Jump to content

User talk:Cyde/Archive006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Cyde

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyde (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 25 May 2006 (→AGF redirect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

THE RULES

  • No nonsense. If you're just going to substitute a silly template (e.g. WikiSmile), I'm just going to delete it.
  • No long sigs. You can use the following sig on my userpage: [[User:yourname]] ~~~~~


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

New talk page archive, new sig

I rather do like the light red. --Cyde Weys 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it indicated you had changed your frock before someone could take it away... :) David Oberst 03:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, someone did successfully defrock me of my teal frock ... luckily for me though I have a whole wardrobe of frocks, and the next in line happened to be light red. --Cyde Weys 03:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And hopefully this brand new sig will make the pseudonym just a tad more obvious. --Cyde↔Weys 03:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User EFF

You changed the above UserBox that was for wikipedians opposed to online censorship so that it meant something else. When I restored it, you reverted with the comment “(rv. - No statements of beliefs, find a better neutral way to state it.)”. How does that jibe with the overwhelming keep at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions? —MJBurrage 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Tfd. I'm changing the wording, not trying to delete it. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But UserBoxes can contain beliefs and convictions, so what was wrong with this one? —MJBurrage 03:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no they can't. At least templates can't. If they are just code on a userpage we can't stop you (hint: substitute your boxen). --Cyde Weys 03:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my ignorance, when/where was that decided? I thought the result of the last round of UserBox deletion/reverts was that they were ok, since they are only used on user pages. —MJBurrage 03:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#T2. And things change over time ... you can't always just refer back to the previous decision (otherwise women still wouldn't be able to vote and black people would be slaves). And "only being used on userpages" is irrelevant because we're talking about templates, which are quite different than just text on a userpage. For one, templated userboxes support "What links here" as a vote-stacking opportunity. --Cyde↔Weys 03:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right above that it says "Additionally, the second criterion is disputed by many users and may not reflect consensus." —MJBurrage 04:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Closing tfds

Got it. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

I'm concerned of all the userboxes being deleted en masse tonight, as stated in the emails you've kept sending me.... i thought this page might be relevant: WP:POINT. Cheers and good luck with your edits, my friend. and if you're curious as to my signature, i'm in the process of de-imaging it. User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 03:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh?? "Emails I've kept sending you"? I don't think so. --Cyde↔Weys 03:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah....can i share them? they come from your email address. User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 03:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't share the one about when it's going down (that's secret info). Share the rest, because I haven't sent anything else. --Cyde↔Weys 03:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. :) User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 03:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Clever remark about resisting the urge to add rainboxen to your userpage.>

<Witty jab at the Hitler poster.>

<Link to what rainboxen is.>

<Comment about how ill formatted this comment is.>

<Joke disclaimer.>

<Begging for mercy.>

<Dignified closing statement.>

--Avillia (Avillia me!) 04:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Bash.org reference as a response> --Cyde↔Weys 05:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Bad pun referencing never-heard-of-before Internet meme>

- Corbin Be excellent 05:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Indian freedom fighters

Hi - why did you delete Category:Indian freedom fighters? Rama's Arrow 05:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:CFD .. it was moved to Category:Indian revolutionaries. --Cyde↔Weys 05:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical reversions.

Please don't leave ridiculous canned responses on my talk page when I am contributing. What I took out of that serious article was obviously a joke left by people still amused by Sony's E3 showing. I am still not sure what "appropriate" content I can replace joke content with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.167.143.22 (talk • contribs)

You might want to get an account so communication is easier. --Cyde↔Weys 05:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns on my RfA

Thanks for taking the time to comment on my RfA. I've addressed Cuivienen's concerns on the page (and he's since changed his vote), so I thought you might like to know; I've also left a lot of responses to others' concerns, which have gone largely unanswered. Please, would you be so kind to comment on anything specific I need to address? dewet|✉ 06:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tool v. ref converter on idea

