User talk:Cyde/Archive001

Contents 1 On userbox deletions 2 Your Comment 3 Biology portal 4 Userboxes 5 RFAr 6 Font size 7 Manifesto, and Other Things 8 talk:Evolution 9 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich 10 WP:RFA/Quarl 11 transplant 12 what do you plan to do if I keep it? 13 Brian Peppers 14 Mediation at Electric Universe concept? 15 Edits to my user page 16 Windows userbox 17 on the userbox "User Atheist" 18 Would it violate WP:POINT... 19 =) 20 Userbox Opposition 21 Brian Peppers 22 NPOV 23 Hoorah 24 userbox debates --> archive  ? 25 Okay, I get it 26 EAC 27 "Warning" 28 Thanks 29 Userbox deletion 30 Have yu considered... 31 Re: Please stop creating new userboxes 32 reply 33 talk.origins 34 Tawkerbot 35 Barnstar 36 Userboxes 37 Going on Wikibreak 38 Dates 39 Remind me to steer clear of RFA 40 List of baseball jargon 41 alter script on my user page 42 My RfA 43 New Template: User hornithology ? 44 Biology Portal 45 Vandal-written poetry 46 userboxes, etc. 47 Date links 48 love you this is ryan 49 portal maintenance 50 questions placed to Zero 51 Date protocol 52 Haj Amin al-Husseini 53 In Hell 54 Admin 55 Re: prod tag 56 AerialProject

[edit] On userbox deletions

If you're here because of my votes to Delete all userboxes ... yes, I am serious. I hate those damn things and I think they're hurtful to the encyclopedia. Don't confuse my votes as being unserious just because of the whole cabal joke. If you would like to leave your comments or concerns, by all means, go ahead. --Cyde Weys 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

First, we are old enough to delete or subst: our userboxes. And secondly, the userboxes are not (yet) deleted. Don't take your dreams for reality. And no, I'm not particulary against userboxes deletion. --pankkake 11:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me amend my hastily written statement. I hate userboxes which are in the template namespace. They should be strictly in userspace. That is what I am working towards now. --Cyde Weys 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Comment

I could put the "important ones" up at the top and then put the other, less polemic ones down at the bottom. I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate you trying to reach out to me. It's unfortunate, most of the ones I really care about have been debased and edit warred to death by IAR happy admins who basically block people when they feel like it. Karmafist 21:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biology portal

Actually, I'm not really interesting biology, I just created the biology portal as an example, as it was the first portal in Polish Wikipedia. I just copied most of the stuff from Polish Wikipedia as an incentive for others to start new portals (which worked, apparently) and it was a biology one because I figured the example has to be about some wide, notable topic. Ausir 21:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then, thanks for creating it though! And wow, what a fast response. You keep doing that and people are going to think you're addicted or something :-P Cyde Weys 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

If you don't like my anti-war userbox, look away from the screen, because it's staying on my userpage one way or the other. I'm recreating it in my userspace, there's a difference. --Revolución (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I said. I was referring to recreating template userboxes in the template namespace. I don't really care what you choose to do on your own userpage. --Cyde Weys 23:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And by the way I am strongly anti-war as well, but I don't see what that has to do with the construction of an encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFAr

Basically, if you are a party to the conflict you make a statement in >500 words, in which you try to convince the arbcomm to take the case. Of course, you have to bear in mind that the arbcomm examines the behaviour of all parties in the case. Guettarda 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't believe I have committed any wrongdoing in this case, so I am unafraid to get involved. --Cyde Weys 00:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that provision. Guettarda 16:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Font size

Cyde, you know by now how much I respect and admire you, I am sure. I really hate bringing this to your attention, but your font size on the Evolution talk page notice is much too discreet. I do not say this as a disparagment of your judgment, understand. I think it needs to be much, much larger, and maybe bright red and flashing, before some people will ever notice it. (this would be sympathy in the guise of humor, in case any readers are wondering.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manifesto, and Other Things

I don't take it personal on the vote. I tried to uphold process and it got me nothing but misery, so if I can't have a way to put it on quickly while having it in user space, i'll just pull a Tony Sidaway and recreate the thing regardless of the TFD discussion. Heck, maybe they'll make me a "clerk" for it ;-)

