User talk:Cyde/Archive005

Contents 1 Out of line? 2 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 3 Signpost updated for May 1st. 4 Re: Cabal summons 5 Metamagician3000's candidacy for admin 6 Phillips Exeter changes 7 Blended wing spacecraft 8 Timothy Usher requests unblocking 9 WP:BITE 10 AWB 11 Planetes 12 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) 13 I find your lack of faith... disturbing. 14 The Bush article 15 On that matter 16 Hey, Cyde 17 Sent to deletion review 18 Closing and protecting the Bush impeachment AfD 19 Logging In 20 AfD 21 Barnstar 22 Reference Converter 23 Cydebot 24 hey there cyde. 25 Userbox Wikibreak 26 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade 27 Deleting RfA 28 Automobile manufacturers (Cydebot) 29 FYI 30 Templates 31 MFD Notice 32 Indefinite block of User:Bestghuran 33 RfC 34 Some Help Please 35 AfD and RfA 36 Template:User Alt Acct Master 37 mediation request on cartoon image display 38 I'll ask again. 39 References at 90% size 40 Avillia 41 Degeneration 42 Signpost updated for May 8th. 43 RFC on cartoon controversy 44 user box 45 Fixing cats 46 "pointless category" 47 Quadell's remedy 48 User infidel 49 User Creationist 50 Bodog/User:2005 51 Image:Latexcatsuit.jpg&Image:BiancaBeauchampCover.jpg 52 Thanks 53 Reference converter 54 Why? 55 Your vandalism of User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian 56 Who created the categories? 57 Image:Small crucifix anim.gif listed for deletion 58 My use of rollback 59 What do you think you're doing? 60 Thanks 61 LOL? 62 You have been blocked for disruption. 63 Cydebot category renaming to "People condemned by Nazi courts" 64 Disappointed, confused 65 Please keep your cite bot off talk pages 66 User boxes 67 Thanks 68 Template of User Cow Vandal 69 My RFA 70 Jain and Hindu Userboxes 71 Just thinking aloud again 72 "Userfying userboxes" 73 Template:User Jimbo v. Willy 74 All the boxen! 75 sumofpi2 deletion 76 Spam 77 Cydebot is prescient! 78 Template Space. 79 Mistake from Cydebot 80 Userboxes? 81 Don't be mean to the Userboxes... Just SMILE! 82 Excuse me 83 Closing userbox debates 84 User boxes 85 how short is short 86 Userboxes on TFD 87 Substs 88 Nominations 89 Cuba, Lulu, Zleitzen 90 Re: Congratulations! 91 Userbox Question 92 Userbox Deletion 93 Signpost updated for May 15th. 94 Your opinion about userboxes 95 Woops! 96 Attack 97 Regarding the mess at TfD: Mental Illness 98 No problem 99 Spanking with a spinning crucifix 100 Chill 101 FYI 102 Userboxes 103 Truly Amazing 104 User:Fake User 105 Templates 106 What's with the userbox TfDs? 107 Thats just getting annoying... 108 Signature 109 Good God 110 Category change error 111 Corbin's Signature 112 Campaign 113 Babel substitution? 114 Cydebot again 115 Evolution 116 Thanks for your leadership 117 Closing TFDs 118 You're never fully dressed without a smile! 119 Signature? 120 Userboxbot 121 My Signature 122 Your bot 123 Jimbo's Talk page 124 Mischievous 125 My RfA 126 ref converter 127 Userboxes 128 Cydebot 129 Hey! 130 Neutrality 131 Attempt to focus more on real wikipedia issues 132 Ind Catholics

[edit] Out of line?

Sorry, but it wasn't me who deleted a template used by about 70 users without warning any of them beforehand. This is what I consider "out of line" behavior.  Grue  07:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

T1 is strictly within policy. Being incivil isn't. --Cyde Weys 07:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the civil way of deleting a template is to subst all of its instances on the affected pages. This is why I am so unsatisfied with how you handled this deletion.  Grue  09:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I double Grue's comment, but you probably know that already. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay guys, I'm more than happy to start substituting templates before deleting them, and I'd appreciate your support here Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#Userboxbot, as that is the only realistic way userboxen are going to be substituted before deletion - I'm sure as hell not going to do it manually. --Cyde Weys 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since I've been thinking about a similar movement for some days now, I'd appreciate it if you took a look at User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll (page name may change). Something similar to your idea, but I believe any massive action regarding userboxes should be backed by a policy. I intended to show it some more forgiving people before posting it publicly to avoid the risk of being ridiculed outright, but heck. Misza13 ^{T C} 16:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously being backed by policy is a good thing. Unfortunately, the last few polls were killed by a combination of vote-stacking and people who absolutely refused to compromise one little bit. Hopefully this one will go differently. I'm going to hold off on using Userboxbot en masse until we've at least tried to figure out a policy. --Cyde Weys 16:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this exemption: Userboxes expressing interests/hobbies/fields of expertise. Those are still entirely non-encyclopedic, and if people want, they can use code for that or just put it in plain text on their page (probably preferable anyway). --Cyde Weys 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

They might not be encyclopedic, but serve a use to the Project by organising Wikipedians by interests. Opposed to political ones which encourage factionalism and provide means for vote stacking, these may help in finding people interested in/experts on a particular topic and improving some content. (I thought it's pretty obvious.) Misza13 ^{T C} 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We can at least start with the religion/politics/belief ones and then branch out later if we need to .. --Cyde Weys 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As you see, I would suport an official policy dooming the r/p/b boxes. But still, I think it should be backed by a policy, so as to get rid of WP:DRV/U once and for all (any appeals there would simply be invalid - wouldn't it save much time?). The idea of a Gallery is actually an addition to help the less techy/creative people - that's why my project may as well be renamed. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

You may have seen this already, but I found this accidentally at User talk:Cyde Weys while trying to find your page. If you have seen this already, feel free to delete it. Ral315 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Stubs Polish Wikipedia Pope Alexander I Skirgaila Bacup, Lancashire TAT-9 Diaspora studies Deadweight loss Wiki community Schloß Artstetten Chitra indica Pope Anastasius I Finnish Wikipedia Wikipedia hoax Midway Airport (British Columbia) Russian Wikipedia Languages of Arda Clive Sinclair Ukrainian Wikipedia A Hard Road

Cleanup Order of Aviz Self-regulation theory Stacey McClean Merge Current events in Poland French citizenship and identity Meta-Wiki Add Sources Urdu Wikipedia Mohammad bin Sulayem Slovak Wikipedia Wikify Shatterzone Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office Howard Hall Elementary School Expand International Brotherhood of Magicians Philosophical analysis Bjornar Simonsen

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 1st.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 18	1 May 2006	About the Signpost

Campaign manager resigns over Wikipedia edit	Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
Assorted honors for Jimmy Wales	News and Notes: 4 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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

[edit] Re: Cabal summons

I would like to be able to, but I can't seem to access to the admins channel. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 01:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I made it in. But you weren't there. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 01:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metamagician3000's candidacy for admin

User:Metamagician3000 now has email accessible.--Jusjih 14:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phillips Exeter changes

Hi, sorry, but your changes aren't working. Instead of going to a general list of PEA alumni, all the links just go to the old 1959 list of alumni that I had started with 3 or 4 names on it. So all you've done is just rename the 1959 list.... Hayford Peirce 18:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't know what you're talking about? Can you provide some links to diffs for context? --Cyde Weys 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. If you go here, you'll see that something called cydebot has been making minor changes. I clicked on cydebot and that eventually led me to this page.... Hayford Peirce 20:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillips_Exeter_Academy&action=history

[edit] Blended wing spacecraft

I've seen all of Planetes (twice!) and I'm rather familiar with NASA, so I feel qualified to comment on this ... NASA sure as hell didn't lift the design for the blended wing spacecraft from an anime. Designs of that nature have been kicking around for decades. If anything, Planetes used the real-life prototypes as a model for their vision of what spacecraft might look like in the future. If you watch the extras discs on the special edition DVDs you'll see that they conducted various interviews with NASA to make sure they got all of their science right. So Planetes took the design from NASA, not the other way around. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That is of course true. Creating an aircraft design is a delicate, tiring process requiring lots of hard work and donuts. NASA of course didn't steal the designs.

