User talk:Cyde/Archive014

NO SPAMMING

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

Just asking

Uh, what'd you mean by this? Herostratus 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this help? —Mira 03:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as confirmation, "LOL" stands for "Laughing out loud". --Cyde Weys 04:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, I know all that. My question was more along the lines of, were you laughing in our faces at the idea that an admin could be desysopped, and if not, what other explanation you might offer. Herostratus 14:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

hello

I am a legitamte new user and i would just like to point out that some very bad people are using wikipedia to push an anti-american sedisous POV and they should be blocked before homeland security is forced to stop wikipedia's sedition and evality--Bob the nob wence fan 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

user EagleStubs

I'm sure you get too many complaints about this, as is, but: WP:GUS is not a criteria for speedy deletion that I've ever heard of, and you just deleted a WikiProject user template. I'm unsure if I should assume that this was an error, or if WikiProject templates are considered unencyclopedic, so... please clarify? Luna Santin 01:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As tempting as it is to go behind your back, as you apparently went behind mine, I can understand why it would be impractical for you notify so many users of your deletions, and I'm trying to stay as calm as possible about this. I've posted {{user EagleStubs}} to DRV. Thanks for your time, whatever comes of this. Luna Santin 03:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that you've re-deleted the template on the same grounds and without any additional comment, despite unanimous consensus at DRV that your actions are/were unsupported by policy; please at least pay other editors the minor respect of discussing your actions -- frankly, I've lost a lot of respect for you, due to your apparently complete unwillingness to respond to me in any way. Deletion is one thing, but completely ignoring the community and the polite invitations of your fellow editors is something else. Please join the discussion. Luna Santin 01:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is actually the first that I saw this message ... my talk page has been very busy of late. Anyway, as for the EagleStubs sorting userbox, let me take care of it. --Cyde Weys 01:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, then; I jumped the gun. And, thanks. Luna Santin 01:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub removal/Userbox and fixed all of the links. It is preferred that WikiProject-related userboxes be stored under the projectspace of the project to which they refer; thus, anyone reading the source code on your userboxes page knows immediately what it refers to. Again, I'm sorry for my previous handling of this, I honestly didn't see any of your two prior messages. It has been a very busy night. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been mulling over this, a bit, and I owe you more of an apology than I previously offered. Considering the uncivil nature of my comments, in light of an innocent mistake on your part, and especially given the swift and generous nature of your reply, a mere one line of text isn't going to make things right. I can only imagine that it took a lot of character for you to respond that way, and too many people would have gotten defensive over the whole thing (as I did, unfortunately). I've noticed you before -- it's hard not to! ;) -- and I've always been of the opinion that, in spite of any differences we may have or will have, the project is far better off with you around. I apologize, and I will strive to assume good faith in the future. Luna Santin 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Userboxes

Rather than deleting the userboxes that I had created, it would have been nice to give me some kind of advance notice about the German Solution (which not everybody is automatically familiar with). This way, if necessary, I could have moved them to my own userspace rather than what I'm faced with now, which is either to create them all over again in my userspace or to just say, "forget it" and move on (which is what I'm leaning towards).

I created the userboxes that I did to complete already existing userbox categories, those that don't fall under touchy subjects such as religion, politics, etc. It strikes me as odd that you chose to delete only the ones I had created, and not to completely wipe out the category itself. I could have userfied the lot all at once, but now I doubt I'll even bother.

It's one thing to do your job as an administrator and inform people who aren't up to speed with all the technicalities of userboxes, userspace and so forth; it's another thing to act like a jackass and not give me any information or time to correct my mistake. Please understand that while I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and have a great deal of time and respect for its staff, I am more than a little annoyed. Greg the White Falcon 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a little hint: calling people jackasses doesn't exactly make them want to help you. --Cyde Weys 17:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, you're not exactly willing to "help" anyone, merely resorting to sweeping deletions of templates and userboxes at will. Read the heading on the GUS yourself; you were out of line in acting as if this were an official policy, ad I ask that the userboxes be temporarily restored so they can be userfied. Greg the White Falcon 19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason so many userboxes are being userfied and deleted from template space is because they are not relevant to the Wikipedia project. This has been an ongoing debate for many months now, and I personally don't have any sympathy for anyone who continues to try to create these unhelpful userboxes in template space. Wikipedia is not here for you to create userboxes; it is here to produce a free encyclopedia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for emphasizing a focus on the actual goal of the project. --Cyde Weys 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This user does not appear to be purposely creating userboxes in template space; he just didn't know about WP:GUS and then after his templates were deleted, found out about it and wanted to move the userboxes into userspace. Of course, calling Cyde a jackass isn't a good way to accomplish this. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

After a somewhat roundabout review of the WP:GUS I guess I'll have to agree, although from what I can tell reading the talk page the solution isn't yet finalized (or pretty). Perhaps instead of speedy deletion, which is certainly more likely to confuse and arouse ire, you could append a message... Something along the lines of "The page location of this userbox is based on old guidelines. It is recommended that it be moved into personal userspace based on the German Userbox Solution." That's long enough to stick out and get some attention. If you wanted to provide a little explanation, you could also add: "The GUS is a comprimise reached to end controversy over the non-encyclopedic content of userboxes," or similar. I believe most users will willingly place them elsewhere given opportunity, but are likely to get very annoyed if their userpages are suddenly full of angry red text. —OrinR 08:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User timpani

FYI - Noticed that you deleted this. Looks like a db-repost. --Brian G (Talk) 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• And again... --Brian G (Talk) 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User OS:Microsoft Windows (textonly)

This was a recently deleted page---please undelete so it may be copied and moved into userspace. -OrinR 07:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde Weys

Can you help me out on this? I gave this account a username block, then unblocked it after I saw no one did anything about it. Also, it just poped up on user creation log, so: am I dumb and missing something? Because I'm really lost right now. Thanks, Yanksox 13:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked. Yanksox 14:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:GUS

You should probably go and take out all of the music userboxes... The Template:User Dance is in a public namespace, and Template:User Popping is just a style of dance. They're both dance userboxes. It's like saying there should be a Template:User Computer, but, not a Template:User Linux, because linux is a portion of computing. Just a thought. I think you're going to have a lot of work. See: Template:User popping. Also out of courtesy, you might want to put the template code in the user's discussion page, so that they can put the userbox back into their namespace. Although the goal is a publicly editable encyclopedia. It's nice to see userboxes so at a glance you can see users who might share the same interests, and therefore can work collaboratively. Anyways, no hard feelings, I moved my userbox, and will put anymore I create in my own namespace.