As for the tone of it, I just don't want any newcomer to have to go through what i've gone through, especially the past few days. I love this place so much, I want so desperately to fix it, but it just gives me grief and misery. Nightmares about Jimbo and his minions have become common. I honestly feel like they'll just block me for no reason sooner or later and everyone will be too frightened to face them. Karmafist 12:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk:Evolution

Hi Cyde, I've listed all the changes I've made on the talk page; if you have time will you please peruse them and indicate which ones you object to? Thanks, and sorry again for making the changes w/o waiting - you're right, I should've. - Mikker ^... 22:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, Cyde...I put the nPOV tag on the LBU page tonight...Gastrich is not the only one that wants it there, but our reasons are different (of course)...I'd also like to see if the page can't be locked. I might even look to get it deleted. - WarriorScribe 03:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFA/Quarl

Hi Cyde, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 11:52Z

[edit] transplant

I hope this works, i saw that you supported the Penrith Panthers and transexual rights. Would love to talk to you more. Please email me at uplift_mofo@hotmail.com. SOrry if I have caused any inconvenience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.158.231 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-16 23:01:56.

---

An anon left this on your user page. I've transplanted it here. Cheers :) Adrian Lamo ·· 07:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow ... I don't know what to say. --Cyde Weys 15:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what do you plan to do if I keep it?

Are you going to pressure the admins to remove it? It's staying on my page, whether you like it or not. --Revolución (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think it makes you look foolish to be misusing a word so badly. Real censorship is a terrible thing. When people delete something off of their own website, that's not censorship. --Cyde Weys 17:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Peppers

I did not claim to have been contacted personally, but I do know that the Foundation has been contacted. As for verifiable proof, sorry, you don't get that in privacy cases, for obvious reasons. I have asked the WP:OFFICE to clarify what there want doing with this article: until then, the page protection stays in place. Protection of a purely factual piece is in my view preferable to speedy deletion given the timescale involved and the fact that there is an ongoing debate; there is not a third option. Physchim62 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if the Office is doing anything to verify these claims. I'm just very concerned that people are possibly exploiting a little-known loophole. If revert warring, AfD, and speedy deletion fail, just pretend to be someone related to the matter at hand and send Wikipedia a threatening letter. --Cyde Weys 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation at Electric Universe concept?

Hey, Cyde, Since you're an "aspiring cabalist" (according to the mediation cabal page), would you mind having a look over at Electric Universe concept? We've got an ongoing cabal-mediation request from Iantresman over there, and it would be helpful to have an outside party look in. zowie 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to my user page

Please don't intentionally break my user page's design. Since the hidden links are available in the content or on the talk page, accessibility is not much impaired. Familiarity is irrelevant on a user page. If you have any particular reasons you feel that the design is improper, please discuss on my talk page. Thanks. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 03:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't breaking your page, I was fixing it. It's broken the way it is now. It hides lots of useful user interface elements and doesn't work at all in skins other than Monobook. You're putting form above function and it's not a good end result. --Cyde Weys 04:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way does function terribly matter on a user page, where most necessary elements are available elsewhere? Regardless, I'll change my user page within a day or two in a way that doesn't impede your upload file link. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Functionality matters the same on a user page as it does everywhere else. A lot of functionality is browsing functionality that is independent from the userpage. For example, I can usually go to any page I wish from any page ... except for your userpage, which covers up a lot of essential interface elements. You've even covered up the links to my own userpage and talk page, as well as all of the links in the toolbox to stuff like New Pages, AFD, Recent IP Edits, Related Changes, E-mail this user, etc. You can blank the text area starting from the page text going down and right, but you shouldn't be blanking over the interface toolbox, tabs, or userbar. I've included two descriptive photographs to make this perfectly clear. Thank you for understanding.

Pathoschild's user page

A normal user page

--Cyde Weys 17:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows userbox

Your modifications to the Windows 95 userbox messed up the template and thus every page that it was in, so I reverted them. Janizary 03:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for telling me, I fixed it correctly this time. --Cyde Weys 17:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] on the userbox "User Atheist"

• Dude, I am an atheist, and an evangelical one to boot, in real life. I chose to start with this one precisely because my motives are *very* clear here. --Improv 02:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL, an evangelical atheist? Don't meet too many of those. And anyway, I'm in favor of deleting all userboxes, so in response to deleting this particular one, my only response is ... MORE MORE MORE!!! --Cyde Weys 02:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Get a room. MiracleMat 09:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would it violate WP:POINT...

... To make a "This user hates the cylons" userbox, just to see how long it lasts?