I am only fascinated that something thats seen on the show has a very good chance of becoming an actual ship. It is an exciting era, isnt it?

--Cat out 20:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Usher requests unblocking

Hi, Cyde, User:Timothy Usher has been blocked on what appears to be a rather flimsy pretext. Can you look into the matter? He has requested an unblock. Thanks, Pecher ^Talk 21:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BITE

As you removed what you deemed "nonsense," as I was just about to do the same thing. The difference is that my edit summary was going to inform Hector-mo- that the templates' names had been mistyped (which is why Hector-mo- mistakenly believed that they were deleted, despite the fact that they seemingly never existed). This was quite easy to determine by simply examining Hector-mo-'s contribution history. Please try not to bite the newbies. —David Levy 04:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to explain the misunderstanding to Hector-mo-, but I see that you went ahead and deleted the actual templates (despite the fact that you'd already removed their premature deletion review). Does that seem appropriate to you? —David Levy 04:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You missed all the fun, please come to #wikipedia-en-admins on FreeNode where we are currently discussing this. --Cyde Weys 04:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

But to make a long story short, yes, it was entirely appropriate. Along comes a "newbie" who makes two edits to articles which are borderline vandalism and then immediately goes ahead to put two pieces of nonsense into Template: namespace. And then somehow he knows about WP:DRVU and files a disruptive request there. He's lucky he's getting away with 24 hours. I'm sick and tired of people thinking they're somehow entitled to put whatever nonsense they want in namespaces, so long as those namespaces aren't the main namespace. Well guess what, that's simply not true. Wikipedia is not a free webhost and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Somehow this user comes along with an entirely false notion of what Wikipedia actually is, and I can't help but think that he got it from this MySpacing userbox culture. He seems to think it's a place where you can just post random crap, and then you get to argue over random crap. We shouldn't have to put up with this. I'm not putting up with it. --Cyde Weys 04:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Hector-mo-bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) --Rory096 05:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what this user is here to do, but all indications point to "not here to help write the encyclopedia". --Cyde Weys 05:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the situation, and I don't know what to think. I've seen this type of behavior from trolls, but I also have seen it from a well-meaning user who happened to be autistic. I'm inclined to give this person the benefit of the doubt (for the time being), but I can understand why someone else would respond differently.

I share your concern regarding the deterioration of the template and category namespaces, but I don't believe that it's appropriate to snap at newbies who mistake the site for a social community. Some of them have the potential to become good contributors, but not if we greet them with torches and pitchforks. This particular user might be nothing more than a troll, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. —David Levy 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWB

My edit did NOT only affect whitespace - it also unicodified several other sections of the page, which you can see by scrolling further down the diff. Cynical 07:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planetes

You have just volunteered to expand the anime article :) --Cat out 10:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. --Cyde Weys 15:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). The issue of the name has not been resolved and therefore people are now recruiting others to delete. Feel free to make your judgement known, thank you. Nomen Nescio 21:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Clyde, I don't know how you decided to close that AfD so fast or how you failed to tally that there was clearly consensus to delete. But, since you have injected yourself into this debacle, why don't you now rename the article? Please answer on my talk page ASAP. Thanks. Merecat 22:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Dear Cyde/Archive005,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bush article

You may be coming here because I closed the AfD on the article about rationales for the impeachment of George W. Bush proposed by the impeachment movement with a result of Rename. Here is my reasoning:

• This entire AfD was a huge mess of vote-stacking, recruiting, flaming, pointless argumentation, sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry. Nothing productive was going to be accomplished.
• Just because the subject of an article may be POV (e.g. Pro-life) doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on it.
• The movement to impeach GWB is notable.
• The main article on this movement was already way too big to include these rationales, so they needed a subpage.
• The previous name of the subpage was POV.

Additionally, I have blocked two users for 24 hours for POV vote-stacking on this issue and I will gladly block any more that are pointed out to me that I may have missed. This is not accepetable. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't counted the votes and compared w/contribs, looked for socks, etc, but a great many of the votes were cast for delete on the grounds of WP:NOT a soapbox and NOT your blog.

• The movement to impeach GWB would be notable, if there was one. Unfortunately, there isn't a real movement, at least in the US. The blogosphere does not a mass movement make.
• People appeared to be gradually moving from a majority of Delete votes to consensus on merging the good information from the article to where it belongs. Just renaming the article is only a cosmetic change.

Thank you for your consideration. MilesVorkosigan 23:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. If you look at Rationales for impeaching George W. Bush, every heading has one or more "main articles" linked to refer to. So one would progress from Movement to impeach George W. Bush (bulleted list of topics) to Rationales for impeaching George W. Bush (one or two paragraphs) to the main, in-depth articles. All this article accomplishes is to add a layer of indirection and an opportunity for POV. Even given that there's verifiable, non-POV information in this article, the question of whether it should be collected in this page rather than in the main articles is, I respectfully submit, still one worth debating. Choess 01:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

By all objective measurements there does exist a very real impeachment movement and it is notable. It's even covered in the news fairly often by various pundits (either pro- or con-). The article does need improvements. Changing the name is just a beginning. But I don't think that Afd is an acceptable way to deal with POV issues. --Cyde Weys 23:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. My meterstick for a notable impeachment movement was 'is there any chance that someone in Congress might actually start impeachment proceedings (ever).' I guess that is a bit of a high bar. And yes, I know AFD isn't for POV problems, that's why I was mentioning the concern of a majority of the posters to the AFD about WP:NOT. MilesVorkosigan 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, impeachment proceedings have already started in some states and cities, so I wouldn't say it's unreasonable to say, in the next three years, that it may spread to Congress too. --Cyde Weys 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Then we really are talking about different things. My understanding is that impeachment of a president takes place only in the legislative branch of the federal government. Not so? (Not intended as an argument, by the way, I'm curious) MilesVorkosigan 23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to go back and read the Constitution again :-) Impeachment can occur with either a simple majority in the House and a 2/3rds majority of the Senate or a 3/4ths majority of State Legislatures (I believe). --Cyde Weys 23:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hrrrrmmm, is that right .... ? --Cyde Weys 23:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

14.114 Impeachment proceedings have been initiated by the introduction of a resolution by a member, by a letter or message from the President, by a grand jury action forwarded to the House from a Territorial legislature, by a memorial setting forth charges, by a resolution authorizing a general investigation, and by a resolution reported by the House Judiciary Committee. [1]

See bolded selection. A territorial legislature is a state legislature. --waffle iron ^talk 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A territorial legislature is not a state legislature hence the difference in terminology. --Strothra 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your Constitutional reference and raise you a citation and a Wikipedia article! Article 1, Section 3, the Senate has the sole power to impeach the president. States can also impeach, but that's for judges, etc. MilesVorkosigan 23:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No. In a Federalist system such as the United States there must be a clear separation between not only branches of Federal government but between State and Federal government. The matter of the President is a federal one. The legislative branch is the only institution capable of impeaching the president, for it's also the branch which launches and runs the entire hearing process associated with it. There is no such institution among states because the body which connects the states is the federal government (back to why impeachment is a federal process). I think that you are referring to the process by which amendments may be made to the federal constitution. Those do not need the legistlature but can be created by consensus among states. States have only a very limited power over the Federal government in that they are given certain authority to check its power which is why a representative legislature exists in the first place. The legislature is how states get to have their say in processes such as impeachment. --Strothra 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some ppl got there before me. --Strothra 23:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: Speaker, other officers, and impeachment: The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. That is to say, the House impeaches. The Senate's role is to try the impeachment.--Ssbohio 01:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any constitutional scholars in attendance? I do recall that state legislatures can directly bypass the Federal system in passing constitutional amendments. Hell, if they can amend the constitution, they could easily pass an amendment to let them impeach the president :-D Cyde Weys 00:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically they do not "bypass" the federal system by passing ammendments. The reason why that clause exists in the constitution is due to the englightentment belief in the creation of laws by consensus. Impeachments do not create laws, they are a federal matter. Ammendments are not just a federal matter because the states agreed to enter into a union sealed by the constitution. The states have the ability to ban together to adjust that constitution through concensus directly or through due process of the legislature. Allowing states to directly impeach the president would be a grave power of the states over the federal government. That is precisely why the first government of the United States failed. Powers were then put into place to protect the federal government and give it superior powers over the states. Allowing the states to touch the supreme executive by any means other than the legislature would endager that process. I would reccommend you picking up a copy of The Federalist Papers authored by Alexander Hamiliton and James Madison. It explains the American Federalist system in great detail which is very difficult to simplify in a short space.