I haven't yet asked lulu, but I thought that since many articles with {{ref}} also have these styling issues, it would be useful if they could be fixed at the same time. I have taken a quick peak at the thing and I'm frankly not sure how that could be implemented. It's not exactly the easiest to use, IMHO. Circeus 14:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll look into it. Can you give me some more specific information on exactly what you want changed? (This will make implementation easier) Basically you want to remove all spaces between multiple ref groups as well as the close of a ref group and a period or other punctuation, correct? --Cyde↔Weys 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All spaces before any refs would be stripped (eg, replace " <ref" with "<ref", sometimes these are   entities, which should probably be taken in account)
Any combination of a <ref>+a comma, period, semicolon, colon or quote should be moved to after the punctuation mark.
Thanks for considering the suggestion! Circeus 03:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a typical example of what this would be awesomely helpful to correct: [1] (think the same on a 3-pages long article now) Circeus 03:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO

This is a fair warning that you are not going to succedd in demolishing so many userboxes. General Eisenhower 21:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Uhoh Cyde; people are coming back from the dead to oppose you! /me quivers in fear .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means you

User:BigDT, if you haven't seen it already. When are you gonna get it, Cyde? TheJabberwʘckhelp! 21:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do get it. Evidently he didn't. --Cyde↔Weys 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Get it" as in realize that you're hurting Wikipedia more than you're helping it. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When will the MySpacers who are trying to turn a free encyclopedia into something that it is not realize that they are hurting Wikipedia more than they are helping it? --Cyde↔Weys 21:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well here's a really obvious one ... if the non-article page is a vandal's association and they give each other awards and pats on the back for vandalizing articles. As for less obvious ways, how about if the non-encyclopedic content is designed to further or promote a particular POV or bias. --Cyde↔Weys 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalism is against the rules. Vandals do not need wikipedia if they want to coordinate efforts. Bias and POV in articles are also not allowed. The coordination you so fear is what actually makes wikipedia great. Not the misuse of the coordination, but the actual spirit of coordination and cooperation that wikipedia was founded on. Open source projects benefit when people who are familiar or interested in similar areas of research can find each other and discuss issues. However, instead of allowing people to form "groups" on wikipedia, we have people who are fighting those groups while there are other pressing issues to be dealt with (like actually dealing with the articles). DanielZimmerman 03:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but as an admin you should certainly not be using a "two wrongs make a right" argument. The way to address the MySpace problem is to first start thinking sensibly and objectively yourself, and then to help others do so, without coming across as a hypocrite. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 21:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using the "two wrongs make a right" argument. --Cyde↔Weys 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, please respond to my claim that "you're hurting Wikipedia more than you're helping it," instead of pointing at the MySpacers. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um... The only bad faith assumption I see here is yours. DG just pointed out that the question had been lost in the archival. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of his message makes it quite clear what he meant. And please, for the love of God, can you fix your sig?! --Cyde↔Weys 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you're both ABF'ing. By "fix," do you mean shorten? I'm about to transition to a new username, so I'm not gonna change it yet, except to remove the help part from the end. TheJabberwʘck 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do mean shorten. It's three lines long in my edit window ... it tends to overwhelm comments. Cutting out the various unnecessary font formatting would help reduce its size a bit. Look at my sig: it's just as colorful as yours, but it does it all inside of a single tag. --Cyde↔Weys 21:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As requested: not as short as yours, but not too bad either. Λυδαcιτγ 04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks!

I'm an idiot! :) Will do! Xoloz 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox TfD's

An editor has asked for deletion review of Template:User hate. Since you closed the deletion discussion about (or speedy-deleted) this page, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. --Ssbohio 23:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, copied from your archive...

Userboxbot

FYI, I've made an objection to your bot request. I want to approach you here and ask you to reconsider using TfD or T1 to remove userboxes one-by-one. Your side of the userbox debate is valid and may, in the end, be the consensus opinion, but using TfD or speedy on each userbox seperately forces the same arguments to be repeated ad nauseum. Let's get consensus on the whole thing instead.