I totally, totally agree with you that these userboxes shouldn't be in encyclopedia template space. And I've been spending a lot of time over the past few days trying to get people to subst their userboxes too; given that that's the activity everyone on every side of this debate can agree on, I think we might be making some sort of headway toward a resolution here. We really need to come up with a policy about the use of template space. The only reason I've been arguing to defend these userboxes isn't because I think they belong in the template space, but because I think current policy doesn't fully warrant their deletion -- I just don't think a lot of them are that divisive. But let's set that aside, and instead, let's try to craft a policy that we can all agree with, and that gets all the fracking userboxes (except maybe the babel boxes, and "area of expertise" boxes, but we can talk about that later) out of template space once and for all. I'd really appreciate your help in making some bold changes in that regard. (Unfortunately, I'm rather exhausted, so I, at least, will start in on that tomorrow.)

We really are on much closer ground here than I think any of us is admitting in the current, snarly climate. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, go ahead and make the Cylons one, it'll be deleted anyway at some point, but in the mean time I can subst: it in as the only userbox on my userpage. And as for this reconciliation, you should look at what User:Pathoschild is doing. He's the frontrunner in the subst'ing movement. Check his talk page. --Cyde Weys 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =)

Image:Rainbow Lorikeets.jpg

[edit] Userbox Opposition

Hi Cyde,

I just had a real quick question for you. Are you opposed to userboxes because they take up template space, or because of T1? Thanks. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Both. I think userboxes shouldn't take up template space and I especially think divisive/inflammatory userboxes shouldn't take up template space. --Cyde Weys 16:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Peppers

The law is verifiably cited. Read the section yourself. --Nlu (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And note that Peppers was convicted of an attempt, not a completed crime. --Nlu (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hrrmm, this is kind of irrelevant now ... but I ask you, exactly what is an "attempted sex crime"? If someone attempts to, say, molest a woman, but only gets partway, it's still considered a sex crime. Even the attempt of molesting someone sexually is a sex crime. There's no distinction like there is with murder/attempted murder. --Cyde Weys 18:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that the prior description gives the misleading impression that Peppers actually sexually attacked someone. An attempt can be as weak as (given the statute in Peppers' case) telling two kids, "Go have sex." --Nlu (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please don't push userbox POV. -- Jbamb 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't even see how I'm pushing userbox POV, but I'd like you to take a look at the history on the Beliefs Userbox page. Notice where that notice about the imminent deletion of belief userboxes came from. Not just any user, not just any admin, not even just any bureaucrat. It came from Jimbo Wales himself. This entire site is his site. If you don't like what's about to happen to userboxes, your only options are to live with it or leave. --Cyde Weys 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoorah

Deleting userboxes is a noble crusade. Frankly, I think a lot of people on Wikipedia tend to hold themselves with more pride than is really necessary. Userboxes only add to this. Frankly, I think that unique name-based identities go too far! This is why I do everything as a non-registered user. Yea, but we should glorify the name of Wiki, not the names we have chosen for ourselves. 204.69.40.7 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] userbox debates --> archive  ?

Hey Cyde, the userbox debates are now over a MB in length -- could you move the older debates off the page to one or more archive pages? (You could even say "relax, people, one of you "keepies" asked me to do it!") Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 21:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, I get it

Regarding this annoying... thing on your page: while I think I get the irony (Userboxen, ja?), I must also condemn you for cursing in the edit summary, by WP:CIVIL. --Misza13 ^(Talk) 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and I'm allowed to curse at my fucking self as much as I damn please. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EAC

.. this is just me talking to myself, don't mind me. I'm not going to put this thing on my main userpage, but it's kind of an inside joke, and so I am saving it for posterity before the main template is deleted. --Cyde Weys 23:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Warning"

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! -- Jbamb 02:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh please, you're the one I was having the "dispute" with, and you were saying some pretty bad stuff yourself, so it's kind of out of bounds for you turn around and warn me. --Cyde Weys 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I'm not bothered by Gastrich, mostly bemused at his colossal presumptiveness and how thin-skinned he seems to be for someone who apparently thrives on being a nuisance. Perhaps we could feed him (or at least all his socks) to the userboxes – the damn things ought to be good for something. --Plover 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox deletion