Also, it should be noted that the way by which states may ammend the constitution is by establishing a Constitutional Convention. This has never been done and is extremely difficult to do because the size of the country leads to a diversity of pluralistic beliefs. Concensus is nearly impossible in the United States.

--Strothra 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde is almost certainly thinking of the constitutional amendment process, which contains a provision that 2/3 of the States can call a constitutional convention to propose amendments, which must then pass 3/4 of the states (this is off the top of my head, and I'm Canadian to boot, so I may have those backwards). None of the actual amendments have gone through this process - they've all followed the other method of being proposed and passed in Congress, and sent to the states for ratification. David Oberst 00:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You nailed it. --Cyde Weys 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely what I said in my origional post: I think that you are referring to the process by which amendments may be made to the federal constitution. That's typically something they teach in a grade school civics course in the states and in liberal arts government courses at public universities. --Strothra 01:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde is right in that the states could, theoretically, pass an amendment to the constitution granting the power to impeach the president to anyone. Hurray for the 'living document'.  :) Of course, the US's current Supreme Court would probably decide that the government could stop them by use of the interstate commerce clause. MilesVorkosigan 16:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On that matter

I'm not trying to take sides here (I didn't even vote). However, I'm fairly sure that it's not exactly commonplace to close a heavily contested AFD after just twenty-four hours. (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush_(2nd_nomination)). Many, many users and admins voted there (oops, I mean "gave reasons in an effort to reach consensus", of course ) both for keeping and for deletion, and I have a feeling that many of them have as good a grasp of AFD policy as you (and decided that a "keep" or "delete" was more appropriate than speedying the discussion)... so could you explain why you felt it justified to shut down the AFD? (Again, I didn't vote on it, and didn't even analyze the issue that closely--I'd gotten a spammed notification, and found much to my surprise that it had been closed before I'd even had a chance to think about how to vot--oops, there I go again.) Thanks... and happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That discussion was contaminated. If they want to try a third one they're welcome to, but I'm going to watch it very closely for vote-stacking. AfD isn't about how many people you can recruit, it's about the merits of the article. Also, the POV name of the article was throwing some people off, so I rectified that too. --Cyde Weys 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It might have been better to move this discussion to the talk page of the AfD. Having the discussion here implies you 'own' the dispute and it might open you up to unjust attack. Just a thought. --waffle iron ^talk 23:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In hindsight that's a good idea, but I didn't even think about the talk page of the Afd. The main page already is the discussion page, you don't regularly think of it having a talk page as well :-P Cyde Weys 23:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, there was no valid reason to close down that AfD so fast. What I saw there was consensus to delete, with keep and merge tied for 2nd. Rename was in 3rd place and was not the consensus at that page. Merecat 23:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyde, I'm concerned about you closing the AfD and also about your block of User:Morton devonshire. There is no policy against notifying people of a listing on AfD. There is not even a policy against asking them to support a certain position on an AfD. Johntex\^talk 23:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We've definitely blocked people for talk page spamming and vote-stacking before. If it's not written into the policy yet, it should be. We can't let people game our consensus system like this. --Cyde Weys 23:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"We've done it before" is not a good reason. There is no policy that supports this early AfD closure or the block of User:Morton devonshire. The same applies to your blocking of User:Nescio. I view these as out-of-process blocks and I request that you unblock them. Johntex\^talk 23:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, Cyde

I was the AfD nominator for the article for Rationales to Impeach George W. Bush. Even though I nominated the article for deletion, it was clear that there was not consensus to keep or delete. I've only been on Wikipedia since December 2005, but I'm under the impression you cannot delete an article without consensus but nominating an article again is in good faith (as opposed to when there is consensus to keep). Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I wasn't aware of vote stacking until I read your talk page, actually. I did see there were anons commenting, but that is wholly within policy. At any rate, I believe your decision was the right decision on the matter. It was a middle ground that appeased some of the keeps as well as potentially some of the deletes. Not everybody is happy of course, but Wikipedia is based upon consensus and compromise. Regardless of what I think of certain editors personally, the decision to keep or delete has to be made on the merits of the article. I believe that the majority of voters did make their decisions on that basis.

One question I have for you is that would it be proper for me to nominate this article for deletion review even though I believe that you made the right decision (as far as determining consensus), but I do believe that not everybody believes you made the right decision in determining consensus. BlueGoose 23:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review is almost exclusively used for undeleting things that have been deleted improperly, not for trying to get something deleted again. Generally people just open another Afd for that. And, for what it's worth, you could have just been bold and moved the page to a better name originally; you certainly don't need to bring it to Afd for that. --Cyde Weys 23:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I didn't think of the idea of moving the article until after I read Boud's comments. Nor did I expect that this AfD would cause this much of a firestorm. As the debate progressed, it was just clear that there were people passionate on the issue on both sides. BlueGoose 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. And you should know better than to think it wouldn't cause a firestorm :-P Off the top of my head I can't think of anything more controversial than this administration. Editors are people too, and many, many people have very strong opinions on these issues. --Cyde Weys 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

First, Kudos to you, Cyde for making a bold and correct move to stifle unproductive name-calling and bickering.

Second, in my experience, people are very territorial and will adamantly resist efforts to move articles. AfD is a good way kick people in the ass and establish a mandate for page renaming. --Mmx1 00:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sent to deletion review

Deletion policy states that deletion review "...also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora." I consider your early closure of the AfD to be out of process, and I dispute your closure action. Therefore, I have listed the matter at deletion review. Johntex\^talk 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• User:Merecat is a third user you have now unjustly blocked. What is outrageous is that you continue to throw blocks at people who are disagreeing with you. Again, there is no policy against posting messages asking people to come share their views on a topic. I request you unblock Merecat immediately. Johntex\^talk 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with users I disagree with (I don't even know Merecat's stance on any issues) and everything to do with votestacking. That there are people trying to allow this is absurd. --Cyde Weys 01:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Clearly you disagree with his encouraging people to speak on the issue. I don't even see where he is taking on side or the other. You have blocked him just for notifying people about an issue. This is completely unfair. Johntex\^talk 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See here. The ArbCom frowns on vote-stacking and talk-page spamming. --Cyde Weys 01:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see here for proof there is no policy against what these people are doing. You are not the ArbCom. I repeat my request you unblock these users or cite a specific policy that they have violated. Johntex\^talk 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The specific policy I am citing is disruption. See the SIP RFAr where the ArbCom confirmed that vote-stacking and talk page spamming is disruptive. Users can be blocked for disruption (SIP was). --Cyde Weys 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also see this RFAr where the ArbCom noted that StrangerInParadise was being disruptive in using a What links here feature to spam people to come vote (and SIP was blocked for that too). --Cyde Weys 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Again, you are not the ArbCom. You are not the community either. The community has set no policy that would justify your action. Johntex\^talk 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• SIP RFAr? What diff is that please? Johntex\^talk 01:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misread it. If I am looking at the right thing (which is hardly quaranteed since your link is not very specific), ArbCom said:

On March 4, StrangerInParadise used the Special:Whatlinkshere feature to contact 43 users with a certain userbox. He spammed them with a deliberately provocative attempt to stack the ongoing userbox policy poll [31]. The messages, headed "Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin" constitute personal attacks [32]. StrangerInParadise was subsequently blocked.

