaced the template and thereafter a bot had replaced all links to the old address to the new address. If there already is a copy of it in userspace, it is not up to me to waste my time finding it - it is your responsibility as the admin who deleted it. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:UM and everything to do with CSD T1. So please don't be insistent about what you think I should have or shouldn't have done. --Cyde Weys 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of CSD T1 in relation to userboxes has attracted an enormous amount of debate, as I am sure you know since you are quoted yourself in WP:T1D. IMHO you are completely wrong in your last comment since WP:UM is, in fact, a proposed solution to WP:T1D! If you read WP:UM#Migration of the Userboxes, where "controversial and divisive" are referred to, you shall see how this applies to this situation. I am not contesting T1 here, which can be subjective; all I am asking is to comply with this, objective, proposal which was made precisely to avoid this kind of disagreement. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 17:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

T1 was created by Jimbo explicitly to deal with userboxes. So, yeah, maybe it does "generate debate", but that is not going to scare me away from using it in exactly the kind of situations it was designed for. --Cyde Weys 01:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but Jimbo agrees with putting the userboxes in userspace, which is what I'm trying to do. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 15:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. He's accepted the compromise, but saying that he wants these things in userspace is a misrepresentation of his views. --Cyde Weys 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you'll want to edit this from WP:T1D then: "Jimbo seems to be OK with POV userboxes in user space. This is exactly what the German wikipedia does." Anyway I do not see your point - everyone needs to compromise, and if Jimbo did so I do not see why you should not. There has been all this discussion, proposals and guidelines have been set out, and yet the administrators won't follow them? It seems like these people wasted 6 months of their life to get to a satisfactory solution. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 13:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not T1 in this case I think. Kindly explain why do u classify it as t1. 88.203.55.50 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't need warring philosophical userboxes to distract us from writing the encyclopedia. It sure as hell isn't appropriate for a template, which as you know, are used to write the encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you comment

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California#californian_userbox. --evrik ^(talk) 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's me!

Hi Cyde. You probably remember me as Go for it!

By the way, that whole Admin school thing was intended as an extension of the Admin coaching program, which appeared to have community support. Boy was I off-target on that one. The page I created was brand new and subject to change in any way anyone saw fit, so I find it rather surprising that it got crushed rather than transformed. I will definitely be more meticulous in how I announce future projects - I guess I didn't emphasize enough that any and all changes were welcome.

By the way, I've been assigned a couple students at the Esperanza coaching program, and rather than follow the formula that other coaches seem to be applying, I'm trying another approach. I've set up a Virtual classroom to which everyone who wants to come and join in can participate. We are currently comparing how we make use of Wikipedia (that is, what programs and user interfaces we use for accessing and editing Wikipedia). I, and I'm sure everyone there, would be interested in learning what programs, settings, and techniques you use as a Wikipedian. Feel free to drop on by and share your expertise. Oh, and I can't wait to see what you have up your sleeve for this coming April Fools.  The Transhumanist   01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input

By the way, what tools do you make use of? It would be cool if you would share the benefit of your experience with us at the Virtual classroom. I'm very curious, and i'm sure others who visit the page just to read it would learn a lot from you too.  The Transhumanist   03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There's really only two things you need to look at: User:Cyde/monobook.css and User:Cyde/monobook.js, neither of which you have to ask me to see. Other than that, I don't particularly use anything special other than using Mozilla Firefox. --Cyde Weys 03:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 45	6 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration election campaigns begin	Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	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. Ralbot 05:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AOL

I notice you blocked an AOL IP, 64.12.116.134 (talk · contribs), a few weeks ago for a "fortnight" and it's still impacting other people, do you think you could un"fortnight" it?64.12.116.9 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The block is set to anonymous-only, can you please explain how it is affecting legitimate users? --Cyde Weys 17:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's affecting me, I'm a legitimate and anonymous user, unless anon editing isn't allowed anymore? Can you please explain who you think you're targeting with a 2 week block on an IP that probably only stays with one person for about 2 minutes? --64.12.116.9 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the irony. You are more anonymous if you register than if you use an IP. IP's can be traced, user names cannot be traced except by a handful of trusted wikipedians. Furthermore, despite the WP:AGF guideline, with the bad record this IP has aquired over time few will trust the edits you make unless they are well sourced. This would not be true if you edited using a registered user name. And if it is only assigned to you for two minutes why are you frustrated. This just proves the point that one user might well have the IP for a while. Kind of a tangent, but I am still amazed that IP's are allowed to edit wikipedia when it is so easy for ALL users to get an account and still be completely anonymous. David D. (Talk) 22:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If it really is a shared AOL IP out of the big pool then it doesn't make sense for it to remain blocked unless the entire /24 or /16 is blocked. But I don't know that for sure. --Cyde Weys 01:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be blocking AOL IPs for more than an hour. Fredil 02:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, in some circumstances (including this one), an hour isn't long enough. --Cyde Weys 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really?!? I beg to differ. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for providing evidence for me; what you just linked to says that AOL IPs should be blocked in increasing increments of time as the vandalism continues. In this case, the vandalism continued. --Cyde Weys 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to be that way, he meant at first. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at that IP's block log again. There's a long history of vandalism and blocks. "At first" doesn't apply in this instance. --Cyde Weys 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hello Cyde -- I am wondering what the procedure to follow is in the case of a user who has been indefinitely blocked (by you) but has recently (yesterday) re-appeared as an IP (seems s/he has moved to an adjacent state since you implemented the indef block) with the apparent intent of once again disrupting several of the pages that s/he had been blocked for abusing in the past, including Che Guevara? -- Polaris999 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Would I care to explain...

Please see Talk:Main Page#Vandalism. Andre (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In regard to signature

Thank you for the warning. Let me know what exactly is wrong with it; though I can guess. *cough*Green e*cough*. Have a nice day! DoomsDay349 22:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's too long. In source edit it is three lines long, which is ridiculous considering it doesn't add anything other than formatting. Please make it shorter. --Cyde Weys 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Three lines is way way too long. Remember the rest of us are forced to read that each and every time we look at the source! --Gwern (contribs) 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I chopped it down a bit...how's it look now? DoomsDay349 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely short now. Thanks for listening. --Cyde Weys 02:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Esperanza

Do you think that the people supporting Esperanza are doing this just so they can keep their little social clique (which is very pretty and probably lots easer than fighting vandals and dealing with articles on toe vomit) or out of a desire to help? I ask this because your anti-pathy for them seems to be even stronger than mine, and I personally wouldn't mind if a few of the more outragous perpetrators of this mess were made to take personal responsability for this utter waste of resources, time, and editor effort. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of them probably think it is helping; others obviously just aren't here for the right reasons, and of course they're going to get mad and try to stop it when their little clique is up for deletion. --Cyde Weys 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you were wondering...

There is a current Featured Picture Candidate discussion going on that you may be interested in. If you are interested, mosey on over to the discussion. Cheers! Wikipediarules2221 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I nominated that once before, sort of as a joke. Yes, the picture is very hot, but it just isn't featured picture quality. On many other sites it would be rated very highly (say, College Humor or Facebook), but we have a much higher appreciation for technical excellence here, and alas, that picture is just an everyday snapshot that happens to be of some hot subject material. --Cyde Weys 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

At least give it a pity support vote.Wikipediarules2221 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not big into pity ... Cyde Weys 03:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

How do I delete a useless article? The article is: Muahahaha. *Mystic* 02:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, telling me about it is obviously one way. Otherwise, because I'm not always around, you can use one of the speedy deletion templates listed over at WP:CSD. In this case the template {{db-nonsense}} would make the most sense, though really, any speedy deletion template would work; as long as you get the administrators' attention a page like that is clearly going to be deleted, and using that template gets the administrators' attention. --Cyde Weys 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Massive POV Problems: What do I do?