Please recognize that userboxes represent a quickly parsable content type by which users may disclose potential POV issues. The Anarcho-Capitalist userbox is a prime example of this, hence my characterization of it and those ubx contiguous to it on my user page as a "user bias watchlist." Userboxes are not necessarily divisive, because no reasonable wikipedian is going to suspend disbelief so as to adopt the fairy-tale notion that all wikipedians are fundamentally in agreement. Userboxes are extremely useful in insuring that people are editing in good faith. Userboxes in template space better enable editors to seek assistance from other users with pertinent expertise. Please reconsider your position on this issue. Dick Clark 16:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Meh, nothing in there convinced me. I never understood the "disclosing your POV is good" argument. If you want to you can, in prose, but I don't see how we should make it easier for people with these bumper stickers. That encourages it and gives a false idea of what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not about a user community that groups together based on opinions; it is about building an encyclopedia. And userboxes in template space are an abomination and all need to be gotten rid of. Template: and Category: should be for encyclopedic content (i.e. articles) only. --Cyde Weys 17:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't disclosing potential POV issues in advance be seen as something of an assurance that the editor is acting in good faith? Perhaps I am more concerned about this than most (as someone who frequently edits articles in which I have a personal ideological interest), but I feel that full disclosure is the best way to facilitate cooperation amongst editors who while acting in good faith may inadvertently include some POV on occassion. That is what ubx templates do for me: they allow me to be totally up front about my ideology, and to be bold in contributing. Do you also oppose user images on user pages? They are a more serious drain on server resources than ubx images, I'd wager. And by the way, you can consider my last wiki-donation a user fee for my ubx image handling. I'll gladly up my donation level if the community thinks that my five (previously six) ubx images are posing a serious threat to wikipedia's financial security/stability. Dick Clark 17:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest, if you only have five or six userboxes, you're not exactly someone I'm worried about. And if you like full disclosure, by all means, go for it. I just don't see how in the world little colored bumper stickers are the best way of doing it. And keep in mind most of the userboxes don't disclose valid POV, they're just nonsense or irrelevant. Who in the hell cares when someone started watching Dr. Who?! And many of the userboxes that did disclose valid POV were deleted because they encouraged factionalism and vote-stacking. I can give you two good examples, the Catholic WikiProject and Jason Gastrich, of people who used the "Whatlinkshere" on a POV template to "rally the troops". This is Wikipedia, the site where we build an online free encyclopedia. It's not Userboxapedia. Templates and Categories were coded for articles, not freaking bumper stickers. We need to keep in mind the goal of the site. Please see this comment by Jimbo; I think it sums it up best. --Cyde Weys 17:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I did mention earlier that userboxes represent a "quickly parsable content type." This is certainly true. A little image here and there can allow someone to quickly scan a user page for relevant items at a far faster clip than by simply skimming text blocks. That is just a fact of visual communication. As for the Gastrich issue, I think it is great that folks can "rally the troops"--Gastrich was clearly defeated, was he not? Was he at any time ever "enabled" to damage wikipedia because of template-space ubx? What "troops" came to his assistance, other than his sock/meatpuppets? I certainly opposed his POV-pushing, for one, and his dogged refusal to assume good faith in other editors. The fact that users could quickly review the user pages of other involved editors and see both atheist and theist userboxes on the side opposing Gastrich can certainly calm a touchy situation where someone cries foul, POV-pushing, victimization, etc, as Jason attempted to. By the way, every enclopedia that I have in my library (I run a ~30000 volume research library) has a page listing basic affiliations of the contributors. An encyclopedia that claims to be written by bias-less angels is, in my view, most likely to arouse suspicion. An encyclopedia that is up front about its contributors representing many different worldviews is far more credible. Dick Clark 17:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I want people to ask slowly and thoughtfully with deep respect for
others, even others with whom they disagree.  As far as I can tell,
there is a strong consensus that having various sorts of advocacy
userboxes is problematic, especially when they are promoted in the
Wikipedia namespace as if they are a normal and proper part of Wikipedia
culture.  The question is: how do we transition to a better state of
affairs while respecting people's legitimate concerns about
individuality and so on?

I think it is somewhat problematic to have users pasting bits of cruft
on their userpage which make them seem to be engaged in Wikipedia as
activists for a particular POV.  I think users should realize that
having that sort of cruft on their userpage will quite rightly diminish
other people's respect for you and your work.  But, whatever, if people
want to do it, I see no reason to get absolutely draconian about it.

However.