It seems to me what was disruptive was making a personal attack by claiming someone was a "rogue admin". Arbcom did not say there is a policy against using the Special:Whatlinkshere feature to find people to notify. Johntex\^talk 01:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Quoting "He spammed them with a deliberately provocative attempt to stack..." That's identical to what happened here. Describing an entry as a not much better than a blog is almost identical in provocation level. JoshuaZ 01:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I must say, I think you're on quite a roll -- an RfC and now people screaming for your head all in one month ;) Seriously though, vote-stacking is disruption and there are a number of ArbCom precidents which deal with that type of disruption and the meat puppet route (used by wikipedians not well versed enough in the system to check what links here :P). Some people will just never understand that consensus doesn't mean gathering opinions from everyone who agrees with you -- keep up the good work! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm not one to step down from doing what is right just because I may run into some opposition. --Cyde Weys 01:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate you call what you did "doing what is right".

Deletion Policy states "If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period, for example, a clear consensus for speedy deletion, a clear consensus for a speedy keep, or a consensus for a redirect. The debate should remain transcluded on the appropriate deletion page. If the proposed solution has not achieved a very clear consensus, the listing should remain for the full five-day period. Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea. [2] (emphasis mine) Clearly, discussion was ongoing and the AfD should not have been closed. Johntex\^talk 03:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing and protecting the Bush impeachment AfD

Why in the world did you take it upon yourself to close an AfD less than two days old? And then you protect it? And on top of that, you decide an article should be kept that had more than 2/3 vote for deletion? I have reopened the AfD for discussion. -- Cecropia 03:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you not seen WP:ANI? You don't seem to be acting on all of the facts. I urge you to reconsider. --Cyde Weys 03:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you will have to be more specific, as I don't know where on that long page the point you wish me to consider is. -- Cecropia 03:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm specifically referencing all of the stuff on vote-stacking. At this point a new Afd should be opened that is watched very carefully so that it is legitimate. The previous one is contaminated by evil. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! EVIL = Every Voter I  Loath. ;-) -- Cecropia 17:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I like that, I really do. Though to be perfectly honest, up until my involvement yesterday, I wasn't really involved in this dispute at at all. I think I do vaguely recall voting in the previous Afd, but I don't remember tracking it and seeing how it ended, and I sure as hell don't remember any interactions involving all of these various people. So it's really a stretch to say I loath them :-p Cyde Weys 17:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logging In

Cyde, you are wrong. Logging in has never been required for participation in DRV. If you wish to change that policy, go ahead and try. --70.213.229.55 04:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Logging in has always been required. Otherwise anyone on a dynamic IP address could just get hundreds of votes. That's ludicrous. --Cyde Weys 04:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere - this is not about votes. It is about proper procedure. Please stop your foolishness. --70.213.229.55 04:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Logging in is not required but the individual's vote will most likely not count. --Strothra 04:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just "most likely not count", it won't count. We've had some pretty bad sockpuppetry problems at WP:DRVU (multiple CheckUser bannings) and we sure as hell aren't going to allow an anon to vote, which is just throwing the door to sockpuppetry wide open. If the anon wants to have a say, that's fine, but phrasing his comment in the syntax of a vote with bolded "Undelete" is just very confusing, and something that the closing admin could possibly glance over without even realizing it wasn't proper. Hence why it's being kept out. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. I would think that an admin, however, would be better with words and not state that logging in was required for participation when it clearly is not required. That risks confusing users. --Strothra 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the comments of users on a DRV for which you are the nominator can also be seen as a misuse of admin rights. --?!? 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the comments of users on a DRV and protecting the DRV page is most likely an abuse of admin priviledges. Disagreement is not disruption. --PunkChicken 05:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not an abuse of admin rights. The only thing you're doing is trolling and being disruptive for the sake of disruptiveness. Everyone can see this obvious and plain fact. And now you're using a sockpuppet to evade a block. That's a very bad thing. --Cyde Weys 05:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, but perhaps you can trace this back to your immediate reversion of comments in violation of common sense and policy? And a block without any rational justification? Just a thought. Blocking a user for simply disagreeing with you is sad. --PunkChicken 05:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

I suggest that you complaining about "vote stacking" on the Bush impeachment AfD. For those of us who do not follow AfD reguarly, we appreciate those notes. Users regularly inform other users of debates if it is in a topic they think is in their area of interest. I received a note from Merecat, and that note was not act of vote-stacking. Merecat did not spam me, he sought my opinion, as he probably knows I am a longtime Wikipedia editor and historian who takes NPOV standards seriously. He probably knows that I have a different political orientation (I vote Democratic) and will not vote a certain way because it would suit his POV. Your attacks on Merecat for "vote stacking" are unfair, and especially troubling in light of your abuse of administrative powers to close the vote after only 27 hours. 172 | Talk 08:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat was solely contacting people he knew had a history of voting delete on this article. That is vote-stacking, plain and simple. --Cyde Weys 17:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Merecat contacted me asking for my opinion having no idea how I'd vote. Confirming by looking at my user history, I voted minutes before he'd contacted me. When contacting me, he hadn't noticed my vote. (He contacted me about the vote, not realizing I'd already voted. With realizing how I had voted, he had no reason to make any assumptions about my leaning one way or the other.) You're a good editor; so I can disregard the mistake you made when closing the second vote. Still, frankly, I think you owe Merecat and apology. It is fine to talk to people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built by a community. We as editors are supposed to talk with each other. That's why there are talk pages, after all. 172 | Talk 03:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

[edit] Reference Converter

Hello Cyde, I tried your reference converter tool for the first time today on Baby Gender Mentor. Your tool seemed to work beautifully! Thanks for creating it and to anyone else involved if you had any help. This is definitely a job well done, thanks. Johntex\^talk 16:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cydebot

Hi Cyde,

Cydebot was used for two mass-cfru renamings a few days ago at CFD (here and here). It did its job of creating new categories, deleting old categories, and moving articles succesfully, but it unfortunately did not remove the "This category is being considered for renaming in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Deletion policies" notice from the newly created categories. Please see Category:Youth wings of political parties in Afghanistan or Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Argentina to see what I mean. This notice is now not needed, as the cfru passed succesfully. Could the bot please be run through these categories again to remove the notice? Thanks very much, I appreciate your help. Kurieeto 18:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I just coded up another metabot that does exactly this and Cydebot (talk · contribs) is already at work! If you're interested, here's the code for the metabot:

This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or any later version. This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. See version 2 and version 3 of the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA

#!/usr/bin/perl

#This metabot removes {{cfr}}, {{cfru}}, and {{cfr-speedy}} notices from a list of category pages.
#This program takes as input any number of lines (copied from Wiki source) that contain categories.
#For example, the input could be hundreds of lines in the following format:
#  * [[:Category:Argentine aircraft manufacturers]] to [[:Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Argentina]] or [[:Category:Aircraft manufacturing companies of Argentina]]
#Or really, just any Wiki source that contains [[:Category:xxxx]] links.
#Be sure to save the input text to a file first and then redirect it to this program's stdin.

my $totalStr = "";
my $finalOut = "";
while (<STDIN>) {
    $totalStr .= $_ . "\n";
}

#print $totalStr . "\n";

my @categories = ($totalStr =~ m/\[\[\:(Category\:[^\[\]]*?)\]\]/gi);

foreach (@categories) {
    $finalOut .= "-page:\"$_\" ";
}

print "Beginning execution now.\n";
system("python template.py -remove -extras -always cfr cfru cfr-speedy -summary:\"Removing Cfd notices from surviving categories.\" $finalOut");

Cyde Weys 22:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey there cyde.

since YOU request it, i'll take the rest of the day off.

My original plan was to impeach every person that voted to delete with a reason that demonstrated they hadn't even read the article.

I have poured my brand of fire and brimstone, and been pretty gentle about it, i think, considering whats going on.

maybe by tomorrow, we can have >>who has what agenda<< figured out well enough that you will have a team "mentor" to hang with, and follow the lead of, and chat with. Nescio has been snubbing me. Probably because i come on like a dragon and don't let go. That might solve both of our main problems right there. Until then, the real problem here is that nobody answered our plea for help over abuse, and now, a mob has been constructed to have a republican book burning.