On a related note, please don't subst any userboxes off my userpage. I'd rather have the redlink there to show what's been removed in what I perceive to be an attempt to stifle my identity on my userpage. Similarly, your comment on my Talk page is unclear: were you being funny or making fun? Rest assured, I found it funny, it's just that reading some of what others had to say, I'm not sure of its intent. Anyway, thanks for all the positive work you've done here, and I look forward to the days when people ask us if we remember the userbox wars... --Ssbohio 01:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes: A New Proposal

Cyde, as you are the author of a proposal yourself, I invite you to read my essay on what should be done with the matter. Hopefully this essay (which tries to achieve a middle ground between the two sides) will become a proposal to attempt to change WP policy- because this debate is hurting Wikipedia and dividing the userbase too much. I would hope you could read my essay and comment, both on how to improve it and on how to make it into a proposal to vote to vote. Thanks! // The True Sora 00:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry I freaked out at you. Please don't hurt me or my family.Cameron Nedland 01:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox deletion

Hello there! An incident at the administrator's noticeboard here has been brought up in a topic that you are heavily involved in: userboxes. Your input is requested and would be valuable. Thanks! Cowman109Talk 01:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A present

Here's a tasteful reward for your great work in the area of userboxes. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been awarded a barnstar for their contributions to WikiProject Userboxes.

I love getting these things sarcastically :-P Cyde↔Weys 10:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:BigDT

Sorry to see you go. Unfortunately a small number of newer admins were given powers we now know they shouldn't have receieved. Hopefully we'll be able to get them desysoped in the near future so you can return. JohnnyBGood t c 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You honestly think it's the "newer" admins who you are running afoul of? Ahahaha! --Cyde↔Weys 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I not mistaken when I say you and Tony are new? You're the only ones I've really had any issues with. And the fact you would respond like you did just now in such a petulant manner only belies the underlying problem with you being an admin. JohnnyBGood t c 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just wow. You think Tony is new?! --Cyde↔Weys 10:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Your Userpage

Cyde, we here at this site are trying to write an encycolpedia, I suggest you delete the nonsense from your user page and make it as boring as you want the rest of this site to be. The picture of the fish is unencycolepidic, there is no double standard for you on this site. Quit acting like you are above everyone else and fix your user page.--GorillazFan Adam 04:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you don't understand the meta-critique aspect of the poisson. --Cyde↔Weys 10:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cydebot

As per your offer, please have your bot subst and delete the following :

Thanks in advance. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In the future you can just give me a space delimited list such as "User Dingbat" "User MrDucky2" "User MrDucky3" "User Alien" "User alien" --Cyde↔Weys 11:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --Cyde↔Weys 11:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, thanks for that. :D Jachin 12:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it can be inferred to be opinion because it's on a user talk page, but in the interest of full disclosure, I'll mention that this is Cyde's opinion of how things should be, not a statement of policy. Subst'ing userboxes has not (to my knowledge) become policy, and, what with Cyde being an admin, I could easily see his opinion being confused with policy.--Ssbohio 05:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point, really?

Cyde, you're becoming quite a star, aren't you? It appears that every third section on WP:ANI has your name at the top. I've sank the boot into you a few times there, but I don't think that I've ever tried to have a nice friendly chat with you here. Which makes me a bit of a hypocrite.

So, if I asked you nicely to just down tools on the usebox thing, would you do it? Looking at Template:User chav for instance, what exactly is it that you thought would happen? Almost no one who took part in the TfD is going to be pleased, that's for sure. Wikipedia only works if we have happy productive editors. Sometimes some members need shepherding, this is true. The culture here can be quite complex, and at times self contradictory. If the way things work (both real and ideal) needs explained, it's a good thing if more experianced editors take the time to do so.

Because that's all that admins are is editors who have demonstrated (in some small way) that they understand the way things work. We're not cops, or schoolteachers, or anyone's mum. We don't have any authority, just access to a few extra tabs and buttons.

I'd ask you to think carefully about the longer term results of your actions. I'd ask you to think carefully about whom it is that you are receiving support from. I'd ask you to wonder, just for a moment, why a broader base of administrators is not "leading the charge" in the manner that you are. I also note that you appear not to be engaging the editors above who are asking you to reconcile your earlier statements with your current actions. When it starts to get hard to defend the things that you're doing, when "go away" is easier than dialog, there is usually a reason.