The current situation with these things being in the main Template
namespace, and promoted as if healthy and normal in the Wikipedia
namespace, is that they are damaging to our culture.  They are
attracting the wrong sort of people, and giving newcomers the wrong idea
of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

That's why they need to go.  Not to censor people's self-expression, but
to make it clear that _as a whole_ the community considers these things
to be divisive and inappropriate.

--Jimbo

So aren't you (and my fellow Auburnite Jimbo) violating WP:AGF by assuming that users making use of userboxes are necessarily going to, or even most likely going to use them to violate wikipedia policies and guidelines? Or is assuming bad faith okay when its for a "good cause"? Dick Clark 17:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's such a stretch of WP:AGF it's not even applicable. And AGF ceases when we have proof that users have done bad stuff with it, which we do. --Cyde Weys 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have yu considered...

taking up the Wikimop? I would be pleased to nominate you at WP:RFA. Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And that nomination would receive a second. FCYTravis 21:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really thankful. I thought you might still be pissed at me over Brian Peppers, but I guess you are a good guy. Anyway, I was thinking it might be a good idea to delay this RFA by two weeks or so, at least until a lot of this userbox mess blows over. I don't want what happened to Kelly Martin in ArbCom to happen to me :-O Cyde Weys 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you passionately and cogently defended your position, and the fact that you did so in a professional and honorable manner makes me more likely to believe you would properly wield the mop and bucket, not less. FCYTravis 22:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately most people don't think as clearly and rationally as you do. There'd be the inevitable votes like, "Oppose - tried to delete my userboxes". It ain't pretty. And even though the bureaucrats who close the RFAs are supposed to discount bad votes like that, they often don't, and just go by strict percentages. I can live without the "mop" for another few weeks ... I've already lived without it for over three years. --Cyde Weys 22:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll certainly vote support, as I agree with the statements above in how you handled the Brian Peppers debate, you handled it very professionally. Agreed you should wait a couple weeks though after whatever controversy you are involved with dies down. VegaDark 23:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Please stop creating new userboxes

Well, I was unaware of that. I thought the point of Userboxes was TO make new ones and to be creative. Mine are not duplicates, how can you say that? I ran through most of them and didn't find those, so I decided to create them myself.

Please reply on my Talk page. --Antoshi 02:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. There's certainly nothing about the point of Wikipedia that has anything to do with creativity or userboxes. (Actually, creativity, at least in article space, is discouraged). You can have userboxes ... if you really want, but they shouldn't be in Template: namespace, which the ones you were creating were. A better solution though is to just use prose. I.e. type something on your user page, "I'm a fan of professional wrestling", or whatever. --Cyde Weys 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding... I was at the Userboxes page not an hour ago, with info on how to create userboxes on your own, and now, in what has to be the single greatest act of perfect timing, there's a proposal for their deletion and new ones are not allowed. Wow, that's just great.

But, really, there's no point in saying "the point of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia", otherwise Userboxes never would've been created, and we would have never even had user pages. Yes, Wikipedia is about creativity, what's wrong with you? Wikipedia was created off of one man's creativity, to make an encyclopedia that everyone can update. So, please stop passing it off as something bland and boring where everyone is supposed to do things the same, and remember the point of being bold. --Antoshi 02:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You can create your own userboxes if you really want to, just don't create a new page in Template: to do so; simply put the code directly onto your userpage. And in regards to this whole userbox thing, you might want to read up on "that one man" himself actually says about these things; see here. --Cyde Weys 03:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply

I replied to you on Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#No_more_userboxes_can_be_created, please post responses there. Thanks, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#Quick_recap_on_things_that_at_least_two_people_agree_on: While there are plenty of things we disagree about, I'm hoping to start bottom-up consensus building on things that we do. Please endorse these points if you find them favorable. Thanks, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk.origins

Cyde, do you think we should move the discussion of FAQ copyright issues to the page on the Archive? JoshuaZ 05:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, if an action is so obviously right that no reasonable person could possibly disagree, you should just go ahead and do it rather than asking permission. See WP:BOLD and WP:OWN. --Cyde Weys 06:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cowardice and indecision are so much easier! JoshuaZ 06:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tawkerbot

Could you make a request on User:Tawkerbot (copy paste the request form) - that way it's on record, it'll be a few hours until Tawkerbot finishes it's current subst run but if you have a request and community consensus, I'll que it up to start tomorrow. Do you have a list of userboxes you need subst'ed? Tawker 06:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's qued, the current job is still a few hours away from being finished, so I have a little time to kill, I'm going to grab one quick vote on the Village Pump just to triple verify support (I always like votes before starting this kind of request, I had an incident when I ran one without consensus and it had some issues.) -- Tawker 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