Hi! I'm a Biology student, and was frankly horrified at a POV-laden creationist article, Jonathan Sarfati, I found, but the subject of it is fairly obscure - possibly not even notable enough for Wikipedia, but I can't judge. However, something needs done about it, and I was hoping - as you're one of the maintainers of Portal:Biology - that you could help tell me what to do. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it POV? Try to identify some of the problems on the talk page. I don't really know enough about the subject matter to make a judgment. --Cyde Weys 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Couch

Could we stick this in BJAODN please? :) (Radiant) 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would urge that you please check with the author of the article (User:PHDrillSergeant) before doing anything like that. He seems quite unhappy enough already. Newyorkbrad 15:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea ... Cyde Weys 15:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't intended as a serious request, hence the smiley. (Radiant) 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The recent MFD on the Hangman pages

I wanted to say up front that I really don't feel strongly about keeping these pages, and in fact was only vaguely aware that they existed until this Mfd. But I do question your closing of it (a bit early, as it was opened 11/11 and you closed it today 11/15) since it seemed like a fairly controversial matter. I'm also uneasy with your finding that the consensus was delete -- while Mfd is not a vote, I saw a variety of opinions: 8 for delete, to be sure, but 5 keeps and 5 others that were some version of keep, like my own (keep and userfy, keep until the tournament is over, etc.) Regardless of your personal opinions on the matter, since this is obviously an activity that is dear to a lot of other editors, don't you think more opinions should be heard? Cheers Dina 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm, since when do we count comments to determine the outcome of a discussion? I thought we were supposed to weight both sides' arguments and determine the consensus? And frankly, that's exactly what's happened. Misza13 18:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I didn't present the comment count to contest the deletion but rather to question the early closure. It seems clear to me that the debate was still active and that there was a fair diversity of opinion, including the one voiced by me and a few others that the participants ought to be allowed to finish their tournament before it got deleted. Cheers. Dina 20:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

They can finish their tournament elsewhere if they really want to. I don't see why we're supposed to accommodate them to the end of something that never belonged here from the beginning. --Cyde Weys 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we pretty clearly disagree, but I thought I'd express why I thought they should be accomodated: Because they're not they they're us, other editors of Wikipedia, who, with no malicious intent, created and participated in a project. I essentially agree that the project doesn't really belong on Wikipedia, but I don't see any real urgency in deleting it. Since tournaments end, and editors' interests change (and consensus changes), I think it would have been easier to reach a real consensus if the participants and their interests hadn't been summarily dismissed as having no value whatsoever. And early closing of the Mfd (or speedy deletion, as I believe you're suggesting below) implies that some opinions are essentially more valuable than others, regardless of context.

The two methods would ultimately have resulted in the same outcome -- the deletion of the pages, and the end of the game. But one in a slightly friendlier fashion, which does have value to the encyclopedia, because editors who feel their opinions are not valued seem to end up leaving. That's all, if you respond and I don't respond, it's not because you've pissed me off or anything, but simply because I expect that we've isolated what our disagreement is here, and probably can't go much further. Cheers. Dina 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't place too much emphasis on the MFD, if my attention had been drawn to this in a different way I would have just deleted it immediately. This is straying so far from Wikipedia's mission that I do think a quick application of WP:IAR is needed to get everyone back on track. If you want to play Hangman, there's applets and such online that let you do it. If you really must play it in a wiki environment, which is far from ideal for it, then you can set one up on Wikia. But in no way does it belong on Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 19:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR can work both ways. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It's actually a lot more limited than you'd think. --Cyde Weys 22:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? I've seen many people bend it (and I'm not innocent either, neither are you) to fit their side of (for example) a vote. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you can make a convincing argument that games of Hangman belong on Wikipedia. But I welcome you to try. --Cyde Weys 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• You appear to have missed this page, or was that intentional? (Radiant) 11:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope, pure mistake. --Cyde Weys 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on MfD for Esperanza

“ …and advancing the claim that without Esperanza Wikipedia would lack a community is very denigrating to the real community that actually gets articles written. ”

I'd like to see you verify that, please. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 22:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the keep rationale make no distinction between community and Esperanza, going on and on about how good community is and how lost we'd all be without it. They seem to be equating Esperanza and the community, when of course, that is very far from the truth. --Cyde Weys 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ's sake

This is really starting to annoy me. It's getting ridiculous. Check this out. You get rid of the bad side and you think you can put it back up again. Nice try. Same arguments apply as before, I'm afraid. Imagine going onto that couch because you felt someone was threatening you - can you imagine how cheesed off that other person would be? Talk about cult of victimhood. Can you delete it straight away, or do we need another MFD? Cheers, Moreschi 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford

yes, I screwed up. this shows why it is important to have this information on userpages i guess (I daresay much of the stuff is in deleted edit histories as well, whee). But it's funny how this proposal got left there for some hours, without any protest and then within minutes of me doing it, people notice. Morwen - Talk 17:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's always the way it is ... things can sit languishing on WP:AN for several hours, but once an action occurs, news spreads like wildfire. I got an urgent PM on IRC from another admin, for instance. --Cyde Weys 18:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me.

User:PHDrillSergeant/WikiCouch was deleted by ME via {{db-author}}, not by MfD, and I requested another administrator to undelete it, which he did. Not only that, but the content on the page is different from the projectspace one.

Not only that, but you do not have any right to delete this page, since it is a different page and is also a backup copy for me.

Please restore the page. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, deleting it was the emerging consensus of the MFD, which you thought you could circumvent by closing early. Evidently you were mistaken on that. The content is not sufficiently different. You also have no right to keep backups of deleted material on Wikipedia; you can use your local machine for that if you so desire. --Cyde Weys 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So I have no right, if the page doesn't go over well, to continue to improve it until it? Keep in mind that Userspace deletions follow different guidelines and the userspace version was there the whole time as a backup. When people apply for patents, and they are declined, the US Patent office doesn't go and burn down the guy's house to make sure all copies are destroyed. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What an apt analogy. You're right, I haven't gone to your house (your personal computer) and burned down all of the copies of your patent application (WikiCouch). I just got rid of the ones at the patent office (Wikipedia). --Cyde Weys 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the mistake you're making is that you're treating Wikipedia userspace as your own personal site (i.e. your "house" in your analogy). It's not. That's made quite clear over at WP:USER. --Cyde Weys 00:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, sir, the mistake is yours. You are assuming that I am putting that page there for my own personal use, when in fact I'm putting it there to improve it until I can resubmit it as WP:COUCH (as can be CLEARLY seen by the overhaul I gave it before you deleted it again). That assumption is also called assuming bad faith. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 04:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford (again!)