Protocoldroid 18:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Template restoration

I was wondering if you could temporarily restore the Template:User notability hurts so that I can subst: it it can be migrated to userspace, as the delete has added some angry red text to my userpage. Thanks. --Daniel Olsen 19:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please delete

Template:GUS UBX to Rfrisbie^talk 19:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

talk page

You reverted me on my talk page! How rude are you! --Brandnewuser 19:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Quoting a response of yours from above:

"Please see WP:GUS. No more non-encyclopedic userboxes are to be created in Template: space. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

Ignoring for the moment that WP:GUS clearly states that it isn't policy. What it is designed for is controversial userboxes that foster advocacy (such as religion and politics). Not ALL userboxes.

Quote of the very first section of text in WP:GUS:May 27, 2006 The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.

Clearly says: Political or other campaigns.

Quote:"It should be noted that use of [userboxes related to beliefs, ideologies, viewpoints on controversial issues, and ethical convictions] is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time." - Wikipedia:Jimbo on Userboxes

Again clearly states the parameters (the bracket is his use, not mine).

Quote:"Regarding at least the political templates, I would like to raise, gently, a different issue. I have concern about people massing together in groups based on political affiliations at Wikipedia.

For me, when I enter Wikipedia, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection. A mood of kindness and love. A mood of helpfulness and productivity. Neutrality and _getting it right_in the company of others who are doing the same, this is what I'm here for.

Outside, I may be an advocate. But here, I am a Wikipedian.

--Jimbo" - [1]

Making it clear it's a concern about advocacy.

Userboxes that show topical interest, or knowledge, or current status of the user (happy, sad, only child, etc.) are clearly not a part of WP:GUS.

I bring this up because, as I read your talk page, you're taking actions adverse to concensus - {{User DAoC}} for example. And assuming good faith, I'm presuming this is merely a misunderstanding on your part. Hope this helps : ) - Jc37 22:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this may be a misunderstanding on your part. The point of WP:GUS is that userboxes are userfied, not that dozens of new unecyclopedic ones are created in template space every day. --Cyde Weys 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not what is said in the examples I gave above, further examples on the rest of those and other pages, including several RfCs. I appreciate your opinion, but that's not what I'm reading. Can you substantiate your opinion? - Jc37 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:GUS has been in effect for over two months now. Part of userfying userboxes is ensuring that no new ones are created in template space. Template space was created for templates that help write the encyclopedia ... all of this non-encyclopedic stuff (when will "This user plays DAOC" ever be used on an article?) has to be migrated to userspace. --Cyde Weys 00:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing WP:GUS. I just think you may misunderstand its purpose. but that aside...

Again... While I appreciate that this is your opinion, I was wondering upon what do you substantiate it? As for the example of whether something will be used in the encyclopedia, there are many answers (which have been previously given), including articles about DAoC, RPGs, MMORPGs, etc., as well as simply that wikipedia is a community. A community with a goal (see the 5 pillars), but a community nonetheless. Otherwise, the simple definition about what is useful to an encyclopedia, would see things like the village pump, and the signpost deleted.

But this all begs the initial question. Upon what do you base your opinion? - Jc37 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your block on Nathan

Hi Cyde.

I noticed that you blocked Nathan since he claimed he was not coming back. However, many users have returned to Wikipedia after making such claims (like Moe Epsilon, for instance). In addition, I didn't see anything in WP:BLOCK about your blocking reasoning. Anyway, I'd be interested in what you had to say about the above reasoning.

As always, happy editing! -- Where 00:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's time for him to move on and he's admitted as such. He just seems to have problems leaving on his own accord, so I'm giving him help. This will be best for everyone involved. --Cyde Weys 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've undone the block after an anon mentioned it on WP:AN. Any user who voluntarily leaves Wikipedia is free to come back, so we should leave that option open for him. --Conti|✉ 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

personally, I favour the lifelong block, but then, what do I know? DiLuna25 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We try not to if possible DiLuna. If you're wondering who the anon on WP:AN was that reported the block, it was me. Hey, I guess I do come back after leaving, like Where said. :) — The King of Kings 00:58 August 14 '06 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Email from me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution

Well, it seems that you aren't going to acknowledge that you unfairly blocked me on two occassions for adding myself to a category that existed and was at CfD, and you haven't exactly been helpful in reaching an understanding between us about why you did it. I do have a theory that relates to your deletion of numerous Userbox templates, which is that you believe that nothing that doesn't directly improve the encyclopedia ought to be deleted. (On a side note: I believe that a number of users expressed concern over your heavy participation in the userbox debates during your RfA; you seemed to assure that you were taking a break from those debates. I suppose after you gained your adminship, you hopped back in and expressed your previous opinion by deleting various userbox templates, whether or not they were userfied. This is simply my opinion, but it's pretty obvious based on your talk page alone.) I respect that opinion, however when it gets out of control, you ought to at least acknowledge your mistake. I don't want to take this to Mediation or Request for Comment or something like that, because I believe that two people can be perfectly civil and resolve their disputes on their own, however both parties have to work towards that, something I haven't seen much of from you beyond picking out statements from my comments and attacking them rather than taking the message as a whole and responding to it. syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are still persuing this. Let it go. --Cyde Weys 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that I am concerned for the encyclopedia as a whole when admins can ban users for making legitimate edits. (Especially when they have a related bias which other users expressed concern over before the user ever became an admin.) syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point you're just holding a grudge. That's not good for the encyclopedia either. Let it go. I'm not bothering you anymore. --Cyde Weys 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I hold no grudge against you, that's against everything that I believe in, but I won't get into that. Rather, I'm just requesting an apology, which I think is warranted considering the 34 hours I was unable to edit for no legitimate reason. One user "holding a grudge" isn't nearly as bad for the encyclopedia as one admin pushing his views about the encyclopedia in ways that are against policy, despite users expressing concern over this before they were ever admin. Hopefully it's not that bad, but it's rather difficult to conclude otherwise when reviewing your edits over a long period of time. Unfortunately, I'm not totally clueless and have been around for quite a while and seen a lot of work (good and otherwise) that you've done here. I say unfortunately, because had you blocked some other user (such as The Raven) who didn't have such an extensive knowledge of policy and previous debates, as well as your very own work, then they wouldn't have made much of a big deal about it. syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot apologize because I do not think I did anything wrong. I deleted that category and you repeatedly recreated it and readded yourself. I gave you a short block as a warning; I honestly thought that would be the end of it. Imagine my surprise when I saw that you had readded the category again. That's what the majority of the 34 hours blocked came from ... you doing something after you had been warned against it and after you had already been blocked for it. --Cyde Weys 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the category and I brought it to DRV, which I notified you of on several occassions. The deletion was overturned and the CfD reopened, thus I was not wrong in recreating it or adding myself to it as it wasn't deleted at the time. I don't believe that blocking policy allows admins to block users simply because they are in a category that the admin doesn't happen to like very much. Blocking me multiple times, as well as Raven, and then removing us from the category meant that there were no users in that category during the CfD for it; this could very easily have caused people to assume that it was empty and want to delete it for that reason. Whether or not this was your intention is impossible for me to decide, and I doubt that it was anyhow, but it could have easily been an unfortunate side effect. syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it seems that you've indefinitely blocked User:PhoenixPinion, whom I've associated with before, as well as User:The_Raven_is_God for 48 hours, all because Phoenix posted a joke that The Raven is God was dead. While I agree that the joke was very inappropriate, it's utterly ridiculous to block them for such lengths of time. This conduct is highly unbecoming of an administrator, and unfortunately I'm probably going to have to bring this up at AN/I because of these recent actions in addition to a number of others that I've investigated. It's not like I'm asking you to give up your sysop status; just recognize that your blocking me was a mistake, and that the block lengths that you blocked Phoenix and Raven is God for are much too long. Blocking users I know to make a point is a very bad idea; not all people are willing to look the other way. And just to clarify, I'm not posting this to defend Raven is God or Phoenix's actions, they can do that perfectly well enough themselves. (I'd rather not incur accusations that I'm posting for a blocked user or anything like that, from you or more probably other users who might read this.) syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The number of contributions you made after I posted this leads me to believe that you didn't see it due to another edit that came quickly after this one. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Deceased Wikipedians is for real people who have died in real life. How anyone could possibly make a joke about this, or defend someone who has made a joke about this, is beyond me. Some things just shouldn't be thrown around as idle jokes. Just to put this in perspective, Anthere, one of the five members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, spent the last part of her talk at Wikimania giving remembrances to dead Wikipedians (including Treanna, who is listed in the category that your friends were screwing around with). It's despicable. All I've seen from your friends is screwing around with categories ("Gangsters", "Deceased") and other disruptive userpage nonsense, with precious little work actually being done on the encyclopedia. You tell me, why should we put up with this? --Cyde Weys 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that the "joke" was a very bad idea. However, I disagree wholeheartedly with the length of the blocks, especially the block on Phoenix who has made very valuable contributions based on his extensive knowledge of Belgium, Nonlinear Mathematics, Quantum Physics and Unified Field Theory, among other things, as well as whether or not the blocks were made in good faith. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea; do you have AOL Instant Messenger or some other IM application? If so, it would be much faster and less spammy to resolve our dispute there. I think I can make myself very clear and end this whole thing with both of us feeling good about each other. If you're willing to do this and have the means, then email me and we can talk. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Still willing to communicate with you in a faster-paced medium if you are. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep of redirect Trencher (bread)

I was hoping you could expand on our discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#What's up with saving page move history? since I noticed you were the keeping admin. What is there in the Trencher (bread) history that is not in the Trencher (tableware) history aside from the RfD and CSD stuff that pertains solely to the redirect?

Also, I'm a little surprised you closed the DRV discussion early considering only one more comment was made since it was relisted. Or was it not a DRV and the discussion was just a continuation of the previous one? I'm just trying to understand the process better; I've got no problem with the redirect staying or anything. Feel free to reply on this page if you prefer. BigNate37_(T) 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What DRV discussion? I wasn't aware of any DRV discussion. Anyway, Trencher (bread) was kept not because of anything in its history but because it seems to me to be a valid target that someone familiar with our disambiguation scheme might look for, considering many trenchers were apparently made out of bread. --Cyde Weys 03:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming it might have been DRV based on its reopening after deletion. Anyways, thanks for your reply, it cleared it up succinctly for me. BigNate37_(T) 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It was reopened after it was deleted? Really? Being on DRV implies actually being on the page WP:DRV ... was it ever put there? --Cyde Weys 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never checked DRV for it, it was an assumption. I did put a CSD tag on it and it went redlink; some time later the page existed again (and this time with an {{rfd}} tag and my closure of the RfD nom was reverted. BigNate37_(T) 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion

Cyde, you deleted a userbox I created. Can you explain why, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I created {{User PIIR}} for the new WikiProject Power in international relations (WP:PIIR). If it HAD to go, can you please tell me if there is a way to see the stuff I had in there before it was deleted. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I thought the userbox problems were confined to those that promoted or advertised political or other divisions. Userboxes about Wikipedia preferences and so on are fine, as I understood it anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you didn't cite which userbox it was, so I don't really have any information to go on. Nobleeagle, the preferred location of WikiProject-related userboxes is in projectspace at a location such as "Wikipedia:WikiProject BlahBlah/Userbox". This way it stays out of template space and it is immediately clear which WikiProject it belongs to just looking at any page's source code that transcludes it (whereas "User PIIR") is very vague. The point is to get as many userboxes out of template space as necessary; most of them are going into userspace but the project-related ones really do belong in Wikipedia: space. Then just transclude them as you would any others. --Cyde Weys 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

A portal created recently by Mallimak (talk · contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

Thanks. --Mais oui! 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

{{WikiProject 911TM}}

I was referred to you by another editor who deleted a few pointers to this userfied template manually. Any chance your bot could finish the job? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Turns out Cydebot was hit by an autoblock on AntiVandalBot, which delayed his CFD work ... I'll get around to this work as soon as the CFD stuff is complete. --Cyde Weys 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

August Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: To-Do List The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential! What's New? In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs. To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed! The In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created. Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter. Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program. There is a page for discussing the front page redesign. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 05:03, 14 August 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.

cydebot requests

Hi Cyde, I've noticed your bot is saving people a lot of time for repetitive edits. Can I place requests for future cydebot edits here, or is there an official page for such requests? David D. (Talk) 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is probably the best place ... and it's certainly the fastest way to reach me. No other page raises that unmissable yellow banner on the top of my screen, for instance. --Cyde Weys 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point! The following three edits would help speed along the process of correcting all the wikilinks that are now incorrect due to the page move of Athletics to Athletics (track and field).

From: {{MedalSport | Women's [[Athletics]]}}

To: {{MedalSport | Women's [[Athletics (track and field)|Athletics]]}}

From: {{MedalSport | Men's [[Athletics]]}}

To: {{MedalSport | Men's [[Athletics (track and field)|Athletics]]}}

From: [[athletics|athletic]] (track and field)

To: [[athletics (track and field)]]

Thanks a lot, if this is possible. David D. (Talk) 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can handle the first two, I'm not necessarily the third one is something that should be done in an automated fashion though. How many articles really used that exact phrase anyway? --Cyde Weys 17:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops obviously did not check the edit to give the nowiki code. The last one appears to be on all the track and field related events. I can do that manually if there is an issue with it causing problems. If you can do the first two, that will be great, i suspect there an many in that category although i have not actually checked the correct number. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, I didn't realize the third was so widely used, I'll take care of that too then. Luckily all of the stuff you've given me can be handled with some custom regex and the what links here page generator. There's a bit of a queue though ... Cydebot is currently going through WP:CFDW and then he has to unlink {{WikiProject 911TM}}. Busy busy day. Oh, and it doesn't help that Cydebot started off the day with an autoblock from AntiVandalBot (same server). --Cyde Weys 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Could I change the request? I just happened to notice it while looking at something else on your talk page. We're trying to make those links as specific as possible to the Olympics vs. just directing them to the page on Athletics.

From: {{MedalSport | Women's [[Athletics]]}}

To: {{MedalSport | Women's [[Athletics at the Summer Olympics|athletics]]}}

From: {{MedalSport | Men's [[Athletics]]}}

To: {{MedalSport | Men's [[Athletics at the Summer Olympics|athletics]]}}

Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions. --Sue Anne 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that {{MedalSport}} is only used on Olympics-related pages? If it's used anywhere else, those changes you've suggested will cause some serious issues. --Cyde Weys 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be having some problems with the regex ... can you give me an example of pages that use each of these three different things you want replaced? --Cyde Weys 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some manual edits i made with respect to the three edits described above.

At Trine Hattestad, I made this edit

At Paavo_Nurmi, I made this edit

At triple jump, I made this edit

I'm still not sure if the medal header is specific to the Olympics. If it is then her suggested edits are probably preferable. David D. (Talk) 22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrmmm, well find out if it's exclusive or not. In the mean time I'm fixing the disambiguation. --Cyde Weys 00:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff from cyde bot to date. With respect to the template, it seems to be specific to the Olympic medals tables that appear on some athletes pages. i have not looked exahaustively and there is no doubt it could be used for other medals tables. Certainly the current changes are not changing anything that could be viewed as incorrect. Better to be on the safe side. David D. (Talk) 04:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Check my talk page. i have found a few examples where that MedalSport template is used for the Goodwill games and Commonwealth games. On and unrelated note: FYI David D. (Talk) 17:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RECALL

OK. Sorry. rootology (T) 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

thermographic images of animals

Hello Cyde,

I'm very interested in the subject of thermoregulation. I saw that Wikipedia has this area very good covered. We made a pretty big collection of thermographic images of animals, mainly for educational purposes. I was wondering if some of them could be interesting for the biology-portal. You can find a lot of examples at www.nutscode.com. I'm not a frequent wikipedia-user (yet), so I don't realy know where to start and who to ask.

Greatings,

Arno Vlooswijk info@nutscode.com

Those images are very nice, but unfortunately they are released with a license that is incompatible with Wikipedia. Those images are under an "education only" license, whereas Wikipedia requires licenses that fully allow commercial works, such as GFDL or CC-by-sa. --Cyde Weys 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nathan affair

I'm going to leave roughly this same note on Mackensen's talk page.

At the point that I started seeing what was going on, it was clear that everyone in the world had already commented, that the information was "out there", etc. The cat cannot be forced back into the bag.

You're partially right, I am launching complaints about various administrators. I am doing so because I believe the admin misbehavior in this case was serious and uncalled for. You and Mackensen both acted irresponsibly, in my opinion, and sufficiently badly enough that I believe that both of you needed to be called on it, in public.