You were right to close the second afd the first time, and any fair review of this process would beforced to conclude that the side that cheated at that moment blew its claim to consensus process, and lost its right thereby to have a vfd. By the way, i like these little tags that strotha gets to place on me after he attacks me and i defend myself. Where were those tags when blue goose accused nescio of a bad faith rfc at the opening of the second vfd?

Systemic bias. It ain't pretty. Prometheuspan 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Wikibreak

Hadn't you agreed to lay off the userboxes if you were made admin? Perhaps I'm misreading... --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting RfA

Was there a discussion on this topic? If not, I would kindly like to ask that the redirect be restored pending a discussion. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects are against Wikipedia policy and break mirrors. The redirect you are looking for is WP:RFA. --Cyde Weys 18:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't. I've been using RfA for quite a while. If such redirects are against policy (I believe you, but could you point me to the article), you might want to take a look at AfD, too. youngamerican (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I dealt with the AfD thing. And no cross-namespace redirects is more of a technical thing than a thing written down in policy. Just ask the devs though. And especially ask anyone who's doing database dumps for mirrors. --Cyde Weys 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

gotcha. youngamerican (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automobile manufacturers (Cydebot)

Looking at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 24 it seems that the local usage for UK, AU and NZ seems to have consensus, I just wanted to check with you that the bot is doing what it is supposed to be doing. Ian3055 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Also by the MoS all of the EU categories should be Motor Manufacturers. Ian3055 01:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As the categories had been renamed I just closed this as the only outstanding one for that day. Maybe it would have been better to tell Cyde and let him close the cfd. If he wants to change it I have no objection. Tim! 16:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Consistency is God. It doesn't make sense to have the same exact kind of category named different things depending on what country it's from. "Automobile manufacturers" is unambiguous. "Motors manufacturers" isn't. Yes, local/regional spelling is preferred in individual articles, but when we're dealing with the site-wide organizational scheme, we need consistency. --Cyde Weys 18:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That alternative would be both inconsistent and misleading. It seems to imply that the U.K. companies just make motors, which are installed into cars only after being shipped out. And of course, we all know this isn't true. In reality they spend a lot of time gluing wood on the dashboard. — May. 12, '06 [07:15] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

So where your world view conflicts with reality, it's reality that's wrong. The UK trade body is the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Just zis Guy you know? 13:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Hi Cyde,

Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amin_al-Husayni#new_study

I am planning to add info from this source to the article, including to the 1st paragraph which you mediated succesfully some time ago, so after posting it in talk wanted to give you a heads up. Zeq 11:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Why did you delete the Template:User Tyrannosaurus Accident, Template:Triceratops Accident and Template:User Pteranodon Accident? (Iuio 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

Put that stuff on your userpage, not in Template: space. Templates are for helping to write the encyclopedia. There's a moratorium on the creation of new userboxes anyway. --Cyde Weys 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean, not to put my new userboxes in the template pages, but exclusively to my userpage only? (Iuio 23:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

Exactly. Just put the code directly onto your userpage instead of in templates. Templates were never supposed to be used for these userboxes anyway ... and soon, that's going to be enforced. Best deal with it now so you don't have to deal with it later. --Cyde Weys 23:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What did you do so that those templates appeared only on my userpage but not on User:Spartacus007's userpage, there, they only appear as red links? Also, I don't see a reason as to why you deleted Template:User Tyrannosaurus Accident, Template:Triceratops Accident and Template:User Pteranodon Accident. (Iuio 23:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

One step at a time. Those templates on Spartacus' page are sort of grandfathered in because they were created before the moratorium went into effect. As for the deletion of those three dinosaur userboxes ... please see WP:ENC. It explains everything you need to know. --Cyde Weys 23:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a page containing the monatorium? And also could you explain what you mean by "grandfathered in"? So, in the future, are userboxes not going to be templates anymore? (Iuio 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

The moratorium was listed on Wikipedia:Userboxes somewhere. See Grandfather clause. And yes, userboxes are all going to be subst'ed and removed from Template: space. --Cyde Weys 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is something I still don't understand. Why is it that on the userbox pages, userboxes made by me are gone but those made by others are still there? Also, how do you make a userbox by subst and can others copy a userbox made in that way? (Iuio 00:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Instead of putting the code for a userbox in a template and then including that template on your userpage, just put the code directly onto your userpage. And I really wish I could delete all of the others out there as well, but that isn't going to happen just yet. In the mean time I'm restricted to getting rid of the new ones as they pop up. --Cyde Weys 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to add a userbox to my userpage then convert it to subst? If so, then how? Also, I should just make a userbox as an article instead of a template? How do others copy that if they take a liking to it? (Iuio 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Subst just means that instead of linking the template name you're including the actual text of the template on the page. Here's what it looks like: {{subst:welcome}} becomes {{subst:welcome}}, and then when you save that page, the actual contents of the welcome template are substituted in for {{subst:welcome}}. And if anyone likes them and wants to copy them onto their page they can just copy the code. However, I must warn that you shouldn't be here to create "viral" userboxes that you want to see other people using. You should be here to write the encyclopedia. Userpages are a privilege afforded to encyclopedia editors. They aren't a right. --Cyde Weys 00:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As in "putting the code directly onto my userpage", what do you mean by that? (Iuio 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Instead of putting {{User fascist}} on your page, you would just copy the code directly from the template and put it there in its place. Just an example. --Cyde Weys 00:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So I would just put {{subst: User fascist}} on my page for instance? (Iuio 00:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Yes, assuming {{User fascist}} actually existed, which it doesn't .. it was deleted, and for good reason. --Cyde Weys 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The userboxes I created has no "subst:" part, yet they still exist on my userpage after they had been deleted. How can that be? (Iuio 00:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

The templates themselves are deleted, the links aren't (the links are what is showing up in red). And you can't substitute a deleted template. --Cyde Weys 01:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please put the codes for the deleted templates on my user page? (Iuio 01:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] MFD Notice

An article you recently created, WP:RTFE has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WP:RTFE and your input would be welcome. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You really don't need to bother with an MfD on this one ... --Cyde Weys 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just closed out the mfd, thanks. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block of User:Bestghuran

I have been following the edits of User:Bestghuran for quite a while. Now I haven't followed any of their edits related to zoos or aquariums, I do know that this user has contributed greatly to CFL related articles and I think that an indefinite block is unduely harsh. There does not even appear to be any mention of any wrong doing or attempt to explain to them what they have done wrong on this users talk page. So to block a user indefinately without even trying to warn the user or explain what they did wrong seems completely out of order. Qutezuce 03:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify for me why you thought even a 24 hour block, nevermind an indefinite one, was warranted without even leaving a note on the users talk page informing them of how they are violating Wikipedia policy? It seems like before any block should be instituted for good faith edits (not vandalism) at least one message should be left for the user. Qutezuce 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This user reverted, en masse, dozens of edits made to cleanup categories. Even worse, he did it twice. He should know much better than that. Additionally, I see his talk page is full of image copyright warnings. --Cyde Weys 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So the user doesn't have full grasp of Wikipedia policies, does that mean you block them without even leaving a note saying that they were blocked to their talk page? I don't know how blocks work, but I would imagine that if the user didn't try to edit during the 24 hours they were blocked they would not have even known about the block. And if they did realize they were blocked the first time how would they find out what exactly they did wrong (to the user someone else changing en masse categories that they had previously changed may be percieved in the same way you percieved their actions), and how to go about it in the proper manner. But you did not even leave a single note on their talk page.

What were you intending to accomplish with the block? Were you trying to punish the user for bad behaviour? Thats not going to work if you don't even leave them a note on their talk page. It's not like you had to block them to stop them from vandalizing pages or something. How would a block help things better then a stern warning on their talk page about going against consensus decisions?

And you also complain about this user doing the same thing twice. Now I don't want to shift blame here, but don't you think that things might have happened differently if you ever bothered to tell the user what they did wrong and to warn them not to do it again?

You also mentioned the copyright problems on images, and use it as a defense for your block. I think it is exactly the opposite: if you had seen that the user did not grasp the Wikipedia policies on image copyrights, why would you assume them to know other Wikipedia policies?