Cyde, with regard to your point on the administrators' noticeboard about him, I agree with you, he's used up his chances to reform. I would be glad if he was community-banned. You've said the right thing. --SunStar Net 19:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to know I'm not the only sane one :-P Seriously, Wikipedia isn't therapy, we have lots of work to do, and we shouldn't be wasting our time on trying to reform people — the track record is horrendous and the possible benefits are limited at best. --Cyde Weys 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your diligence in removing things that serve only to divide us and waste time, and for your doing it with a sense of panache and gentle irony, I present you with this barnstar. Keep on rockin' ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm, what was this in relation to? Hangman? --Cyde Weys 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hangman, and Esperanza, and stuff you've done in the past.But Hangman was the worst. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Superiority

From User talk:Pmanderson:

It would really help the environment around here if you didn't call editors oxen, as if they're somehow beneath you. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you really never heard Deuteronomy 25:4 used before? I'm not claiming superiority; I'm one of the oxen, even if I'm not nibbling from that particular crib. I've never seen it used to imply otherwise.

There would seem to be a much greater claim to superiority in closing the discussion against the emerging consensus to permit the tournament to finish and then delete. Septentrionalis 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you really that surprised that there are people out there who haven't read, nor believe in, your bible? --Cyde Weys 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are making an unjustified (and, if it mattered, false) assumption: it's not my bible; but, like much of the Bible, that phrase is a cliché in English. Your reading of it is, as far as I can tell, completely novel. Septentrionalis 00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But thank you; you nicely balance my old nickname of Mr Pagan. Septentrionalis 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Pagan eh? The last time I heard someone make a pagan joke was Kent Hovind when he called Carl Sagan "Carl Pagan". He's now serving over 200 years in jail for tax evasion, so ... hehe. Guess that's not a good idea. --Cyde Weys 03:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.... I suppose there is a parallel with Sagan's case against Apple Computer, but Sagan lost that one. Newyorkbrad 04:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Quazer Beast sighted!

Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast for details. --Gray Porpoise 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Coffee Lounge

Forgive me if I'm naiive, but I'm sort of questioning the motive of your "moderating" the Esperanza coffee lounge. It might be uncyclopedic, but it's still like removing discussion from a talk page. Could you please explain your motives a little further to me? bibliomaniac15 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to the Coffee Lounge

As a wikipedian and esperanzan, I understand and agree that aspects of the organization have gotten out of hand, and I support the current effort to overhaul the organization to turn it into less of a clique and more of a useful organization that benefits Wikipedia as a whole. I also think that much of the Coffee Lounge is a waste of time, and patent nonsense, and the entire coffee lounge should be scrapped. Still, I am concerned that you are going and redacting entire sections of the coffee lounge without much explanation in either the edit summaries or the talk pages. At issue is not whether or not the sections you redacted belonged at wikipedia (THEY DID NOT BELONG). The problem is that, in light of the high level of tension between the Esperanzan camp and anti-Esperanzans such as yourself, the fact that such sections are being removed by someone with outright animosity towards Esperanza may be seen not as a means to reform the group, but as a unilateral move to further disrupt the group. Thus, though your actions may have been warranted, they may be interpreted by others as a bad-faith move. Again, I am not in disagreement with you over your changes, either in intent or in substance. I just think that in the current state of tensions, such move may be indelicate. I understand that you are acting in good faith. I cannot speak for others, and am just letting you know that such a move may only act to perpetuate conflict, which is not desirable by anyone. --Jayron32 06:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If others are interpreting it as a bad faith move that's their problem. And don't peg me as an "anti-Esperanzian" — it's a lot more nuanced than that. There certainly aren't merely two warring sides. --Cyde Weys 15:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• While that may all be true, it can sometimes be imprudent to comit acts that could be reasonably seen to contribute to, rather than mediate, a conflict. At issue is not your intent, it is the easily forseeable results of the action. To commit an act, even with good intent, that could be easily forseen as causing ultimately more harm than good, is imprudent and probably not called for in this case. --Jayron32 17:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:PHDrillSergeant's subpage

I noticed you redeleted a {{db-author}}'d subpage that was recreated at PH's request. You suggested DRV. Are you out of your mind? -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 04:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted as a result of an MFD. --Cyde Weys 06:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposition

I toyed around with this notion a while ago, but it was shot down, mostly; just prior to MFD. Oddly enough, it was in anticipation of that very thing. Kinda makes you question the Crystal Ball Policy, huh? But anyway, the idea is creating a set of monitors, both Esperanzian and non-Esperanzian, to watch over the Coffee Lounge (or whatever we'll be calling it) and keep away the silliness/social networking. I noticed you're taking a lot of initiative in doing that, but you're kinda not looked upon too greatly for it...but anyway, I'm really going to push for this in the Coffee Lounge reforms, and if it does happen, I'd love to head it up alongside you. How's it sound? DoomsDay349 21:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may comment; while I was not around for the first discussion about monitors, I certainly think that if a new Lounge, it would need monitors, especially in the early stages. However, I'd prefer to see more of a gentleman's agreement between any editors in good standing within the community to monitor the place rather than a set members list or anything. The only reason I say this is so that a them vs us attitude does not foster in the new lounge, which will hopefully lead to less of an abrasive attitude as seen by some editors when Cyde has been monitoring. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. You make good points. But, despite the attitude against Cyde, he really means well and I think that he can be a valuable asset in helping us out in the coffee lounge...the idea is to have non-Esperanzans help out because Esperanzans might be a little soft-hearted toward it. It's all up to Cyde though; the offer stands. DoomsDay349 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but this whole talk of non-Esperanzans is silly. Esperanzans are first and foremost Wikipedia editors. Whenever they encounter Wikipedia editors who are not Esperanzans, the reaction should be to greet a fellow Wikipedia editor and work with them, not to label them a "non-Esperanzan". Would you think of someone you meet on the street as a non-Wikipedian? No. You are a human first, and a Wikipedian second. Ditto Esperanza. Keep Esperanza stuff for dealing with Esperanzans. Display the "green e" on Esperanza pages, but not on other pages. When you leave Esperanza pages and head out to edit other pages, you become a Wikipedia editor and the Esperanza 'cap' is placed in your pocket until you return. Does this make sense? Carcharoth 02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

RE:Esperanza

Thanks for the concern, Cyde. I feel fine; I should take myself off stressed users but I'm too busy running between the different debates to do so. Thanks for the friendly advice! DoomsDay349 01:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't expressing concern for you, merely responding to ReyBrujo's claim that we need on-wiki places for stress relief. --Cyde Weys 01:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lmao. The way you said that is just so amazingly funny... "Oh, no, I wasn't expressing concern for you." Gee, thanks! =P. mumble...grumble... Just kidding, thanks for making me laugh! DoomsDay349 01:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Pontiac G8

Did you even read WP:NOT? You shouldn't cite policies you haven't read.

"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." is directly quoted from WP:NOT's section regarding crystal balls.