</lecture>
brenneman{L} 12:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole part about "down tools on the userbox thing" is predicated on a false reading of what actually happened to those Chav templates. I just closed the TfD after the templates had already been deleted (which is what usually happens). --Cyde↔Weys 12:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew that, but do I even need to point out that by playing tag-team with Tony you're hardly walking with the angels? What do we usually do when someone deletes something while an XfD is going on and they haven't taken part? We leave them a nice note saying "you might have missed that...", we restore the page, we let the discussion go on. Please don't try to wash your hand in that manner.
When I see you saying things like "as that lets the MySpacers win" I despair. Here's a giant bloody clue that you're missing: You don't own Wikipedia. I don't own wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battle ground. You are never ever going to get a stable solution with the methods that you are using.
brenneman{L} 12:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, I don't know much about your past history with Tony, but I really don't appreciate you lashing out at me because you perceive me to be his "ally" or something. And here's a giant bloody clue that you're missing: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Cyde↔Weys 13:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few things I could have stated better there, too true.
  • Please don't wave away my objections based on "Oh, It's just Aaron's Tony thing." That's facile, and serves only as an excuse to ignore. My point was, just going on the numbers, having Tony's support is somewhat cold comfort. That comes from a straight reading of ANI, and requires no knowlede of the past.
  • Again, poorly said with the "giant clue" and all. The point is Cyde, who's writing the encyclopedia? Who's maintaining it? I mean the day to day maintenance, not the boot-polish on the top that admins do. You going to take care of a million articles on your own?
  • If admins don't tread lightly, the encyclopedia suffers. We don't make this place run, we're not captains of this ship. We aren't even running the engine room. We're janitors.
brenneman{L} 13:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to all three points. You're right about the userboxes, but your methods are hurting Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get a clarification on that please? What methods have I been using and how "badly" has each of them been hurting Wikipedia? Or can it not be broken down like that? If there's one "method" you can help me identify that isn't helping much but is causing lots of friction, I'll consider dropping that method. --Cyde↔Weys 02:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose I was a bit vague there. I have no idea how much your blocks that have been popping up an AN/I have to do with userboxen, but an easy harmful behavior to identify is blocking without warning. That hurts Wikipedia. I can explain how, if necessary.
More directly related to userboxes, but less concrete perhaps, I'd say you're contributing to polarization of the issue, by casting the issue as "Encyclopedists" "versus" "MySpacers". It doesn't have to be a fight. I see it as an ideal that you and I and many others share, which hasn't been properly communicated to many others. That communication isn't best effected by framing the issue in terms of "sides". I think there's a strong need to answer the arguments coming up at Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal, because individuals convincing individuals is one way that ideals get communicated.
I guess everything I'm bringing up is about communication, and how important it is here to temper our boldness with an extreme willingness to dialogue, explain and listen.
Speaking of which... at some point, I'm not too comfortable discussing your "methods" (good use of scarequotes there), unless we compare notes about just what you're doing, and hoping to accomplish thereby. That's essentially the question I'm getting at three sections down, too. What's the best strategy for people like us, who see the harm in userboxes and want to do something about it? Let's work together. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Hey, I think it says any admin can check and add you to the page, so would you please have a look at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and add me to the list? ps. I have copied your talk page layout (maybe temporarily), hope you don't mind! -- - K a s h Talk | email 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against

I do not want to be uncivil or anything but please do not nominate more templates for deletion. General Eisenhower Esc Shift 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I concur. I was hoping we could discuss this the last time I left a message here. Since we couldn't, please accept this as my strong suggestion that this spate of userbox deletionism be held in abeyance until a consensus has been reached on the question of userboxes.--Ssbohio 19:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to think about: If a new namespace is created with the same rules as user space, nearly all of the deletions will most likely be undone, and you'll have wasted untold hours for nothing. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 00:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please come down, Cyde

Cyde, without getting into the particulars of brenneman's section above, with which I'm not intimately familiar, I'd like to echo his main point: Please be move civil. Please be a better example. You're being too strident with the aministrative buttons.

Please, for the sake of decency, warn people before you block them. It's easy to do, and it makes it better. If you don't believe me, just try it.

Your actions, like all of ours, help to set the tone around here. For some reason, you've seen fit to set a combative tone lately. Please stop. You're generating much more heat and static than is necessary or desirable. Let's see a "kinder, gentler" Cyde, and let's marvel at how much more effective he is without that train of controversy dragging behind him. Come down off the warpath; it's okay.