I have not, that I recall, had any concerns about Mackensen previously, and only very minor ones about you. Both of you are, in general and as a rule, good administrators who contribute very positively to WP. This is not about expressing any sort of pre-existing dislike for either of you (or the other admins I was complaining about). My complaints are specific to your actions in this incident.

Nobody who was in a position of authority or responsibility with WP should have commented on the situation to the degree that it was discussed. The information probably would have come out anyways, but there is a big difference between "Moe is saying that Nathan was blocked because..." and "Cyde and Mackensen and Kelly have indicated....". You all essentially put into public an unofficial official position which had way too much information in it.

It it unlikely that information will stay truly secret. Having parts of it leak out is probably unavoidable. Having Wikipedia's community structure via some admins take an official public stance and put some of that information out there with the apparent backing of the community structure is very, very bad. It makes us look irresponsible, vindictive, and unprofessional. If there were to be media coverage, selective use of administrator quotes from the AN discussion could do serious damage to WP credibility.

As I said in AN: the public comments should have been limited to "This is an Office matter, we can't comment.".

There should be a formal policy which states that for serious incidents, they should be kicked to Office without any further public comment than that action has happened. I would have hoped that people would have already understood how important that is, but apparently not yet. So it needs to get formalized.

I would prefer that you understand that I see this as having been a very serious problem. It might have been more politic for me to wait a couple of days to point it out and bring up the formal policy. I don't want you to feel that I'm attacking you in general - in my experience, you've been a great part of Wikipedia working smoothly. But I feel very strongly that this event shouldn't happen again. And that probably requires a formal policy.

Ideally I would like to ultimately have your support for the above policy. I hope that you can understand why I am so concerned about what happened and why I feel it needs to not happen again.

Georgewilliamherbert 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How did I act irresponsibly? I didn't even release any information. I just said that people really did not want to be involved in this. --Cyde Weys 19:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

...And that people should contact you privately for more details. Those details should not have been available to anyone but Office (in the form of whoever Office really is at the moment; practically Danny or Jimbo might well have just had the same set of people handle it, I know). It should not have been implied that anyone other than "Office" was going to be brought into the loop.

You yourself didn't then post those additional details, but others did, and the implication that you made makes it look like a wide cabal of admins ended up gossiping about it, as opposed to a minimal quiet investigation and response by "Office".

Even if you just meant to say "senior admins / office staff can contact me privately for more details", there was an appearance that you were the root of a lot of the internal info flow and then sideways comment/discussion by other admins. Georgewilliamherbert 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You doth assume too much. I only even provided details to one other user via email, and that was an admin. --Cyde Weys 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins have to avoid more than impropriety; they have to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The overall pattern of admin discussion here appeared to be highly improper.

The reason I'm coming to you is that your comment was the immediate indent root of the WP:AN thread that then wandered off into more detailed comments which admins should not have made. The combination of that and your comment that people should contact you privately for more details looks bad.

I am glad that the underlying facts are that you were responsible with the information. For that, thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Progress

Check out my Recall reply to you (and thank you for keeping an apparent open mind). rootology (T) 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Statute of limitations

This idea has me intrigued. Do you think RECALL would get needed support to become policy if there was such a thing that said "basis of dispute/primary evidence" must be from AFTER the time the policy is implemented? I.e., say you (hypothetically) did something vile and probably worthy of Recall x days, weeks, months, or years ago. What if the policy specifically said under Limitations "Diffs as evidence for basis of dispute must be dated after 10/01/06, the date this policy became effective. Older supplemental material/background material may be older." rootology (T) 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The specific idea being to stop any stupid or absurd flood gates of stuff from the "old days", and so that everyone--admin and editor alike--was on the up and up from Day 1 of the policy's adoption. rootology (T) 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for Cyde

The Original Barnstar For being a good admin, running the Cydebot, blocking vandals and other obnoxious users, and being a great admin. This barnstar's also for his knowledge of bot programming (something I need to learn!) So here's to you, Cyde! TheM62Manchester 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot

Please make sure Cydebot doesn't subst: templates on User talk:TheM62Manchester Test Account, I want to leave them as they are, e.g. {{test}} rather than {{subst:test}}.

BTW, Cydebot is great... hopefully I'll have a 'bot account soon, can you help me to set up one?? --TheM62Manchester 21:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Hey, you may have done this yourself, but is it supposed to say "I am a fucking wanker?" Just wanted to make sure it's not old vandalism or something. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL no, it's not supposed to say that, thanks for pointing that out. Hysterical though. Silly vandals. --Cyde Weys 00:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Greeting From Karmafist

       That's praise from Caesar considering that it seems that you're trying to vie with Kelly Martin for most snide person on Wikipedia.

I will decide when I leave not you, Karmafist is just a vessel(which someone has hacked apparently, i've been busy with my socks, a few are coming up for rfa soon), and to paraphrase Obi Wan Kanobi "You people struck me down, now i'm more powerful than you can imagine."

Have a nice day, i'll be around,

Karmafist

You attract weird talk messages, Cyde. BigNate37_(T) 01:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

RFA Voting

Thank you for your concern about my voting habits. Please allow me to remind you that I am allowed to vote, and it is never possible to call any oppose vote a disruption, as was the decision by the arbitartion committee. --Masssiveego 04:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the voting that's disruptive, it's the disruption that's disruptive, and you can be blocked for that. Knock it off. --Cyde Weys 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect, voting cannot be considered a disruption under any circumstances. I cannot be blocked for voting my position, nor be compelled to explain my vote. However it seems you are trying to force me to vote "support", or force me to not vote at all both of which is voter intimidation. Please do reconsider your position. --Masssiveego 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, since it's not a vote, but rather a discussion, you really do have to explain yourself. I guess the alternative to blocking you is to just to start blanking your stuff, because it's becoming readily apparent you don't care about the RFA process at all ... you just want to sow disruption by opposing every single RFA that comes along. Though frankly I'm quite sure the closing bureaucrats are already routinely ignoring you. --Cyde Weys 04:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Again that is incorrect, wikipedians are not allowed to blank a vote or comment made legitimately during an RFA vote. It is part discussion but it is also a tally vote. The bureaucrats routinely count my vote at every tally regardless of what reason I may place beside. Per above means I agree with the above reasons to oppose the canidate. --Masssiveego 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"The bureaucrats routinely count my vote at every tally regardless of what reason I may place beside." — Please go to WP:BN and ask them what they think of that statement. --Cyde Weys 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 33	14 August 2006	About the Signpost