The article was about the prospects of a major proposed product from the (currently) world's largest automaker. The article was sourced properly, after I rewrote it. This is clearly an encyclopedic topic. Unfocused 16:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

vandal

User_talk:84.53.80.194 is at his vandalism again. Scoutersig 14:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca and may wish to add them to User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns. -- Jreferee 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what "ad hominem" your message was supposed to be referring to, but it's the height of lameness to jump in on a dispute you know nothing about to advance an old grudge. Rebecca 04:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go again. Please, for the love of God, stop the ad hominems and the accusations of bad faith. You're becoming really hard to work with. --Cyde Weys 04:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your message about User:Editor at Large

Mr. Weys I am totally shocked and appalled at your lack of sympathy for our friend. How can you suggest to someone that is obviously grieving to naff off, we don't have time for you here unless you are ready to work. You need to apologise. Pynopoulous 05:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck getting him to. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cyde,

I just wanted to drop you a personal note to say that I understand what you wrote. I know that you are just a very honest person, and I respect that; however, in a case like this a note such as yours could very well be enough to push someone with a mental illness (because that's what it is) and tendencies such as mine over the edge. People with depression often feel totally alone and as if the world doesn't care about them; this feeling of rejection and solitude is what often makes them suicidal, as they feel as though nobody cares and nobody would care if they were gone. Suggesting that someone with this condition should take a break and "come back after you've sorted out your personal issues" as "it's just really not productive when we have this kind of thing spilling over onto the administrator's noticeboard" doesn't exactly make them feel loved (which I know wasn't your intention).

I completely understand your statement that it isn't productive, and I apologise profusely if I'm causing disruption. I just hope you understand that leaving right now would take away something from my life that at this time is desperately needed, and would likely cause me to fall apart inside. I tried, for the very reason you mentioned; but I care about Wikipedia so much that the stress of not knowing what was happening to the articles I watch and whether people were trying to ask me questions was too much, only inducing another depressive episode which very nearly didn't end well.

I know, I am a total mess right now. You can't imagine how much it bothers me to know that I'm unproductive and am taking people's time away from things more important than myself! I used to be methodical, productive, and logical; now I'm emotional, mixed up, and totally worthless. I know, however, that things take time; I'll be back in fighting form sooner or later. Until that time I will try to keep quiet and not bother you, and keep my mental problems to myself. You are right, they don't belong here.

Again, I am terribly sorry if I caused disruption or grief for you or anyone else. I certainly never intended it, and will certainly do my absolute best to prevent it from happening in the future. Please accept my sincere apologies. — Editor at Large^(speak) 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyde, hope you don't mind me butting in here. Editor at Large, please don't keep your feelings to yourself. Even if Wikipedia might not be the best place to talk about things (you will encounter many people who feel like Cyde does - I do to a certain extent), please do find somewhere to talk about it (e-mail and other online forums can help). Do remember though that finding the right place is important - finding the wrong place to talk to people about things can, as you've found, make things worse. Work at building up a support network, including your Wikipedian friends, to help you through the bad times, and don't rely too much on any one person or place for support. Hope that helps, and for what it is worth, you seem more logical, methodical and productive than some people I know! :-) Carcharoth 11:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I didn't actually talk about what happened here on Wikipedia. People asked but I only told them through e-mail if they e-mailed me first; the explanation was just because people were (very) worried and I wanted to let them know I am and was okay. I'll delete it in a week or so, after people read it. I don't want it up forever, trust me!
People left supportive messages for me after I left, but they found out on their own and I never told them directly. Any edits I made to my userpage were meant for myself in forgetfulness that people watch it. I don't mean to shove my problems on anyone else, in any way, and would never in my right mind post something like that for all to see.

I'll try to stay in my right mind for the future. :-) — Editor at Large^(speak) 12:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with above, basically telling her to "fuck off until you get yourself together" (albeit not as strongly) isn't nice. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?)} 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, fellas! We're building an encyclopedia here, not running a crisis center. Anyone who was concerned about helping EOL should have been trying to get her help in real life. -- Donald Albury 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And I suppose you would not have cared if she had done something drastic?? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 18:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is ill advised to try to diagnose and treat someone over the Internet, particularly if you are not trained in dealing with such problems. If someone is threatening suicide on the Internet, the proper course is to try to identify the individual and then contact local authorities. I personally would not try to intervene in such a case on the Internet because I am not trained in how to handle such cases. -- Donald Albury 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Identify the individual? More likely than not without the individual's consent?? That would be a serious mistake. And the local authorities can't keep someone from killing hself. And I was not trying to diagnose anything…in fact, for the record, I have no medical training and wouldn't want to. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 23:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, as someone involved in the incident, I have to say - let it go, guys. People view different things differently, and this is a sensitive issue. I don't think we should trivialise it by discussing it here. Sorry to add to your message backlog, Cyde, but this discussion can go nowhere. riana_dzasta 17:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Just a heads up that one of your pages has been nominated at MfD. Newyorkbrad 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

NYCS templates

Since you brought it up originally, I was thinking of the template merging you proposed. We have a template called {{NYCS service}}, and I was thinking we could use this for the subway services. For example, inputting {{NYCS service|Q|Q}} would render Q. See, the 1st parameter is for the subway service, the second is for the same purpose, except in some cases there are diamond services, producing <7>, and the third parameter is for services that don't run at all times, producing 5 ⁽¹²³⁴⁾. So that's it. I launched a discussion at the WP:NYCS talk page like this so we won't have to have a whole bunch of service templates. By using a switch template, it will make the others redundant. The infobox would have to be reconfigured, but I think that a template like this would be necessary so we can reduce the overload of the templates on the category page. If you have questions, contact me on my talk page and post your thoughts on the WP:NYCS talk page. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverse ref. converter

Hello Cyde, I've got a bit of a problem. I've been taking {{Infobox ethnic group}} template info and converting it into full fledged templates. See Persian people and Template:Persian ethnicity. Unforuntately I'm running into the <reference /> in templates bug. I don't know of any workaround other than to convert the refs into the {{ref}} and {{note}} system. Doing that by hand would be prohibitively tedious and so I'm wondering if you either know of another workaround or if you might have a reverse converter. Looking forward to hearing back from you. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the references in templates bug? Are you referring to what happens when a template contains its own references, and is then transcluded onto a page that also has references, thus fubaring everything? --Cyde Weys 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly... as mentioned here. Any suggestions? (→Netscott) 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not really in the mood to make a reverse converter because I'm afraid it would be used inappropriately. How many templates are we talking about that have references in them? Is it really such a huge problem that can't be tackled manually? --Cyde Weys 04:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not that big of a deal...I was thinking that you might already know of a workaround or have already produced something along these lines. This idea was a sort of pet project of my own and I wasn't really wanting to have anyone else having to go out of their way to help. Thanks for your responses. (→Netscott) 06:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You might ask User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, I recall that he started working on some sort of ref conversion that worked both ways after he saw mine. --Cyde Weys 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"reference converter"

Hi, Cyde. I was directed your way in reference (ha!) to a converter for the ref tags. Ideas? I have a bunch of articles I could convert (street racing comes to mind). Thanks, alex ... aa:talk 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't references though, those are just external links. Yeah, you could use ref tags and such and display all of the external links at the end of the article, but there isn't really a point. Human intervention is still required, tracking down where those links point to and writing up proper references. While you're doing that you can easily just wrap that in ref tags. I don't see the need for a bot to do it. --Cyde Weys 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look at an article like street racing (which I overhauled a couple days ago), you'll notice that I was using the "external link" syntax instead of the "ref tag" syntax. I used it in such a way that it appears as foot notes (the product of xyz is fifteen^[1][2][3]), where an external link is a directly supporting source. This make sense to you? Maybe if there was a quick "guide" for doing it, I could just started doing that from the outside. I prefer the ref tag appearance (and function!), but the external link method is a lot quicker to write. mahalo, ... aa:talk 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't have a problem with references at all; you just don't know how to use citation templates correctly. Unfortunately, that's not something that can be done robotically ... it requires a human to go visit the link, figure out what the site is, then include the appropriate information in the citation template. --Cyde Weys 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly interview/roundtable?