I'm frankly flabberghasted that you can (indefinitly) block someone without even leaving the tiniest of peeps on their talk page. Qutezuce 06:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a good response other than to say I'm sorry, I should have left some notification on his talk page, and thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Cyde Weys 06:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the undue harshness of my last message. After your first reply I got the impression that you thought not leaving a message on their talk page was not a problem.

All I ask is that you leave a message telling them what they did wrong and how to properly go about it. Oftentimes a note to a new users talk page will set them straight, and if not, then more serious measures can be taken. Qutezuce 06:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

You might be interested in the RfC I've just created. Raphael1 12:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Help Please

Hello, There is an article that I'm working on which is on my watchlist, it is for "the New Deal (Band)." The following message just came through: 6 May 2006 (diff) (hist) . . m The New Deal (band); 23:23 . . Cydebot (Talk | contribs) (Robot - removing category per deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 27.) This is very confusing to me--first, because it doesn't show up on the categories for deletion log for April 27th like it says; and also because this is a band on a major label and fulfills all the requirements for deserving their own article. It also seems rather out-of-the-blue. Could somebody please let me know what's going on? Cheers. Accipio Mitis Frux 16:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The bot was just deleting a category, nothing more. Don't worry about it. --Cyde Weys 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD and RfA

Could you please provide a real argument why these redirects should be deleted? Technically, they are no more cross-space than WP:AFD and WP:RFA. They are also still widely used, and deleting them has broken many old pages. I think I should undelete them, but want to hear your argument first why you think this matter should not go through the proper channel at WP:RFD. Regards, Kusma (討論) 17:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WP: and WT: redirects are (reluctantly) acceptable because they are very easy to sort out; just check if they match the regex /W[PT]:/ and you know it's a cross-namespace redirect. The mirrors can figure this out and accomodate for it. But when you throw cross-namespace redirects willy-nilly across all of Wikipedia article space, like AfD, ArbCom, No personal attacks, etc., it becomes a nightmare and everything has to be handled on an individual basis. We need to be treating our mirrors better than that. I don't think it's too much to ask that all cross-namespace redirects belong with WP: or WT:. We need to have an incredibly strong distinction between our encyclopedic content and our project content that helps make the encyclopedia. It's important to distinguish between process and content. When you buy Encyclopedia Britannica (hah!), you get bound volumes that are totally divorced from whatever possible squabbles or workplace rules were going on within the company. We need to be the same. It's very simple to say "All of the articles in the main namespace are encyclopedic content except those beginning with /W[PT]:/." It's very hard to say, "All of the articles in the main namespace are encyclopedic content except these couple dozens of exceptions..." You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia and notice that it uses no cross-namespace redirects ... it's all external links. There's a reason for that. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what Category:Unprintworthy redirects is for or more specifically Category:Redirects from shortcut and {{R from shortcut}}. I agree with the using external links for articles though. Kotepho 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Category:Unprintworthy redirects doesn't deal at all with this issue. That's populated with redirects that make sense in a computer context but not in a print context; for example, redirecting a spelling without diacritics to the actual article which does have diacritics in the name. Whereas the avoidance of cross-namespace redirects has nothing to do with a possible future print version and everything to do with being nice to mirrors now. As for Category:Redirects from shortcut, it seems to contain just about every WP: and WT: shortcut I've heard about. Know why? Someone used Special:Allpages/WP: and Special:Allpages/WT: to populate it. The random cross-namespace redirects haven't made it into this category because they're not easy to locate; any random user can create them and most haven't even heard the reasons why cross-namespace redirects are disallowed. --Cyde Weys 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

/#redirect [[(Portal|Template|User|Wikipedia|Category)([_ ]talk)?/ but that really isn't my point. After you have found it, tag it properly and/or list it on RFD. Sometimes they are kept or a better solution than deletion is found, such as the case of NPOV that points do the dab page Neutral point of view now (or it did, but that one is old and has tons of incoming links). Kotepho 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an argument that would work at WP:RFD, but which I find completely unconvincing for speedy deletion. As Kotepho points out, there are other ways that we can solve this problem than deleting (or even worse: replacing with {{deletedpage}} widely used redirects without discussion. Kusma (討論) 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been discussion on this, in the appropriate circles. Not everything needs to go up for a whole-community discussion. The devs have been pretty clear on cross-namespace redirects. --Cyde Weys 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

They have? Where? Did they say that redirects with more than 100 incoming links should be speedily deleted because they are cross-namespace? Kusma (討論) 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see an argument why cross-namespace redirects are all that bad, but have decided to just redirect AfD to AFD and RfA to RFA (and tagged the redirects as {{R from alternate capitalization}}). That way, they are no longer cross-namespace redirects, and at the same time, the old links at least don't break completely and are just one click away. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. And AFD and RFA are using {{selfref}}, so the cross-namespace redirect is clearly marked as non-encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 22:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the AfD redirector used the selfref template. So I don't see a reason for its deletion. 132.205.45.148 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Alt Acct Master

Well, now I'm a little confused. Template:User Puppet Master now redirects to User Alt Acct Master and the histories have been merged. I was under the impression that this template was supposed to emulate the old version, including its "whimsicalness," but that it should simply have all references to sockpuppetry removed in compliance with the current rewrite of WP:SOCK. As God of War said here, "userboxes aren't serious - if you want to be serious there is a different puppet template that's not a userbox." Do we maybe need to split these out into two userboxes--one officious and one humorous, perhaps {{User Alt Acct Master}} and {{User Minion Master}}? In any case, the Puppet Master userbox no longer exists, so we'll either need to agree upon the wording of this one or separate them out. It also seems rather strange to me that {{User Alternate Acc}}, which is not a user box, and {{User Alternate Acct}}, which is, have such similar spellings. AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The objection was more than just about the specific use of the word "sockpuppeteer". The proposed rewrite still uses keyed words like minions and master. These give the wrong ideas about what it means to have multiple accounts and what the purpose is. If a user wants to write something about minions and masters in their userspace, let them do it. But please, let's keep templatespace the best it can be. --Cyde Weys 20:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, whatever ... I'm really quite ambivolent about it anymore. I always perceived the old format as a declaration of "Yes, I use multiple accounts, but I'm not doing anything wrong with them so calm down." If you feel this version is better though, I'll leave it be, but I certainly find the lighthearded wording much more representative of the userbox's message. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This wording issue doesn't even matter anymore, it appears Tony Sidaway has solved the problem. --Cyde Weys 21:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? Anyway, now that I've thought about it a bit more, I think I agree with your point about the wording. Once it gets restored yet again, I won't have any objection to keeping it the way you had it. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not sarcasm. My preferred solution is to see it deleted, but since we can't seem to come to an agreement on what the appropriate use of templates and categories actually is, my tendered compromise is to at least keep the wording of it reasonable. --Cyde Weys 22:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mediation request on cartoon image display

I have requested mediation on the cartoon image display issue.[3] Raphael1 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Aecis disagreed to the mediation, I've filed a new request.[4] Raphael1 09:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please shutdown User:Raphael1's continued nonsense and reject this call for mediation immediately. Netscott 09:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken your advice. The mediation couldn't possibly have solved anything anyway. Raphael's beef is that he doesn't want the image to display, but that's not up to me; that's up to the entire community. He'd have to have some sort of mediation with the entire community, which is impossible. I suggest he stick to continuing to make his case on the article talk page, though I don't think he's going to get anywhere, as religious censorship is really fundamentally incompatible with western ideals of freedom of speech, and western ideals of freedom of speech tend to dominate on the English Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'll ask again.