Regarding the userboxes... I'm formulating a response to Jay Maynard from that one page. I think you're pushing too hard, in the sense of generating heat and static through an essentially brute-force approach. Apparently you agree with Jimbo's ideal regarding the actual userboxes, but disagree with him 100% on how the change should be made. Would you say that's accurate? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, do you remember what I wrote back in March? David D. (Talk) 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde, why not stick to your Rfa promise of stepping away from the userboxes? I think it'll help smooth things over a lot. Please take this from somebody who is trying to help you out here. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with GTBacchus. --Strothra 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point the "train of controversy" isn't even largely my fault. You seen ANI lately? Any admin action I do is being questioned for ridiculous reasons. I block a troll? Boom, controversy. I delete a troll's userpage? Controversy! I delete vandalism that happens to start with Template:User? Controversy! I block users for all-around incivility and personal attacks? I must be desysopped! You see where I'm going with this? It cuts both way. I give as a I get. And when I get all sorts of friction for doing things that are actually good and helpful, that's not productive. So can we all please be reasonable? --Cyde↔Weys 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, Please note that I'm not calling for you to be desysoped, and I hope I'm being reasonable. I think you do great work here, for the most part. You still haven't explained why you're above warning before you block, or what you're doing on the warpath. "I give as I get" is a pretty sorry excuse; what does that even mean, in this case? What if everyone played that way? Why not give better than you get?
Also, whether or not the static around you is your "fault" (a word I tend to eschew as meaningless), you're the person whose actions you control, and who must decide what the best way is to handle the situation. Is "I give as I get" really the best strategy you can come up with for putting out fires?
On userboxen, I still ask, is it accurate to say you disagree with Jimbo about how userboxes are to be dealt with? I'm referring to changing the culture one person at a time, as opposed to mass deletions? Do you consider that approach to have already failed? Or does it just need to be supplemented by pissing a lot of people off? As I'm asking above (maybe there's a way to merge threads) just what is the userbox strategy here? Is part of it just to delete them, by any means necessary, as many times as necessary, until it sticks? That strikes me as... inelegant, at best, and at worst, directly counterproductive. I may be wrong; what do you think? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion decisions

Can you please explain the reasoning behind your Speedy Deletions of "Template:User chav" and "Template:User notchav"? The consensus on the TfD in both cases was clearly Keep. Bastun 23:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete either of them. Please check the actual deletion logs before accusing me of something that I did not do. --Cyde↔Weys 01:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, I made the error of taking the deletion note left in TfD as complete. Perhaps that's what happened here, as well. It makes more sense now that I've seen the deletion log. While checking the logs will clearly identify these issues, would creating a more accurate or complete deletion note be a reasonable request?--Ssbohio 05:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, same here. Apologies, Cyde. But I'd also echo SSbohio's request for a more accurate/complete note on the TfD discussions. Bastun 08:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closed result of those TfD's is now attracting anon vandals. Maybe you could now change the closure notice from the inaccurate "The result of the debate was Deleted" (which it wasn't) to "Debate closed as Template was deleted by [whomever/creator]"? Bastun 09:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User space proposal

Yo. Um, excuse me if I sound rude (I sincerely am not trying to) but I'm too tired to dance around the point and talk with perfect diplomacy. You are, in my eyes, one of the more down-to-earth, no-nonsense, Internet-is-serious-business administrators, but you haven't been corrupted (yet) and still maintain a decent amount of sanity. Most importantly, you're a person that can stay civil and I can still talk to about nearly anything without excessive rhetoric or incivility. Would you mind commenting on my proposed amendments to the user page policy at User:CorbinSimpson/User space? I'm trying to come up with something that will solve the userbox issues, as well as establish some solid rules (after all, WP:USER is still only a guideline), and your input is quite valuable to me. Thanks. - Corbin Be excellent 00:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)`[reply]

Moratoriam

Would you support a double moratoriam on userbox creations and deletions, as you indicated at Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Excessive_userboxes_for_deletion? Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using the term "MySpacer"

I read the list of comments you posted about userboxes. I understand the viewpoint, but do not agree with it, as I've outlined in comments on WP:MACK and WP:UPOL.