Hi!

You may or may not be aware of the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, which is now approaching its eighth weekly episode, on which I'm a regular presenter. This episode, we'd like to cover the Esperanza dispute now that the dust has had time to settle, and would very much like for you to come on the show to talk to us about it. We'll also be inviting a few representatives from both sides of the debate and post-debate reorganisation to provide some opposing views.

All that would be required are a microphone, a reasonably fast internet connection, and a free copy of Skype. We'll likely be recording at around 1500 UTC on Saturday, although feel free to suggest an alternative time if this wouldn't suit you. You can also join us in #wikipediaweekly on FreeNode prior to the podcast. Thanks for your time, and I hope you can join us on the weekend. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like fun. Ping me on IRC as the time draws near so I don't forget. --Cyde Weys 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Half-Life mods deletion review

You may want to read the "Comment as closer" above your reply. --Pizzahut2 12:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom voting

Hi,

I notice that you asked the 37 candidates not to vote. I understand the motivation (civility, decorum). I do disagree (two reasons, one, I want to see how they handle themselves, two, as I expect 100 - 300 votes, these would represent perhaps 15% of the most informed voters abstaining). Anyhow, leave my reasons aside. Would you consider relocating your requests to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements? That way other users could discuss the request. Notice, that even though you have phrased it in the form of a question, it is really a request to act (or not act) and not a question soliciting information.

Thank you for thinking it over. Jd2718 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Other users can discuss the request at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements if they like, but I still want to hear an answer (and reasoning) from each individual candidate. This will help me make up my mind about them. --Cyde Weys 22:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you made a statement instead of asking a question on the candidates' pages. Perhaps you could add a Do you agree? to the end to turn it into a question. Cheers, NoSeptember 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, on second reading it doesn't look like I exactly encapsulated what I was trying to say. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem for me is that you have asked the candidates to behave in a certain way. Even the "would you agree?" leaves us essentially with a request. I would like them (and apparently Mailer Diablo would like them) to behave differently. So now instead of one discussion on the talk page, we've got 37 little conversations. At this point it can't be avoided, as I want their assurances that they will vote as much as you would like their assurances that they won't. Jd2718 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty standard type of question, actually, and I've seen it in numerous other ArbCom questions. I don't think it's unreasonable. "Here is what I think; do you agree?" If you want their assurances that they will vote, you can simply look and see if they agree with me or not. Some do, some don't. --Cyde Weys 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We have a new problem, which is that you have deleted comments by another user, Mailer Diablo. Not only were they his comments, but they reflected what I wanted to see put to the candidates. I don't know my WP: Policies well enough to tell which the deletions are in violation of, but they certainly violate something. Please restore Mailer Diablo's comments, or I will need to file a report. Jd2718 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to ask your own questions in separate section headings, you are free to do so. Just please don't answer my questions to the candidate without even giving the candidate a chance to respond first. This is question/answer with the candidates; it's not a threaded discussion free-for-all. And by the way, why am I communicating through you with Mailer Diablo? This doesn't make sense. I have nothing against him. I've already tried talking to him twice, only to be snubbed by comment blanking or "merging", and then have you relaying for him. Please tell him to talk with me directly. --Cyde Weys 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I filed a report here. Jd2718 23:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, posting a new section on ANI isn't really "filing a report". There's no real process for that kind of thing on ANI; people just post comments there when they have grievances, and sometimes others mostly agree with them, or sometimes they mostly disagree with them. --Cyde Weys 00:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My username

The "210" in my sig doesn't represent atomic weight. My sig is just configured into such a way that it represents an element designation. The "210" represents a date. ;) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My answers

Heya Cyde. Just a heads up, per your request, that I've wrapped up the answers to my Questions page. I will completely understand if you wish to retain your oppose vote in light of this personal delay. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Correcting your comment

Hi Cyde. I see that you changed your voting comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Geogre with this edit, but Geogre's comment is still there. This is a bit misleading, as it is not clear now what Geogre was responding to - it probably would have been better if you had removed his comment at the same time and said that you had changed your comment. I've removed Geogre's comment and I hope you will make clear that your comments have changed as well - at the moment it looks like that is what you wrote at 00:07 on 04/12/06 - when you actually rewrote it at 03:09. Carcharoth 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Update here. Carcharoth 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for his comment; he shouldn't have left one there in the first place, as it goes against the election rules. --Cyde Weys 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. As long as you are happy with my correcting of the misleading situation your edit created. Do you mind if I add a small comment to your edit noting that the timestamp is wrong and that you changed your comment? Carcharoth 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How about if I just change it back to what I originally wrote? Why does it matter so much anyway? --Cyde Weys 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can change it back to what you originally wrote. But for clarity, it would be best if you noted the editing and changes you are making, as this is not clear from just looking at the page. A certain amount of minor editing and corrections is acceptable (I do this as well), but given the history here, especially the comments further down the page where people refer to your vote (eg. "Per Scobell302 and Cyde." and "Accusatory response to Cyde's oppose above is bad enough.", it would seem that the amoutn of work to clarify what has happened is justified. I'm really quite happy to add 'small comments' myself to clarify what happened. Not quite sure what to make of "Support per Cyde and Ideogram."... :-) Carcharoth 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

issue now resolved here. Carcharoth 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Current arbitrators voting

Hi Cyde. I just noticed that Fred Bauder has voted in the elections. Given your note to the candidates about voting in the elections, would you consider sending a similar note to the current arbitrators? It seems to me that the same reasoning would apply about arbitrators who voted against each other having to work together. Of course, this whole thing becomes a bit silly when you consider that those running in this election might have voted against current arbitrators when those arbitrators were elected (in a different tranche). I agree with MailerDiablo that voting is OK (you should never really restrict that anyway), but that candidates and current arbitrators should not give divisive reasoning (I see that Fred has sensibly not added a comment). Carcharoth 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Had I known that current arbitrators were going to involve themselves in the elections I would have sent out a similar note ahead of time, but now that it is too late, I don't see much point in proceeding. Besides, Fred's votes (with no associated comments) are not nearly as bad as the stuff I was really trying to protect against. --Cyde Weys 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. If I'm around when Fred comes up for re-election (if he runs, in two years I think) I'll try and remember to ask him this voting question of yours! :-) I'll be interested to see if any other sitting arbitrators vote. Carcharoth 15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Fred is in Alpha Tranche, which comes up next year (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee). I believe Charles Matthews has also voted in this year's election (just supports, no opposes, no comments). Newyorkbrad 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Look for an email from me

Hi Cyde :-) Look for an email from me dated 2 AM last night. I'm interested in your thoughts. Take care, --FloNight 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Look for another email, time around 6 PM. FloNight 23:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Trust (or lack of)

I find it exceptionally sad that you were quite happy for people to trust you during your RfA process but your not prepared to return the favour and trust me. Especially as you were in a very similar situation and only had 3 full months of solid participation before you were promoted. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not at all the same situation. I do trust myself. I do not know that I can trust you. If that's inconsistent, so be it. Everyone is inconsistent when it comes to evaluating others versus evaluating themselves. --Cyde Weys 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognise that to be inconsistent. I look forward to your support at my next RfA. In the interim, I suggest reviewing my edits and confirming that you can trust me. Best Wishes and Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom voting