• Hadn't you agreed to lay off the userboxes as part of Rfa? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Things change. The userbox policy we were working on that was supposed to fix things ended up getting derailed. Besides, I've never been the kind of person who thinks the same thing on Wednesday as on Monday no matter what happens on Tuesday. --Cyde Weys 21:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• So your word means nothing, then? Classy. -Objectivist-C 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That'd be a nice attack if we were actually talking about an instance in which I'd given my word or made any promises. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Making a statement like "But all of these issues are really in my past now ... I trust my fellow Wikipedians to deal with these issues and I'm moving on to other things." in the context of an RfA where many people expressed reservations about your apparent history of userbox-related belligerence implies a commitment. -Objectivist-C 02:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously my trust was misplaced. --Cyde Weys 02:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Your petulance becomes you. -Objectivist-C 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Your trolling defines you. --Cyde Weys 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
            • You're just that abrasive. -Objectivist-C 03:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
              • /me yawns I think we're done here. --Cyde Weys 05:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References at 90% size

Hello Cyde, you leaved a note on the Administrators' noticeboard yesterday about how you feel the common.css dispute should be solved by reverting the changes done to the common.css file. This has not yet happened, although it seems that someone added a references-small attribute to the list. Of course, adding a new attribute is a completely different discussion, and the references of many articles are still adversely affected by the font size of 90% on the regular references. Since no normal member can edit the common.css file, maybe you could do it? In any case, thanks a lot. —Michiel Sikma, 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I'm very sorry. It seems that the change was already made and the references are back at 100% size. I just hadn't refreshed my cache yet and was still seeing the old style sheet. I should thank you for taking the time to respond to the noticeboard, by the way. It had taken a while before I could get this to someone's attention and there were even some admins who didn't want to "touch" the issue. It's very cool of you that you did. —Michiel Sikma, 05:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avillia

Hi Cyde, on [WP:AN/I]] you said "Hacking of AWB to remove safety features such as the CheckPage. This was subsequently used by vandals to make fast-paced vandalism." - I was never aware that his software was actually used by anyone, are you sure this is accurate? Also, I emailed the people hosting his software a while ago, and they subsequently removed it (and his account according to their reply). thanks Martin 09:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degeneration

Why would the degeneration theory not be a good article to list in the List of alternative, disputed, and speculative theories? It has a book to its name, which is something i don't think can be said of the Time Cube. (Now that i think about it, Degeneration (biology) is probably a better name for it.) Bob A 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:RS and WP:V. Can you give me one scientific source that talks about this so-called "theory of degeneration"? I'm pretty active in this field and I surveyed a few other people in this field and nobody's ever heard of it. It sounds to me like it's just one of those weird crank hypotheses made up by a wingnut with a personal site - it's obviously not a real scientific theory. Is it actually notable? The mini article stub didn't answer any of these questions. It wasn't even sourced. --Cyde Weys 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The stub actually was sourced. That there was a book about it proves that it's a hypothesis being advocated. The book sold more than 5000 copies, so it meets wikipedia's criterion for authors. Also, the hypothesis is mentioned in the dutch wikipedia. As for the scientificallity of it, i'm not a scientist, so i wouldn't know, but it seems scientic (certainly more so than many creationist hypotheses), at least as a hypothesis, because it presents a model on which predictions can be made, and the predictions seem accurate, so i would expect wikipedia to at least have some criticism of it (which is why i created the stub in the first place). Anyway, it's much more scientific than the time cube. Bob A 00:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not scientific, though. Its supposed mechanism for "no new increase in information" is utterly and total BS. This is just the same as any number of random creationist junk. The predictions sure as hell aren't accurate; if they were, life would never have began, or if it had somehow begun anyway, it wouldn't have evolved past the very first lifeform - and obviously this is contraindicated by the fact that we are here! I would strongly support deleting this thing on AfD so I can't in good conscience undelete it. I guess you can try writing a better version of the article if you really want, but just a heads-up, it's going to absolutely ripped aparted and demolished by real science. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be wholly ignoring the fact that the issue at hand is its notability, not its scientificallity or correctness. Deleting articles on the basis of the last is impossible, and if we did on the second, english wikipedia would have less than a million articles. All i want is a good analysis of this hypothesis (as wikipedia has about everything else). Bob A 03:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 8th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 19	8 May 2006	About the Signpost

New worldwide rankings show Wikipedia strength outside US	Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
News and Notes: Milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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

[edit] RFC on cartoon controversy

I have no particular need to be involved in that cartoon controversy again. I voiced my opinion on it and concensus agreed. A bucketload of people seem to agree with you, so I'm sure you can miss my opinion without too much problems. If the blanking continues, feel free to inform me, and I'll post a protection request. (Be sure to keep the link with the massive concensus on hand.). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user box

I receive a demand to remove a user box (that you send to me) because it was claimed (by Tony Sidaway) that it is an attack on you. I wonder if this is the case why the userbox came from you ? If you are not offended by it feel free to revert my last edit on my user page. Best, Zeq 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing cats

What is the reason for all of these? And why say "fixing cats" when you are really removing cats? TheJabberwʘck 04:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Because I am fixing categories. Some templates didn't have Category:User templates, which all user templates (including userboxes) should have, and in addition, it's really inappropriate to be categorizing Wikipedians by faith. That sends the wrong message about what Wikipedia is all about. See Jimbo's statements on the matter. --Cyde Weys 06:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's great, but the edit summary is still kind of disingenous. Something like "fixing categories and removing inappropriate categorizations per <policy X>" would be more helpful, especially considering the number of changes you made. But no big deal.

Also, could you refer me to which of Jimbo's statements you are talking about? TheJabberwʘck 14:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "pointless category"

Can you explain what you meant by this? Every other religion has the same category. See Category:Wikipedians by religion -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the other religion ones don't have those categories anymore. And if you found any that I missed, either remove them yourself or point them out to me and I'll take care of it. These categorizations of Wikipedians by religion are simply inappropriate. This isn't a big religious discussion board with many "sides" - this is an encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me which ones exactly dont have a category? Please look at Category:Wikipedians by religion and do tell me -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So lets see.. We have "59 subcategories" at [5] but Zoroastrianism was too much! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you misunderstand. Right now I am just deleting the category links from userbox templates. At some later date I will deal with Category:Wikipedians by religion (probably through CfD). --Cyde Weys 16:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Put it on CFD then. Kotepho 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Second. If you want to start getting rid of these categories, list them all on a big CFD and get rid of them all at once. Changing the categorization of large number of pages by changing templates with the category that were purposefuly put there is not the best way, and doesn't get rid of the categories or people who have subst:'d them in. The community can wipe these categories off of the project alltogether, then a bot can just wipe them all up. If I were one to assume bad faith I'd say this was a backdoor move to set up the categories for CSD:C1. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am bringing them to CfD too. But you're just mass-reverting my changes to templates. It's not like I've been speedying categories or anything. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Note, I didn't admin roll these back, and I did preserve (and even add) the Category:User templates category to them as I came across them. Apparently it was fine for you to mass-remove these. I support any result that consensus decides on in CFD though. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Note 2, although I don't see anything wrong with these categories, I'm gonig to recuse myself from (at least most of) their [Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 10|CFD's]] becuase I've got too much wikiPOV regarding them. Due to the affect they have on editors though, I think that speedy deletion is a poor choice for most of them, but perhaps work on a category policy would help stime them from being problems in the future. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I really really don't mean to be rude or anything but is it up to you to edit the userboxes to remove the categories like this or is there a rule, etc? Thanks! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this stuff is harming that. --Cyde Weys 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quadell's remedy

I am hopeful that Ambi might be persuaded to accept Quadell's remedy. In any case, please keep an eye on my talk page. Thanks. bobblewik 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User infidel

I think the best compromise is to leave it as is. Those who want to use it can use it, and those who don't like it can ignore it completely. Of course it could be userfied as well, but how I'm expected to pick one user out of several dozens who use it? Perhaps some process for adoption of deleted userboxes could be started? Just deleting them one by one doesn't solve anything.  Grue  19:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah nah, userfied means substituted so that no transclusions are involved, not that it is put as a "userspace template" and transcluded from other user pages. That still has all the same amount of overhead and vote-stacking potential. --Cyde Weys 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Creationist

Could you explain why you deleted Template:User_creationist? I can't find any discussion on this prior to it occurring. Robwingfield 23:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD#T1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not another battleground in the culture wars. --Cyde Weys 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodog/User:2005

I've replied to your message at User:2005. Just thought I'd mention it here in case it's not on your watchlist. CTOAGN (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Latexcatsuit.jpg&Image:BiancaBeauchampCover.jpg