Editing for hire leads to intervention	Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
Report from the Chinese Wikipedia	News and notes
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox notifications

Hi, Cyde. I noticed you were notifying users about userboxes they created. I have no issue with this, but you're going to want to change your wording a bit. The phrase "German userbox final solution" is incredibly offensive. The Final Solution isn't exactly something we want to associate with a Wikipedia process, especially one that has "German" in front of it. Obviously the association was unintentional, but you'll want to change it in any case. Anyway, just some friendly advice. Aren't I Obscure? 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside completely the historical associations of the phrase, I too would like to oppose its use in the notification message. Due to ongoing controversy over whether it should be implemented or not, WP:GUS seems to be far from "final." Although I will personally abide by the GUS in the forseeable future by not creating any new userboxes outside of my user-space, the issue continues to be somewhat controversial, and I question its being used to justify speedy deletion of templates without debate or even prior notice. Andrew Levine 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the deletion combined with your notice is fine, and should help to do the userfying of userboxes without unnecessary drama. Just change the wording on the notice because Endlösung is a bad word to use. Kusma (討論) 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bible Broadcast Network

Hi, I see you were a mediator on this article in February (a long time ago!). I just happened to stop by it to add my two cents, and it appeared the dispute had sort of just stopped without a resolution. The article appears to be unsourced and to contain some unencyclopedic assertions. Can I just do what I want with the article, or is there some sort of past agreement I need to abide by? Jacqui^★ 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just do what you want. Mediation isn't binding to people who were involved anyway, let alone people who weren't involved. Ping me when you're done and I'll take a look over it for cleanup and such. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OS:All userbox

Cyde, thanks for adding the comments on my talk page. The last deletion before just happened with no explanation (I'm not sure who by), and I was not aware of the German Userbox Solution, so I was quite alarmed that it vanished, so I re-created it in the confusion. So thanks for letting me know why, and it shal remain deleted. I found that the current selection of computer userboxes were far too zilot/campy; e.g., "I'm from the Windows camp" vs "I'm from the Debian camp" vs "I'm a Mac ziolot". This I thought was very un-Wikipedia-like and soap-boxy. The intent of OS:All was that it is non-exclusive to any OS camp, because I do find that many mac/linux/windows zilots are narrow minded, and ignorant to good software and OS features on other platforms. They are all fantastic (or not), and I felt that others would also share that opinion. —Mwtoews 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Those other userboxes sound like they might need to be dealt with too, either by userfication or outright deletion. I'll take a look. --Cyde Weys 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect your bravery, and I suppose you'll get a whole lot of flame, but those users should really join their favorite fan club. Good luck! --Mwtoews 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're for the high jump

[2] I'll spell archaically if I want to. Don't you dare disregard this important freedom of mine! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of User OS winxp regret

Hi, Cyde, you deleted the template {{User OS winxp regret}}, with a reason of "T1". First, I don't know what this means, second, you don't seem to have said why you deleted it anywhere, and third, you deleted it when many people were still using it. I'm wondering why you deleted it, and if you did so in accordance with WP:GUS, why you didn't recreate (or just move it in the first place). — SheeEttin {T/C} 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking up two sections and reading the exchange, I see you were going to do something about OS boxen. Deletion of OS-specific boxen is rather hasty and is overkill, because what about the browser boxen, editor boxen, politics boxen, etc.? — SheeEttin {T/C} 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'll get to those eventually. Hopefully not before they are userfied ... Cyde Weys 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest! — SheeEttin {T/C} 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the funny thing ... I make jokes about it now, but a few months down the road your userpage is going to be up on blocks, all of its userboxes missing. Just ask the people who were using divisive/inflammatory userboxes ... Cyde Weys 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay. I'll just subst them before you get to them. — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just userfied this box from Google Cache... {{User:BarkerJr/UserBoxen/OS WinXP Regret}} Enjoy! BarkerJr 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:NorthernEmpire.jpg

Could you give me your opinion of the licencing and sourcing of this image? Haukur 21:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had them (and some other uploads by the same contributor) deleted. They were terrible quality, but more importantly, they had no source information. "I found it on Google Images" isn't acceptable on Wikimedia Commons. --Cyde Weys 21:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. Thank you! Haukur 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He's uploaded some more stuff now and he's obviously very confused about sourcing and licencing issues. I'd appreciate if you could look into it again. I could handle this myself but I've already reverted a lot of his content contributions (which I find verbiose and inaccurate) and I want him to understand that his problem lies with Wikipedia policies, not some random Icelandic guy who keeps deleting his stuff for no reason. Haukur 16:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is asking for a reason unreasonable?