Oops, too late. I decided to only vote "support" (except for one polite instance) and leave all the candidates I didn't like alone. I do respect your point, though. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Moral Support

My intent with moral support voting is to suggest that I think the user is trying to be nominated (for admin,arbcom,whatever) for good reasons, but simply does not meet the requirements. Some of the answers given I did like. I did not oppose, and if I had not voted moral support I simply would not have voted at all (since there is no neutral). I certainly not voting moral support out of some kind of Janus-like ambiguity of choice. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm completely with Cyde here. You should vote for what you actually think is correct. You can always soften it with a nice comment, but I think it borders on insulting to say moral support and mean no. Along with assuming good faith, we should also assume someone has the maturity to confront criticism head on instead of trying to package it with a pretty bow. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually came here to ask Cyde if he wants to start a no-moral-support Cabal when I saw his comments and then saw Elara's post when I got here. So Cyde, what about it?  :-} —Doug Bell ^talk 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't cast any moral support votes in the ArbCom election, but I've cast them two or three times in RfA's (having seen other users doing the same: I think they were a bit more common in July when I became active then they are right now) and been thanked for them. They are typically in order when a good-faith but unready or unqualified user needs to be gently counselled that the RfA is failing badly and he or she ought to withdraw. There are times, especially with newer or younger users, that one could anticipate that the words of advice will be seen more quickly or accepted more readily if they come from "moral support #2" rather than "oppose #27." The word "moral" is readily understood by future !voters, and one wouldn't, of course, do this in a situation where there was any possibility that such a !vote would change the result, but I don't see that it makes any genuine difference whether the withdrawn or snowballed RfA fails at 3-24 or 2-25, and sometimes a few well-chosen words can put a doomed RfA out of its misery or console a valuable editor who otherwise might walk away forever. Is an occasional !vote of this nature really a problem? Newyorkbrad 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest a "moral neutral" next time? —Doug Bell ^talk 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the best solution is to only vote honestly, and then leave the user talk page comments. I still object to a "moral neutral" because each vote should be treated as seriously as if it decided the issue, and although you are saying neutral, you really honestly leave oppose. I think a courteous, honest oppose combined with a courteous post on their talk page explaining why they need more time, what they can do to improve, etc., would be even better than the demeaning beast that is moral support. --Cyde Weys 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you, but I was thinking something slightly different than what you responded to. Neutral seems to be where you can make statements on an RfA without taking a position. I realize neutral is not the only way to make a comment, but certainly someone casting a moral support might not feel strong enough to take a position, yet still want to express an opinion. So I guess it's a case of saying moral neutral when you mean probably not. Anyway, I think you and I have the same thinking on this issue, it's more a matter of semantics on my comment. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hell yes, it's on like Donkey Kong. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question

Cyde, I removed your question from Paul's page. He'll answer if he wants to, so please don't restore it. It's too late in the day for that kind of question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're saying I'm not allowed to ask a question about something in his candidate statement? No way. If the question offends you, please try to find a way to ask the same question that is less offensive, but don't remove it entirely. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And Slim, it's really a shame that you've gone so far downhill as to accuse me of trolling; wherever did you get the idea that it was acceptable to throw around such words about fellow admins? Do you really want to work in such a nasty environment? I'm not going to reciprocate in kind. And by the way, if an uncomfortable question is asked, the best solution is not to get three different people to try to repeatedly censor it. That makes the third-party readers think there's something very sinister going on. --Cyde Weys 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you know it's provocative, and unfair to Paul and to Geogre. If you really want to know Paul's opinion of Geogre, e-mail him. If you continue to restore this, there's a risk you'll be blocked for disruption, and it's not worth it, so please just let it drop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of the question/answer pages is so that everyone can see the results; if it's done in email, it may help me make up my mind, but it won't help others make up their mind. And I don't care if you think my question is "provocative"; it has to do with the substance of his candidate statement and I have every right to ask it. Are we now not allowed to ask anything but bland questions? --Cyde Weys 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. I, for one, have been seriously considering to vote for Geogre because Paul endorsed them. I haven't seen any link to the actual reason for the complaints, but if the complaints turn out to be well founded I would like to read what Paul has to say about this. — Sebastian (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The main complaint I have right now is the comments Geogre made about another current ArbCom candidate. There's no excuse for the things he said. Civility is a very important aspect of serving on ArbCom, and slamming around another candidate like that, even if they have past disagreements, is unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"There's no excuse" is too harsh. The "Cute ..." statement was venomous, but not insulting. The gender mistake was certainly excusable. But that he does not even attempt an apology, and that he switches to personal attacks against yet another editor, instead of trying to understand and address why others find it hard to believe him, is a strong argument to oppose his nomination. — Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not allowed to ask questions that amount to personal attacks, and you know whatever answer he gives, or fails to give, won't make a difference to the outcome of the election anyway, so there's no point. In any event, he'll see the question and answer if he wants to. I've protected the page in the meantime and I hope you'll respect that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. How is asking a candidate if they endorse someone a "personal attack"? Really, you're just making stuff up now, using certain keywords like "personal attack" and "disruption" because you think if you use those words to describe my actions it'll let you get away with blocking me. Luckily, arbitrators are a bit smarter than that. --Cyde Weys 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde here. I voted against Paul precisely because my confidence was shook by his continued endorsement of Geogre. It's a totally valid question. --Gwern (contribs) 01:38 6 December 2006 (GMT)

I would support Cyde's right to ask the question if I could tell what the hell it was about. "Several thinks have happened since then. Do you still endorse him?" This a "Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more" kind of question. I'm aware, of course, that Geogre has said controversial things in the past, which makes it more important that I know what "several things" refers to this time. On reading the diffs I see it used to say "Given his recent outbursts against another ArbCom candidate" before, but that isn't really much more help; given how WikiDrama tends to work at this level, I could search Wikipedia all day and find out that it refers to something said on IRC. If it's about the page linked to above in this discussion then I can't even see the outburst, unless this is another "OMG, someone with a gender-neutral name on a male-dominated website was referred to as 'he'" snipefest. On ANI, RfA and pretty much anywhere else, talking about what users have said and done requires diffs, and I don't think this is different. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a link to evidence was sorely missing. (I made this point before - wink, wink). But this could and should have been fixed by asking Cyde to provide the link, not by removing their question. Re the outburst, I'm wondering why you can't see it - see my comment above. — Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Cyde getting upset about Geogre is to do with what he referred to in his oppose vote. More on this, and what happened afterwards, can be seen here and here. That last link is to a thread on this very page, where I asked Cyde if he would make clear that he changed the text of his oppose vote (the first oppose vote that many people will have read, and which may have influenced the subsequent 15 or so votes in the three hours before Cyde toned down his comment). I still think that leaving that comment with the 00:07 timestamp, when in fact it was rewritten at 03:09, is misleading, and I'd appreciate it if others could say whether they feel Cyde should have (and even still should) note that he subsequently edited his vote/comment. Carcharoth 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion, if I may

As Kat so eloquently said, we can leave it to Paul to decide what to do with the question, but I'd like to suggest that you remove the second part of it, and leave only the questions about the content of his statement? I think it reflects very poorly on everyone involved, but particularly you since it's got your signature on it. --bainer (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten it. We still have a day until he gets back, so feel free to give some more comments on it. I still feel it's important to ask a question about the integrity of elections, however. What I saw yesterday was very disturbing. I asked a valid question and quite a few people mobilized to try to have it removed, despite the fact that all of them have vested interests and none of them are tasked with being an elections official. Luckily, the closest thing we do have to an elections official, Geni, intervened to uphold the integrity of the elections. But seriously, what kind of nonsense is this when people go around reverting and protecting questions pages because something uncomfortable is asked? Isn't that admin abuse, pure and simple? That's the kind of thing the ArbCom would go on to rule about anyway, so I now want to know Paul's opinion of these actions. --Cyde Weys 14:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. My gut reaction to the question was that it's not really appropriate to be trying to try to draw a comment from a candidate on another candidate while the election is running, even without the subject matter of this particular question. But Kat's reasoning is persuasive, and it's a more-or-less relevant question, considering it's directed at the statement. Basically what I'm saying is that my first thought was to remove the question, and I wouldn't blame anyone else who thought the same. It's a hot-button issue and the question treads some thin ice.