[edit] Userboxes

I believe, and I doubt I'm alone, that your recent deletion of Janizary's comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates while claiming in your edit summary that he's "not the most important person here" was done in extremely bad faith (I could say more about exactly what I think of this, but I'll try to remain diplomatic for now). You don't get to delete comments simply because you disagree with them. You've made it eminently clear that you have a chip on your shoulder about userboxes, but attempting to censor the discussion is stepping way over the line, in every possible way. I think you owe Janizary an apology, at least, and probably one to everyone else involved in the discussion, as well. Microtonal 02:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's go over the facts here.

• Many people had already had their say before Janizary.
• Janizary took it upon himself to add what he had to say to the top of the list, as if what he has to say is somehow more important than everyone else.
• He also embarked on a votestacking campaign with the explicit intent of "calling out a posse".

I do apologize for one thing, and that is deleting his comment rather than moving it to the bottom the first time, but I think in this matter it is plain as day that I am not the one in the wrong here. And as for the whole "chip on my shoulder" bit ... please remain civil. And I did just apologize, now let's see if Janizary is going to apologize for his massive disruption and votestaking campaign. Err, wait, that's probably not going to happen. By the way Janizary has been blocked twice for making death threats against other users. So, please, examine both sides carefully before you decide which one to side with, okay? --Cyde Weys 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ack, it looks like I misread diffs. Janizary did post that at the beginning; I thought he had added it to the top later. Again, I apologize. But let me remind you about WP:AGF ... your assumption that I was acting bad faith runs counter to "assuming good faith", because in this matter, I simply made a mistake rather than intended to act with malice. You're welcome to check my edit history ... never have I once before moved or deleted nominating text in a poll. --Cyde Weys 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't habitually go around accusing people of acting in bad faith. I think that WP:AGF certainly has its limits, and this was well beyond them. Moving, editing or deleting someone else's comments for any reason other than simple clarity or formatting (or to correct vandalism) is bad faith pretty much by definition, whatever your stated rationale. Microtonal 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I was moving them around for what I, at the time, thought was correct chronological formatting. I admitted my mistake, apologized for it, explained it, and you're still accusing me of bad faith? Come on. --Cyde Weys 03:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop pussyfooting around and be brutally honest, then. I think you deleted/moved Janizary's comments because you don't like him and you didn't want his ideas to have prominent placement, not because you have a selfless concern for accurate chronology. You made no attempt to insert them into whatever you thought was their proper chronological place, you first simply deleted them with a nasty and childish edit summary, then moved them all the way to the end, again with a nasty and childish summary. Go back and look at your edit summaries, then try and tell me with a straight face that I'm unjustified in assuming bad faith. Microtonal 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Those edit summaries were a response to Janizary's blatant attempt at vote-stacking, which goes against policy. I had just gotten done pasting thirty vote-stacking diffs into WP:ANI, so yes, I was pissed. That was reflected in the edit summaries, as you've pointed out. Again, I apologize. But I was acting out of legitimate concern; you see, I had just had to deal with his absolutely terrible misuse of "What links here" on a template, and so I didn't for one second think that he hadn't added his comment to the top of the DRV list in retrospect, because I had not previously remembered reading it. It was only until after I got your message that I went through and carefully read the edit history log and realized that I had erred in when I thought his comment was placed. But anyway, if you go through my history you'll see that I've never done anything like this before and that this was a simple mistake. And I still don't understand why you're solely accusing me of acting in bad faith when, even assuming that I had removed his comment maliciously, his actions were more than a magnitude of order worse. --Cyde Weys 04:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Going on Wikibreak