I'm sorry you feel I'm being unreasonable asking for a reason for a community imposed block on Nathandotcom, however as a member of the community I very much would like to know why a user was blocked. That's not too much to ask. Per policy the reason should be logged which to this point it hasn't been. I would just like to know what is being done in my name here as a member of the community imposing said block. JohnnyBGood 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And for the record through searches and supposition I'm assuming he was blocked for hitting on underage users? A simple yes or no would be appreciated. JohnnyBGood 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this attitude. You have no right to know everything that's going on. Some things must be done privately. End of story. --Cyde Weys 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is an open community of users, especially when it comes to blocks and bans. I can find no precedent for such a shrouded dismissal of a user. Correct me if I'm wrong of course. JohnnyBGood 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are corrected. -- Drini 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not an open community of users. You only think it is because that's how most things are done; but of course there are exceptions. WP:OFFICE is proof of that. If you were a Google employee, would you barge into Sergei Brin's office and demand to know every detail of the company's future products? I don't think so. You don't have any sort of right to know everything that goes on in Wikipedia either. --Cyde Weys 22:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying Jimbo or Danny Wool are actually the one who are blocking this user? JohnnyBGood 22:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak for them on this issue. Only they can speak for themselves in this. --Cyde Weys 22:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me amend that ... I don't speak for them on any issues, and certainly not in any sort of official capacity. --Cyde Weys 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't image you would. I don't think they have any designated proxies at this time. JohnnyBGood 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR exists for a reason. Not everything has to be detailed and set in written policy. Admins are expected to exercise their commons sense, and this was the case. Move on. -- Drini 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty Johnny (and Cyde), this shouldn't have been discussed on Wikipedia in the first place. This misunderstanding should have resolved itself off-wiki other than admins, ArbCom, or OFFICE involved to begin with. — Moe Epsilon 22:56 August 15 '06

I wasn't the one who brought all of the sordid details on-wiki ... you, more than anyone else, was the one who did that. --Cyde Weys 22:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? You blocked him. Which sent me to AN talking about the block. I thought the block was inappropriate and I didn't intend on discussing it in full detail. — Moe Epsilon 23:02 August 15 '06

I didn't reveal any detail on-wiki. You were the one who revealed lots of detail. But there's no point in getting into a he said/she said ... the diffs reveal the truth for what it is. --Cyde Weys 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I started on the vague description stating there was a disturbance outside Wikipedia and the block was innapropriate. Yeh, you're one to talk about the truth... — Moe Epsilon 23:07 August 15 '06

I think we're done here. There's nothing productive that can be gained from further discussion on this issue. --Cyde Weys 23:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, feel free to archive this section. After reviewing the "timeline of events" provided by Nathan himself I must say I actually am in agreement with the block now. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::Cyde, as per the "timeline" of events, please, take this down of the wiki. As you and many others have said, this is a deeply personal matter, which never should have seen the light of day on here, and now this timeline reveals personal information which could be used in future to harrass the users involved. This is obviously a case of placing users, some of which are minors, in clear danger. Please, I beg, take this down. You know that I havn't been vocal about this subject, as I'm involved, but this is too much, and shouldn't be here. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I'd also ask for the talk page to be fully protected, and George to be given a short block for releasing personal infomation. This is obviously down to your good judgement. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Sorry to keep coming here (looks like trolling, but trust me, it isn't) but seeing as you weren't around, I took the offending material down myself. I still request all the other actions i suggested (along with maybe deleting that section of page history, if that can be done). I've taken this here as I really didn't want to create another mess on WP:AN. Thank you for understanding. Thε Halo ^Θ 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

These situations have been sorted out elsewhere. Sorry to have done all this here. Thε Halo ^Θ 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiVoter

You voiced some concerns about WikiVoter. I hope I can clear some of them up. You mentioned 'stalking' an afd, and I am unsure what you mean by this. All wikivoter does is highlight those in which you have already voted. These highlights are to prevent voting more then once in any particular disscussion. This is no different then putting those disscussion pages on your watchlist. The program can do nothing that a user can't do himself. Just like popups or javascripts, WikiVoter only increases effiency. In addition, WikiVoter users have their own category, so I, or anyone can know who is using it at anytime. If you have any more questions on wikivoter, please dont hesitate to ask me, or asking the users themselves at the Forum. Thanks and I hope this alleviates your concerns. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Siggy?

Your signature is a bit annoying. If you could make the color a bit less bright and maybe unbold it, it would be great. Meybe something like Cyde⇔Weys (when you sign it, the Weys won't be bold)... SoaP 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, what I have now is fine. Besides, yours is too ... pink. I'm going for light red with my sig. --Cyde Weys 02:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the official designation of color FF66FF is "Light faded magenta." I certainly don't see light red. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FF6666 would be light red, though, if I'm not mistaken. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FF6666 is Light faded red. To play with different color combinations, go to [3] and click on the colors in the chart. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I don't know the official designations, I was just guessing based on how the hex code would probably look. syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could at least get rid of the bolding... SoaP 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you have any right to complain. My signature is less than half the size of yours. --Cyde Weys 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And look, I just made it even shorter ... Cyde Weys 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicer, but why the bolding? Does it hold any significance other than to annoy the hell out of me? :) SoaP 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, bold text is just tacky for a sig. BigNate37_(T) 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Down with bolding! SoaP 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BigNate37. Way too tacky. —Mira 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Siegler

I'm back on a deletion nomination? My article already survived that once, and it was blanked tonight by a SysOp in response to a vandalism issue; not sure why I'm nominated again, unless that was done in response to my page being blanked again. -- Dopefish 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I added my remarks to the Article for Deletion page, too. Sorry about that. Dopefish 02:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Attic Owl has listed a complaint against you at AN/I you might want to go over there Æon ^{Insane Ward} 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Before you delete them Wikipedia:Userboxes/Philippine Basketball Association, let me transfer them to the userspace by the weekend. Some users are already using them, deleting it maybe rude. Thanks for the heads up. --Howard the Duck 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion vs. Redirects for Deletion

Hi, wanted to let you know that I strongly oppose your renaming of the RfD process. Listing my reasons here would be redundant, as I have already posted them on the RfD talk page. In short I think this is a major, possibly harmful change that at least needs real discussion. Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot request for WikiProject Deletion sorting