With respect to the altered wording, I would personally leave only the original question, and maybe ask the other part in private. If Paul then wants to answer that he can, but asking for a response about an almost-edit war over the question is, IMHO, going too far for the public questions page. --bainer (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask that you do some deep introspection if the first thought you have when seeing a somewhat controversial question aimed at a candidate in an election is to try to censor it? --Cyde Weys 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement versus voting

One of Cyde's comments up there got me thinking. I'll quote: "How is asking a candidate if they endorse someone a "personal attack"?". Now, elsewhere, Cyde has been asking the cadidates if they would consider not voting against each other, to avoid conflict and resentment after the election. Surely asking candidates to endorse each other is a similarly risky business that might cause conflict? So, Cyde, is it possible to reconcile your request for non-voting to avoid conflict, with your request for endorsement (even if it is technically a request to confirm an existing endorsement)? My feeling is that if the candidate offers an endorsement or disendorsement without being prompted (as Paul August did), then it probably does become fair game for questions from the floor. Would you agree with that, and also agree that asking candidates their opinions of other candidates (where they have not previously said anything) is less acceptable (you should wait and see how they vote, if they do)? Carcharoth 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. I noticed a seemingly initial disparity between my request not to comment on other candidates and my request to get Paul August to, in effect, comment on Geogre. As you point out, however, the difference is that Paul August has already commented, in effect, on Geogre, and thus it is fair game to ask about this endorsement. My view on candidates discussing other candidates is only a recommendation; once it hasn't been followed, it does not prohibit potential voters from asking questions about the comments on other candidates. I do not want to leash the voters in any way in trying to obtain the information they feel is necessary to make up their minds on the candidates. --Cyde Weys 18:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your comment re: the Well. I wasn't sure really how to get the point across (without breaking my arm patting myself on the back); you got it across quite succinctly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's funny, I'm seeing a lot of people voting in these elections who seem to have no conception of what they are voting for. Arbitration Committee isn't some random higher position; it's a dispute-resolution body. As such, it makes zero sense to vote in favor of people who seem to turn every little disagreement they touch into large battlegrounds. One of the candidates in particular is a a conflict escalator, not a defuser, even demonstrating so during the election with his extremely inflammatory comments about another candidate. I cannot fathom how anyone could support such a person. I personally have not voted support on any of my friends unless I thought they would be good ArbCom members; unfortunately, a lot of other people seem not to be doing the same. People need to remember we are voting for a community manager, not an army general, and I am glad that my support comment for you is drawing attention to this. --Cyde Weys 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting comments and questions - correct timestamps

Hi Cyde. I see from the above that when you rewrote your question, you re-signed it so it had the correct timestamp. Could you please consider doing the same for other comments and votes you have re-written without renewing the timestamp? I point out one of these above, though if you are aware of other rewrites you have done, you could correct the timestamp on those as well. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. [Psst! You missed a 3. 03:09, not 00:09... :-) ] Carcharoth 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Eponymous cities

Why was that deleted? Carlossuarez46 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The honest answer is: hell if I know. Check WP:CFD archives. --Cyde Weys 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Opposing

Just so you know, there's no difference between oppose and strong oppose, here or on RFA. I'm modifying your comment so that it fits on one line. --Cyde Weys 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully agree with your statement. How strongly a person opposes a candidate (and of course how well they present their rationale for doing so) are an important part of the consensus-building process. However, truncating my !vote to one line is fine. Thanks for the head's up. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, ArbCom is not a consensus-building process. It explicitly is a vote (as opposed to a !vote). The comments you leave with your vote might help influence other editors, but "weak oppose" v. "oppose" v. "strong oppose" is rather meaningless. The same mostly holds for AFDRFA. It's also, for the most part, a vote, although bureaucrats are given some small measure of discretion. --Cyde Weys 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean RfA rather than AfD there? Newyorkbrad 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why yes, I did. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I reserve the right to express my opinion of a candidate more or less strongly than the default. It is common practice around the Wikipedia and I'm surprised that you'd take the trouble to try to convince me that it's insignificant. It's a practice strongly grounded in precedent and clearly has at least some utility.

I also agree with you on the point that RfA's are essentially a "vote" as well, simply because the community is usually well-represented in RfA discussions. However, it's a damn shame when the process breaks down. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Need a comment from an uninvolved admin

Sorry to bother you but wondered if you were in a position to give an uninvolved opinion on whether this comment [9] is incivil when made by a very experienced Wikipedian to a newbie. Note that the author had just previously been telling another off for an alleged breach of WP:POINT. I haven't had any immediate involvement in this exchange but have unfortunately had previous acrimonious run-ins with this user. Would be very grateful for any opinion you can offer or if more appropriate if you could refer me to to any other source of advice. Itsmejudith 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I qualified as uninvolved, actually. And I wouldn't necessarily say the comment is incivil; it looks like there's a heated argument going on from both sides. --Cyde Weys 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realise you had any involvement. Itsmejudith 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Well, when you get back ...

I've replied to your post on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, whenever you're ready to respond to the questions is when I'll make up my mind. --Cyde Weys 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input sought

Pmanderson is up for another RfA, and I had similar experiences to the ones you were talking about on his last RfA. I don't think he's ready, or may not even have the temperament period (as witnessed also by his recent 3RR). Skyemoor 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor review

Cyde, please could you review me at here. I'm working on trying to get WP:1FA so I can become a sysop on requests for adminship; any advice is appreciated! --SunStar Net^talk 16:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied on talk page, as you asked. --SunStar Net^talk 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

re: ArbCom Questions for Paul August

Hi Cyde. I've answered your questions. Paul August ☎ 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hatred?

Oh, come on, Cyde. I don't expect this to change your !vote; but it is important in itself.

I don't hate you; I disagree with you. I believe strongly in leaving editors alone to do basically harmless things, for the sake of compassion and good feeling. You don't have any use for pity.

We disagree on when and how to change the culture of Wikipedia. Even that difference may not be as wide as you seem to think; I agree with WP:PRO both in its support of process and its opposition to process. Septentrionalis 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that your accusations of wikistalking are injuring my character. I must request either a retraction or evidence. All that happened is that we both vote in polls and we disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Cyde—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What new push? I don't see any links. --Cyde Weys 16:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He means here. -- Donald Albury 16:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Burton Turkus

I just created a stub on the late mob prosecutor Burton Turkus. However, user MadMax just told me on his talk page that a previous article on that subject was created and then deleted. I see from the log Max linked to that you deleted it. I wasn't aware of the previous article and that it was deleted. Is there a problem with starting afresh? Turkus was a notable author and received widespread publicity as prosecutor of Murder Incorporated.--Mantanmoreland 15:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and recreate it. Just don't use anything by Jay Nash as a source. --Cyde Weys 16:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No way. I've read Bloodletters and Badmen and it is trash. One problem that I have with organized crime articles generally is that they tend to be unsourced and/or rely on bad Internet sources that are themselves unsourced compilations of material, such as Allan May's website, crimemagazine.com. I think using May and similar sites is at least as problematic as using Nash as a source.