Yes, I'm going on Wikibreak ... from userboxes. It's just giving me too much stress to be dealing with them right now. I'm confident that when I return to deal with userboxes once again Jimbo will have spoken out unambiguously and the nonsense going on over at WP:DRV/U will be over. In the mean time I'll just be spending my time editing articles, hanging out at AFD, etc. Yeah, it's kind of sad, but AFD is actually a break from stress right now. I will see all of you userbox people one week from now. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Actually, you're wrong. Delinking dates is most certainly not policy. One could say that it is a guideline, but that guideline (approved by a handful of editors) runs explicitly against four years of widespread Wikipedia practice. Even today, the vast majority of editors link date links (do a random page test and see what I mean). The Manual of Style is massive, and impossible for editors to keep an eye on every little thing. And accordingly, Bobblewik has been criticised and asked to stop by a bunch of editors, and has simply ignored any objections and kept on making bot edits en masse. I'm happy to talk compromise, but a month of overtures have been blatantly ignored, so I see little alternative than to shoot these edits on sight. Ambi 09:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I said I'd shoot all any bot-delinkings he made after that point in time, and I wasn't kidding. He can either waste his and my time, or he can talk and try to come to some sort of compromise, rather than taking the utterly anti-wiki stance of "stuff you". Ambi 09:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So you're basically using an argument from inertia ... "this is the way it's always been done, and there must be some reason for it to be done that way or else they wouldn't have done it that way ... and that I can't think of a good reason why they did it that way isn't relevant". Inertia is a fact of life, but there always comes a time when prevailing attitudes overcome that inertia. In the case of revising date wikilinking guidelines, that time has come. Please don't sacrifice yourself as some minor roadbump to the inertia wildly careening back towards the other direction. --Cyde Weys 09:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remind me to steer clear of RFA

Look at what I almost posted as a "neutral" vote to one of the editors up for adminship. I decided against it at the last moment, but I will reproduce it here (leaving the editor anonymous of course). It's too true to be left unsaid.

I'm not going to oppose someone based solely on userboxes but I don't think it's appropriate to give editorship to people who don't seem to understand, or don't care, what Jimbo et al are trying to accomplish by getting rid of them. Is the first generation of "new Wikipedians" coming up for RFA? You know who I'm talking about ... the kind who came here because of the recent massive publicity, the kind who came here and immediately got hooked on the userboxes and the "you can do any random nonsense on your userpage" mentality. I'm not necessarily accusing this user of being one of these types, but it is something we need to watch out for. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia and the admins certainly need to understand that. They need to understand that much better than merely the regular users.

Cyde Weys 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of baseball jargon

I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually if something is useful or essential it is imperative that we keep it, even though it may potentially violate a few piddling guidelines. Please see WP:ENC and WP:IAR. --Cyde Weys 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alter script on my user page

Hi Cyde,

Thanks for your alterations to my page... I have no idea what you were talking about when you explained it but I'm sure you're right. Just to check, can I {{subst:message}} and then alter the message as I had done previously? Or will this mess with the javascript thingy or whatever it is...

Cheers, DJR (Talk) 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you can subst message and edit it as you want. The problem with what you were previously using was that it was using the usermessage class which is specifically only supposed to be used for the "You have new messages..." display at the top of the screen. {{message}} is more flexible anyway ... you can subst it and then change the colors to your heart's desire, whereas the colors of the usermessage class are hardwired in. --Cyde Weys 23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... so all this time people have been seeing rubbish when they view my page? Well that's just brilliant! Many thanks for sorting it out! DJR (Talk) 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Template: User hornithology ?

I sure hope someone gets that joke :-P Cyde Weys 06:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I get it. :) You forgot titis. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biology Portal

I'm afraid I don't do much. I put my name down so that there would be a name there. I run two biology WikiProjects (Primates & Cephalopods), and generally participate in a few others, so I figured it was reasonable to at least be the (pun intended) titular maintainer of the Portal. I update the open task list from time to time, and that's about it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal-written poetry

That's hilarious! My userpage has never been vandalized. Is it sad that I wish it was? Veej 19:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I can't exactly tell you what my secret to attracting vandals is, this one time though, a guy went through six sockpuppets in fifteen minutes just repeatedly vandalizing my user and talk page. --Cyde Weys 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats nothing, I had my talk page vandalised 20 times in under an hour and my user page was vandalised some 8 times in a row by an IP (I think its sprotected now :)) -- Tawker 09:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] userboxes, etc.

I was just looking at the RfC on February userbox deletions, and I figured out that I agree with pretty much everything you say. So I just wanted to drop in to say keep up the good work and the eloquence. good stuff :-) Alhutch 11:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] love you this is ryan

youre a super douche bag i love you --Mas4244 03:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] portal maintenance

Great job with maintenance of the science portal. I especially appreciate it since I decided a little while ago to hijack the biography section onto Portal:History of science. Keep up the good work.--ragesoss 01:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• You know you're welcome to update it too :-) I try for updating once a week but I very seldomly make it. It'd be nice for others to help carry the torch in those circumstances. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. Some time in the not too distant future I'm going to create a content queue in the recommended format for the history of science selected article; once I learn how to do that and fill out some content, I'll try to create one for Science, too. Then we can fill out the future content, and maybe get WP:WPHOS people to help out too.