Please stop using the term "MySpacer" to refer to those of us who do not want to see userboxes done away with. I consider it a thinly veiled personal attack, as it carries with it connotations of frivolity and immaturity. I'm just as much here to build an encyclopedia as you are, and I wish you'd assume good faith on the part of the folks on the other side of the debate. Jay Maynard 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it had such negative connotations. Isn't MySpace a huge social networking site? I think it has over ten million users or something (and a lot of my friends use it). Also, I haven't been calling all "pro-userbox" people MySpacers, just the ones who really aren't contributing to the encyclopedia. But in the interests of general civility I'll stop using the term. Incidentally, do you have something better I could be calling these people? --Cyde↔Weys 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace is a huge social networkign site whose demographics are severely skewed toward the high school age group. Further, users' pages on there are miasmas of huge animated graphics, movies, and sound files, complete with content-free comments from all of their friends. I don't know of anyone advocating that Wikipedia user pages should become that; I certainly am not. Replacement term? I'm not sure there is one. (And I'm not sure there's one to apply to those who believe userboxes are bad for Wikipedia and should be deleted, either.) In any case, thanks for not using "MySpacer". Jay Maynard 02:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

This is to inform you that you have been placed into a section on WP:RFAR. Thank you. --Porphyric Hemophiliac § 01:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, but I don't feel like it's necessary for me to participate at this time. My involvement was largely incidental ... many other admins would've stepped up to temporarily block Merecat upon catching the massive talk page spamming, I just happened to be the first to see it. Merecat ended up being blocked indefinitely by another admin for something else, so I feel like my actions were justified. --Cyde↔Weys 01:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... This isn't about Merecat. You got a RfAr all to yourself! --Avillia (Avillia me!) 02:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense to anyone, but this sockpuppetry allegation is fucking ridiculous. --Cyde↔Weys 02:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sylviidae deletion review

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article Category:Sylviidae for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. Ardric47 03:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.sig

Hello, you've created an annoying sig that doesn't result in reams of code! I guess that's a Good Thing, or something. Obviously I won't be asking you to change it (it's veery small), but could you please consider removing the bloody cursor change thing? It's one of my Pet Hates off-Wikipedia, so, for me, it's even less welcome here. What do you say? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the cydeweys cursor? :-( Cyde↔Weys 17:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I afraid I have to second fuddlemark's comment on the cursor, it really reminds me of MySpace. Please kindly reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know I'm just being contrary now, and although I normally agree with everything that these two say... do we really care about a cursor? This may in fact simply me trying to build a wall against having to change my signature, but I really do think we've all got better things to worry about. I mean, how often do you actually hover over someone's sig, especially someone whom you're familiar with? User:Aaron Brenneman 07:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the cursor:'s either, but I threw * { cursor:auto !important; } in my usercontent.css so I don't really care what you do. User:kotepho 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spamming

Schuminweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spamming users to get them to vote in a WP:TfD vote. It isn't his first game playing with templates. You might want to take a look at it. Jtdirl 09:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL/Blocking

Re: your suggestion for downloading Foxfire -- please note that anything I download and any sites I have to register with must be approved by my employer first. This process is not hard, and I've never been denied access to anything, but it is time consuming. However, since they pay for and insist on my using AOL (or a cable company not available in my area), I doubt they will let me download Foxfire. Best wishes. WBardwin 18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, do you mean Firefox? I'm not really aware of any Foxfire ... --Cyde↔Weys 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Silly templates"

No nonsense. If you're just going to substitute a silly template (e.g. WikiSmile), I'm just going to delete it.

We are the Borg. Lower your shields and power down your weapons. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Wikismiles are irrelevent. Wikilove is irrelevent. You will be assimilated. Resistence is futile. 70.88.158.93 19:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frown

Since you don't like WikiSmiles...

Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) has frowned at you! Frowns promote WikiHate and hopefully this one has made your day worse. Spread the WikiHate by frowning to someone else, whether it be someone you have had agreements with in the past or a bad enemy. Frown to others by adding {{subst:frown}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this has the encyclopedic purpose of warning you that this template has been recreated by SPUI. I just couldn't resist giving you a copy of it at the same time. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation

Hey Cyde. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I think a lot of your administrative actions are winding people up. Speedying pages that don't technically meet the speedy deletion criteria, blocking people when you're involved in a conflict with them, and getting into arguments, while it may often be the right thing to do to expedite matters, is working against you. I don't think the current RFAR against you will stick, but as someone who supported your RFA and thinks you're a generally good guy, I want to let you know that this is near to a last call to change your outlook and actions, before it's too late. I also second Mindspillage's recommendation to stay clear of userboxes. Take care. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Blocking people when you're involved in a conflict with them" — I keep hearing people repeat this, as if repeating it often enough is going to make it true. What's actually going on is that the blocked people are pissed off and they (rightfully) perceive as if they can get off more easily if they make it look like it's an improper block. And how to do that? Make it seem like I'm evil and vengeful and I'm blocking people based on some personal vendetta! Do the research, though, and you'll see that the situation is a lot different than how they are portraying it. So stop listening to the side of the story as presented on ANI and RFC by the various trolls and vandals I've come across in my admin duties. Admins often tend to seem unpopular because they get involved in lots of messes, and the people they've used admin actions on are pissed. --Cyde↔Weys 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand your RfC. I don't think, that you blocked anyone based on a personal vendetta, and I am not pissed at all. You don't worry about religious sensitivities and stated so many times on the talk pages. Other editors do care about that. I've got no problem with that so far, as long as you don't block those editors (for "Censorship"?!?) because you disagree with them. This is a clear WP:BP breach and you should know that. Raphael1 00:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the blocking was for continued reversions against a clear and established consensus. You and I both know that this is little better than simple vandalism. And you're right, maybe I should've just stuck to using "Vandalism" as the block message, because that is what I was blocking for. --Cyde↔Weys 00:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


personal attacks

I will think about it. MegaloManiac 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd

I could have sworn I just left a message here but it seems to have gone bye bye. Oh well. Netscott 16:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the history (nor in the deleted edits history, though I don't know why it would go there), so ... I guess you just didn't really save it :-( Cyde↔Weys 17:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there's that comment I left for "you". lol... you were added to a list by Raphael1 but it has since been deleted by Zoe. Netscott 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks, I was already aware of that list as it was something utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Good thing Zoe dealt with it. --Cyde↔Weys 18:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAUBXD

Fine, have it your way. Though you're not really helping yourself. Oh, and I whipped up this notice, the top of your talk page helped; No nonsense. If you're just going to act silly, you'll just be ignored. I'm not being argumentative or anything, but you're acting very childish. Master of Puppets That's hot. 18:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL --Cyde↔Weys 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for you :-)

↔
This user is a Userbox deletionist.
Extinguishing UBs like insects. :-)
Hope you like it! ;-) Netscott 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant crab

Thank you for protecting the Japanese spider crab article. Yamaguchi先生 22:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for May 22nd.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 21 22 May 2006

About the Signpost

Project statistics updated, except for Wikipedia Deletion of metadata icons debated
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages News and Notes: Wikimedia chapters report, milestones
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report On Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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.

BMW article, semi protect?

Hi. I noticed the BMW article has recently been vandalised on several occasions mostly by unregistered users. I also posted on the discussion page about this. I realised only admins can enforce semi-protection so at the moment the article is not really protected, only having the template. Would it be possible to enable it? YCCHAN 06:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the future please provide an actual link to the article in question. Thanks. --Cyde↔Weys 21:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resid, again

Greetings Cyde, being that you were the admin that originally permanently blocked User:Rgulerdem, this RFCU filed by User:Azate should be of interest to you. Netscott 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please carry on with proper procedure and the RFCU? Otherwise people will complain on all corners about the block, drown everbody in petitions, and eventually sombody will unblock rgulerdem again. You realize that there is a sect behind this, not unlike scientology? That this his is not just some kiddie puppeting case? Have you ever wondered why a Google search for "Fethullah Gulen" returns three quartes of a million hits, almost all English ones by some branch of the sect itself? These people try to promote Gülen to somebody along the lines of Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa in the the public eye, and thery will fight teeth & claws about the pureness of his article. Things like this will happen again and again on this article. and this case needs to be a proper proceduaral precedence, not a from-the-hip undef blocking by you, among all people (with your "rogue" image and all that), self-evident as that block may appear to you (and me). Azate 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're certainly not helping. A block is a block, I don't care who it is. This one is deserved. --Cyde↔Weys 19:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, please forgive me, but I have gone ahead and unblocked Resid. My past history with him is less than desirable, but until we get solid checkuser evidence please do not use confirmed sockpuppetry as a reason to block. CU has not yet returned a response, so I'd like to ask that you please wait for the results. NSLE (T+C) at 00:39 UTC (2006-05-24)