The problem is that some of these articles are themselves picked up by Answers.com and other websites as sources, and it becomes a vicious circle. That happened with National Crime Syndicate before it was cut back. --Mantanmoreland 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'd appreciate it if you can look at Havana Conference when you have a moment. My concern about this article is that it does not cite any sources despite its length, and it appears to be relying upon sources such as the Luciano "autobiography" of dubious reliability. I've posted several times pleading for citations, to no avail.--Mantanmoreland 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

References converter

When I try to use the reference converter, I get an error message: "HTTP 404 Not Found" "The Webpage cannot be found". Am I the only one getting this, or is it actually not working? --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Userbox generator

See the "No" userbox on User:Humblefool's userpage. I think it should be added to your userbox generator for the sheer irony of it all. Anomo 12:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Could you please comment on my proposal? I've almost made up my mind to try building it myself, but I would like to build upon AntiVandalBot rather than start from scratch. Also, I have no previous experience programming Wikipedia bots, so I would appreciate any help. Trapolator 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you look at my latest comment there? I have some questions. Trapolator 10:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of Speedy Delete

"12:34, 10 December 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:User UBXEssay" (T1)"

I do not see how that userbox could be viewed as divisive or inflammatory. It's entire purpose is to help those working on the userbox project understand each other. Therefore it is conciliatory, not divisive. Please re-instate. --NThurston

It linked to an essay in userspace dealing with userboxes. Frankly, it is divisive to make a template out of it. Put it in userspace where it belongs. --Cyde Weys 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:User UBXEssay on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:User UBXEssay. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. NThurston 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good

Thank you for posting people's talk pages to tell them to remove excessive junk from their signatures. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the point, but a user's signature is that user's creation, plus it's under the GNU Free Documentation License as theirs. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, the GFDL doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. It's simply common courtesy not to have an excessively long, obnoxious signature. --Cyde Weys 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

??? If it wasn't, what would keep me from taking the signature (for example) Tony Sidaway (since it's really short) and using it as mine? Noöne could prove that I wasn't Tony Sidaway. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what edit histories are, and how they work? And how exactly is impersonation relevant to asking people to tone down extravagant signatures? --Cyde Weys 21:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think sarcasm isn't going to work in a discussion. I also think that he knows what edit histories are. You have to admit, he does have a point. --Fredil Yupigo 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's the last poster who has a POINT. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like impersonation and WP:POINT backfire. Who'd have guessed it. --Cyde Weys 22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He did illustrate that it's easy to be confused at first glance. Fredil, per prior incidents I think you'd still be better off staying off this page. Newyorkbrad 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, how obnoxiously long the signature is has nothing whatsoever to do with ease of impersonation. All it takes is a single copy-paste. The issues of impersonation and overly-formatted sigs are orthogonal. --Cyde Weys 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say uncorrelated rather than orthogonal, but I understand your point. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Othogonal is more fun to say though. And for those with backgrounds in math or physics (something involving vectors), it even makes some measure of sense. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories

On Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#Full automation you wrore:

Just so you guys know, I've programmed up a little something special for Cydebot that lets him tackle everything on this page with a single command. So if stuff is ever lagging behind just send me a ping and I can have Cydebot do it all in a jiffy ... there's no reason to waste time setting up a bot manually to handle each different move, especially when there's lots of them to work on. --Cyde↔Weys 13:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this still available? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working is getting very long at the moment. Timrollpickering 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'm on it right now. --Cyde Weys 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic - many thanks. Timrollpickering 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's been a further pile up - a lot of mass nomination categories have come up, including no less than forty-nine for the Paris Métro. Timrollpickering 16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Divisive Userboxes in Template space

Good job in cleaning those up. I like user boxes, and I'm sure you do to since you made the UBX generator, but there has to be some kind of common sense limit. What staggers my mind is the arguments people are using to justify keeping some userboxes. *Sighs* --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I guess the userbox generator throws people for a loop, because in actuality I hate userboxes. The generator was made as a sort of joke on April Fools, which I used to vandalize userpages with hundreds of random, nonsense boxen. --Cyde Weys 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not

re[10]: In the United States, judicial appointments are for life, and for good reason. I do not like the idea of arbitrator recall and I see it potentially leading to way too much politicking. --Cyde Weys 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI -- There are quite a few states where recall elections are part of the constitutional dance. Pennsylvania for one. Use a smaller broom in your sweeping statements! <g> Such elections have their uses. Best regards // FrankB 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I was thinking of just the Supreme Court, then. The analogy is still apt though; ArbCom is the "Supreme Court" of Wikipedia (except it's not a court, it's an arbitration committee, but I think the analogy still works). --Cyde Weys 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cyde is presumably referring to federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices and judges of each United States Court of Appeals and United States District Court, who are appointed for life ("during good Behaviour" is the constitutional language). In some state court systems as well as in some lower courts, there are indeed limited-term elections or appointments, and there is substantial evidence this does pose serious problems for judicial independence. And Cyde is right that "arbitrator recall" is a terrible idea; most cases have at least one loser who will be unhappy with a decision, and we'd be dealing with arbitrator recall votes every month at that rate. Newyorkbrad 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev ArbCom vote

I was curious about this diff in the vote on Alex Bakharev's ArbCom nomination. Ordinarily, as I understand it, deprecated votes are struck through but not deleted outright. The deleted vote was for what I would consider a poor reason, but nonetheless I was wondering if this was a special case, or something inadvertent. Could you give me an understanding of this deletion? Thanks... --Ssbohio 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See the rest of his contribs and the related section on WP:ANI. --Cyde Weys 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot putting ko above ja

Why does your bot put interlang link to ko above ja? [11] --211.126.51.98 05:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Because pyWikipediaBot sorts in order of the language name (the way order is determined in the links box to the left on an article) rather than by two-letter ISO language code. --Cyde Weys 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

As a past contributer to the reference desk, would you care to offer your 2 ¢ on the recent controversy there?--ανωνυμία 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooof, this whole thing looks hairy. Exactly which part did you want me to comment on? My general feeling is that the reference desk is too unprofessional right now, and there is the occasional nonsense post. It does need to be cleaned up. Hopefully firmer guidelines, or a change in staff, might fix it. --Cyde Weys 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos

I've noticed you're very involved here, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about MetsBot

Just to let you know, if you were running this in pyWikipediaBot, you could input a large list of sig transclusions to subst and it would clean up each talk page in a single edit, rather than having to loop through on each separate template, potentially requiring a much larger total number of edits. --Cyde Weys 00:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was actually running this task in AWB, but doing what you are talking about (after I realized a ways in, so there may have been more than one repetition but there won't be in the future). Thanks for the suggestion! —Mets501 (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Question for you

Hi Cyde, Just a heads up that I've put a proposal to you at Vote/Geogre. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)