Hi Cyde. I've been very impressed with your bot's work at CFD, and was wondering if you could help me, since my message at Wikipedia:Bot requests hasn't got much attention. I'm trying to restart this project, and could really use a bot to check the subpages (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/UK) every now and then to remove any transcluded AFD debates that have been closed. It's not quite ready to start yet, because I'm planning to drastically rearrange the subpages, but I'll be able to provide a list of pages to check when required. Do you think this is feasible, either as an addition to Cydebot or a new bot? Thanks. the wub "?!" 10:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Here - is the first head from the left you? 85.70.5.66 11:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Cyde Weys 12:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nett weight

Please take a look at this article, where I'm disputing a speedy tag. Thanks. --Dweller 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxen in need of a rogue rouge admin

I have found some userboxes that could use your talents. ;)

• {{User nogwb}}
• {{User GWB-SP}}
• {{User no Superpower}}
• {{User No Hell}}
• {{User Copyright paranoia}}

The first two are obviously T1 and I have tagged them for a speedy. The latter three are flip a coin on T1 and I have listed them on TFD, but wouldn't shed any tears over seeing them speedied. Thanks. BigDT 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! BigDT 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

NYCS templates

Cyde, is there some discussion of those substitutions somewhere? People in the project have argued that they are a neccesary tool (via Whatlinkshere) to keeping the sprawling complex of NYC subway pages organized or updated. I'm not sure I personally agree with that, but I'm sure I wouldn't want to go subbing hundreds of templates without some discussion, and preferably the agreement of the people involved. Dragons flight 16:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway might have been a place to mention it. Dragons flight 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just a routine substitution of some very simple templates. Templates should only be used when necessary. They make pages a bit harder to read ... for someone unfamiliar with the vagaries of the templates used by these people, such as me, the pages in wiki text were unreadable curly brace soup. Now that the templates are substituted and everything is in basic wiki source it's much easier to get. The regular editors can still use these templates for ease of typing ... they should just use subst: so that the end result in the source is decent. --Cyde Weys 16:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is (and this is their argument, not mine) that it is the links that make the templates valuable through the Whatlinkshere function of each template, which is lost through substitution. I don't really care about this issue, but having bumped up against it myself I wanted to point out that your actions are unlikely to be without controversy (as the latest comment on User talk:Cydebot may attest) since there is a community of people who are intentionally using these things as templates. Though again, I do think that mass substitutions like this, no matter how obvious, ought to be discussed in advance. Dragons flight 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Whatlinkshere function is pure metadata and is not carried along with our content as it is moved to other places (like mirrors). If the data it provides is actually useful to the reader it must be done in some sort of a way that does not rely on software functionality, such as by making a list of the relevant stations on each line. --Cyde Weys 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they mean useful to the editors trying to maintain and update these pages. Dragons flight 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Both would have the same uses for editors, but my alternative also provides the same functionality to readers, whereas theirs doesn't. --Cyde Weys 16:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Shrug, like I said, I don't really care, but I suspect you'll be hearing from those that do. Just a heads up. Dragons flight 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, some of our content reusers do not mirror templates, so it makes no sense to munge up the content by using template syntax where simple plain wiki source would work. --Cyde Weys 16:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please link me to your bot's approval to subst NYCS templates? Thanks. alphaChimp ^laudare 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that process is as bureaucratic as you seem to think it is. --Cyde Weys 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But for what it's worth, I've used Cydebot to substitute templates for many months now, and was actually doing so during the trial period before Cydebot got the bot flag. --Cyde Weys 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Link? alphaChimp ^laudare 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrestrial planet

Actually, I may have slightly misread the IAU's stance on this. The IAU seemed to be pressing a new category, "dwarf planet" onto Ceres, leaving the term "terrestrial planet" for those Mercury-sized and larger. However, they have emphasised that "dwarf planet" and "terrestrial planet" are merely descriptive and not official terms. So I suppose you could call Ceres both, either, or neither, but it might not be a good idea to speculate about future conventions as yet. Serendipodous 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, Clyde...

No offence, but right now your "2006 redefinition of planet" article consists of a single line. Don't you think it's a bit early to start calling it the "main article"? Serendipodous 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a big enough deal to warrant its own article. A bit of stuff from the section under Definition of planet should probably be moved out. And no, it's not "my" article ... see WP:OWN. --Cyde Weys 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for your general opinion on whether I can participate in a given portion of Wikipedia. However, I have no reason to not correct factual inaccuracies, nor is there any prohibition against my participating in an RfC. Additionally, before issueing warnings, please review Tony's own violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I see no violation be me in your cited diff. Further, as an involved party, I would strongly ask you to consider review from an impartial outside venue such as WP:ANI. rootology (T) 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You were being unnecessarily incivil. Knock it off. --Cyde Weys 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll reign it in but will not abstain from the RfC. Thanks. rootology (T) 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that at some point it just degenerates into two people yelling at each other. It's full of sound and fury signifying nothing. At that point it's just best to disengage. --Cyde Weys 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

on User Templates

thanks for the help. i now know the correct accepted format in creating user templates. however, is it possible for me to include a logo or image in the user template that i designed? John earlm 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

I've been following the whole cross-namespace redirect debate, and I can mostly understand both POVs, and I can see the benefits in not having articles that are just redirects to a different namespace. I do have trouble understanding things like these, tho. Sure, people possibly recreate this page all the time when it is deleted, so the deleted-page template might be necessary. But doesn't that totally undermine the whole point of not having cross-namespace redirects? In what way is a deleted-page template better than a cross-namespace redirect? Another example I've found was Create an article, which is a protected cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Bad title. I honestly don't see the point of that. I'm asking you because you were one of the most vocal parties in the discussion, maybe I just missed some good points. --Conti|✉ 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Bleach

Can I get you to restore Template:User Bleach and move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userboxes/User Bleach? --TheFarix (Talk) 20:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Refrigeration

I'm an EPA clean air act section 609 certified automotive air conditioning technician, but I've never done any work with refrigeration for a living...The knowledge is mostly for my own equipment, but I am looking for ways to make money on the side with the knowledge. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 20:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)