Argh, I misread the CheckUser evidence. We shall wait then. --Cyde↔Weys 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, mate. NSLE (T+C) at 01:00 UTC (2006-05-24)
By the way... the other two accounts you blocked. I'm pondering unblocking them, but because they're also accused meatpuppets to me this gets a bit trickier, and shall defer judgement to the blocking admin, i.e. you. NSLE (T+C) at 01:06 UTC (2006-05-24)
Meh, they could use a short block for disruptiveness anyway. Let's wait 24 hours ... if the CheckUser evidence is negative then I'll unblock them. --Cyde↔Weys 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde, I've commented over on NSLE's talk page about his unblocking of Resid. Perhaps you could join the discussion there? Thanks. Netscott 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


RFCU has confirmed[2] User:Rgulerdem to be the puppeteer of User:Mokotok and User:Light&Truth. What's next? Straight block or a AI or what? The inner works op WP are not my strong suit.Azate 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

Alright, I'm sorry.

The Ronin 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on username NetFlixFraud

User:NetFlixFraud has been repeatedly inserting some POV commentary in the Netflix article, and so far has not responded to requests for discussion. I've reverted twice again today with no luck. I'll see what happens later, but for now I'd like to get a couple of opinions on whether the username is enough of a violation of WP:USERNAME to matter ("a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups")? Thanks. - David Oberst 01:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block conflict

I always do, a second before I do the actual block. I think we blocked the same person too closely together in this case, because I refreshed the log immediately before. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things...

First in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Robchurch_4 "# Support per support by all of the right people and oppose by all of the right people. --Cyde↔Weys 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"... I thought I was on the "oppose by all the right people" list??!!?? Second with respect to User:Dragon695's user page, which you protected... that user has been asking folk to consider an unprotect. I looked in the history and I support forced removal of some of the stuff present there because, well, it was rather "poopy", to say the least. Would you consider an unprotect if the user indicated understanding of what's not OK and undertook not to do it again? I'm not a big fan of undoing other admin's actions without talking to them first. Thoughts? (you can reply here, this page has been on my watchlist since forever)++Lar: t/c 14:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

I noticed you're quite involved with templates, so maybe you can help me. I'm working on Template:Infobox WS, along with the rest of Wikiproject writing systems. We need someone who can help edit esoteric templates. Would you be willing to help? Can you direct me to more people who would be willing to volunteer? Thanx.-- The ikiroid  23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block conflicts

My bad, sorry. If you want, I could reblock him for 48h. On the other hand please do not forget to leave a test5/test6/blocked message on talk page of the blockee. Thanks abakharev 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Your right I was wrong. I thought, stubborness was Vanalism. Thanks for pointing that out. Falphin 02:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of Oz on DRV

My apologies for the bulk-nature of this message, but as someone who had participated in the CFD for the "X Gang of Oz" categories recently I felt that you should be notified that they were up for review here. This is not a solicitation of a specific response there (all users who participated were notified), but if you feel you have some insight I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks! Syrthiss 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gossip writers

The "Category:Gossip writers" seems to have been created by multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes (see [3]) in order to denigrate some writers he doesn't like, as only a handful of authors are listed there. In my opinion, this category may be deleted. See [4]. The "Category:English celebrity biographers", also created by Wilkes with similar intentions, has already been deleted. Onefortyone 17:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the kind of thing that should be dealt with at WP:CFD ... Cyde↔Weys 17:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF redirect

You're not actually the one who did it (this time). Somebody restored it, and it just got re-redirected on RfD. I've got it covered though; I'm nearly done. --Rory096 17:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm still somewhat responsible for this whole "movement" against cross-namespace redirects :-P Cyde↔Weys 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde/Archive006&oldid=55099277"