[edit] questions placed to Zero

While we are making progress I would like to get answers on the questions I posed.

The fact that he was an antisemite is IMHO NPOV description because it is known fact. I wonder if zero think he was pro-Jewish or neutral about the Jewish people. Zeq 13:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this limited to the mediation page. I'm not on anyone's "side" here. --Cyde Weys 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not asking you to take sides. The question have been posted there and the request to answer them was posted there as well. Thanks. Zeq 18:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date protocol

I am new to this but I note that you have made a change to the Edinburgh Academy page, removing the date reference. Can you tell me if there is a protocol on this? When should I reference a date and when not? (Tithon 22:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The basic gist is that full dates should be linked, but solo year links don't provide any functionality to the encyclopedia and can be eliminated. --Cyde Weys 23:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haj Amin al-Husseini

Hello Cyde. I think you misunderstood my question in the talk page. I don't want to contribute to the quarell between Zeq, Zero and Cybbe. That was a real question and I just want to gather information about this in order to publish a new article. They are perfectly aware of that. Unfortunately today I just have quotes stating Mufti's antisemitism and if there are some that state the contrary, I would like to introduce them before publishing the article to prevent a long debate ;-). Good luck in your mediation. Here is the draft of the article. [1]. Regards and good luck with this difficult mediation. Christophe Greffe 08:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't want to be involved in this dispute but it seems it can hardly be the case. I think it is better all my refrences are in another article but someone wants to delete this (see: [2]. What has to be done ? The second article must stay with a reference from Haj Amin al-Husseini's one or do I have to put all the information I gather in this one ? Christophe Greffe 21:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Main article namespace is for encyclopedic content only. What you have is a list of references that aren't a standalone article and should either be merged into the main article on Amin al-Husayni or put somewhere in your userspace. --Cyde Weys 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should appear in the main article because it would balance this. I thought it would be better to treat this information an equivalent way as : List of Israeli military operation in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war or List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

[edit] In Hell

Regarding your addition of a speedy tag to In Hell, while poorly written, this is an actual movie and doesn't merit deletion. Even if it is Van Damne. Deadsalmon 02:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, I had no idea. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. Had to IMDB it myself, as I'm no fan of terrible acting. ...okay, that's only partially true. Deadsalmon 02:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

You're still not? Why? If you are waiting for someone to nom you, that can be arranged. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• One of these days I'm going to have to bow to the peer pressure. --Cyde Weys 15:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How can I add to that pressure? What would be most effective? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I dunno, so far I've only had two people (you included) step forward wanting to nominate me. Doesn't seem like much of a consensus. You can coordinate things with JzG (the other one) if you'd like. --Cyde Weys 19:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Darnit, neither of us ever abuses our admin powers, or we could just block you and hold you hostage until you agree. We'll have to think of something else. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright alright, go for it. I'm willing to accept my fate :-P Cyde Weys 00:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh coolness, and I just spammed Guy too. Now we'll have to duel to see who gets to nom you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you need a mail-to. :P Please make a happy WP email account somewhere and list it here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking for? I already have a valid email address listed under my account preferences. --Cyde Weys 00:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

hrm... I'm not getting it. I'm getting the standard "no email" message. This is odd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction: now I'm getting the "no send address" message, and I have an email account in prefs, in fact received a WP email earlier today. What gives here? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently we have to "confirm" our email addresses or something by sending a unique code to the listed address. I'm doing that now. --Cyde Weys 00:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay I just finished the confirmation. --Cyde Weys 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, I forgot about that - I changed my WP email recently. I've confirmed also, glad that was easily settled. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: prod tag

Hi,

I checked the prod-guidelines for "how to give a comment", but I think I didn't look well enough. So I gave comments in the edit comments. The rules for how to delete a page is changing all the time, I lost track of it some time ago I fear. -- JeLuF 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AerialProject

I think that this is a brilliant project as it gives better clarity than Google. I love it. Please don't stop. American Patriot 1776 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I really don't know what you're talking about? I don't know what AerialProject is. --Cyde Weys 00:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)