These images are listed fair use. I'm afaraid fair use images are not allowed in the User namespace. Could you remove them please?Geni 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your attention and interest in the recent AOL/IP issue. I appreciate your efforts. WBardwin 08:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, in the future, you may want to try IRC or alternative methods of contacting admins. Because only being able to post to your talk page doesn't really help to get a wide readership. --Cyde Weys 08:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This series of blocks was unusual -- as I am usually able to post to admin's talk pages. I did feel gagged! Thanks again. WBardwin 09:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference converter

Just discovered this -- very cool! Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why did you delete the creationist user boxes? What makes them different from all the other beliefs? Didn't we already go through with this before? And didn't we win? If you delete Creationism then I think you should delete Vegitarins and carnivores an satanist an chriastians. The are culture to. And also deleting pointless things is pointless unto itself. i hate you. If there is a Pacifist user box then you should make a Facist user box or delete Pacifists MegaloManiac 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vandalism of User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian

[6] Absolute. Fucking. Genius. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I hereby award this barnstar to Cyde, for treating religious Teeoneing with the tolerance and respect it deserves. Sam Blanning(talk) 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I laughed very loudly, especially at the outraged reactions. The correct reaction is, of course, to expand it still further until it implodes under the weight of its own absurdity. And I say that as a Christian - and thus well aware that if you want three opinions on a moral issue you ask two christians :-) Whatever you're smoking, I want some... Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who created the categories?

Could you please take a look into the history and tell me who created these three categories? Conscious 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zappa.jake (talk · contribs), why? --Cyde Weys 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I asked you because he left me a not-so-kind message denying it was him, and I decided to double-check (and WP:DRV wasn't very fast at that). Thanks again. Conscious 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Small crucifix anim.gif listed for deletion

Most people will be highly offended by this image and, even although I can possibly predict what you might even say on the images for deletion page, I would still appreciate your comments. Thanks, Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Responded there. I really don't think some people choosing to find an image offensive is a valid deletion criteria, though. --Cyde Weys 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My use of rollback

I rolled back your edits because you vandalized WP:AN/I. I did see that I entered it twice, and was on my way back to remove the second one when I saw your missive. Your edits to {{User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian}} were completely inappropriate. Please read WP:POINT again. JDoorjam Talk 20:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're accusing me of vandalism now?! That is completely unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I'd say your conduct today falls under Blanking, Silly, Attention-Seeking, User page (by transclusion), Image, and Template Vandalism. If you wanted to dabble in userbox irony, you should have done it at Template:User NPOV Christian. JDoorjam Talk 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The edit I made was removing a polemic and trolling post (already removed by Mackensen) and its duplicate, and you reverted it. That's unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your objection was to the title; you should have simply removed or changed it. I thought we'd all moved past stunts with userboxes, Cyde. What, exactly, is the end game here? JDoorjam Talk 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam is not the only person wondering that, Cyde. I am too. You can save all the explanations about how userboxes are not encyclopedic, or how some kinds of stuff is crap, etc... (I changed CSD:T1 to broaden what sorts of boxes can be speedied, today, after all, so that's the wrong argument to try on me, it won't fly) and focus on your out of process behaviour, which seems to be not quite as equanamable as it could be. I just do not get it. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You really need to work on your holier than thou behavior. It's not becoming, especially for one who became an admin in just the past few days. --Cyde Weys 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I let this one sit for a few days, often a good approach when one is a bit put off by what someone else says and is tempted to fire back a hot retort. In thinking things over I'm not really sure I'd characterise myself as being "holier than though" about this, or in general. I think my approach to things here (and elsewhere... I've been online longer than many 'crats here have been alive, after all) has been the same since forever, and I think it hasn't changed one bit because I became an admin here. The more germane issue though, really, is with your actions, which I think you've subsequently come to characterise as perhaps not quite as appropriate as they could have been. I'm hoping in future you'll give more careful consideration to your actions before doing stuff like that particular episode. I apologise if my words give offense to you, they are not intended to, but I think it's important not to leave this the way it was left. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do you think you're doing?

Why did you remove the categories from User Jain, User Hindu and User Chinmaya? I have reverted your edits. Please do not do this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DotShell (talk • contribs)

Can you give me one positive use for those user categories? We generally tend to frown on grouping Wikipedians by belief as that leads to unpleasantness and paints the false picture that Wikipedia is a bunch of various alliances squabbling with each other rather than just a bunch of users working to build an encyclopedia. How about just Category:Wikipedians? Emphasize our commonalities rather than our differences. --Cyde Weys 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you have no right to remove them as ruled multiple times. Secondly, it allows users to find other users who are like them. If I have a question about Hinduism that I myself do not know, I can ask another Hindu who might know. Recently, someone tracked me down by my NYC userbox to ask me if I wanted to attend a wikipedia meeting in NYC. If I was not busy, I would have gone. However, had they not found me by that userbox and category, I would have never known! This is just the tip of the iceberg. But this is off the main point, regardless of usefullness, you have no right to do that. --Shell <e> 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean I have no right to remove them? I have every right to edit templates (even anonymous IP addresses do). This is a wiki, and everyone can edit. Sure, if you run into opposing ideas you have to discuss and reach a compromise/consensus, but it's absurd to say I have no right to edit. And what is this about "ruled multiple times"? You have any links to that, or are you just making it up? As for user categories by city, I don't care so much, because that's not nearly as divisive an issue as religion (at least in America). For other parts of the world (say, Taiwan or Tibet), it's more divisive. --Cyde Weys 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to butt in, Shell, if you have a question about Hinduism then I would suggest going to WikiProject Hinduism rather than asking random Hindus. I'm an agnostic, but if you asked me a question about Ayn Rand you'd get nothing more useful than a blank stare. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good advice - and I've found them very helpful on a number of occasions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you are making a fool of yourself. Of course you have a right to edit but you don't have a right to blank pages, vandalize or do stuff like this. It has been ruled multiple times as you have done this before and the community has stopped you. Read some of Jimbo's talk archives. --Shell <e> 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blanking pages? What are you talking about? I already asked for links to your claim that I "have no right to remove them as ruled multiple times", but rather than actually responding with something to back it up, you've gone on to make more unfounded accusations. Do you have anything that you can back up or are you just going to keep on baselessly accusing me of progressively worse and worse deeds? And Jimbo's talk archives largely consist of users in the minority position trying to whine to get attention from "the authorities" (and subsequently being ignored). Do you have any specific links? --Cyde Weys 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said that you blanked pages. I am simply saying that although you are allowed to edit, that is an example of a forbidden action. Read Jimbo's archives and the UBX talk archives and you will see examples of how administrators have been forced to not remove these categories. --Shell <e> 21:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What part of give me specific links do you NOT understand? Jimbo's talk archives are huge! I think you're just making stuff up and giving me a reall--Shell <e> 22:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)y ambiguous place to go waste my time looking for it! The only way for you to disprove this (and get me to actually listen to you) is to provide specific links as evidence for what you are currently asserting without proof. --Cyde Weys 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I have many things that I need to do right now. I am not making up anything. You know exactly what I'm talking about. You can even look in the history for those templates. Now, stop removing the categories! --Shell <e> 22:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about since you are making it up. If you keep on reverting we're going to have to take more drastic actions. --Cyde Weys 22:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not making this up. Remember when Jimbo asked that all categories be removed from userboxes and they were (temporarily) and the community was very angered and they were re-instated? Just read the history for user hindu. Until then, I am too busy right now to get links and I won't play your childish game. --Shell <e> 22:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Heres a link for you [7]. Remember that? When Jimbo called for the removal of categories and they were reqired to be put back in? [8] Scroll down to Feburary then Janurary and you will see what I am saying even better. --Shell <e> 22:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked over those links. All I'm seeing in the first one is Jimbo requesting that categorization by belief be done away with, and I see one person agreeing with him and none disagreeing. There's some other irrelevant talk about userboxes, but c'mon, that was back in January. Things have changed significantly since then. And your second link just demonstrates a little bit of revert-warring over categories; it certainly doesn't demonstrate anything about them being "required to be put back in". I really just see you grasping at straws right now. --Cyde Weys 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you are just refusing the truth which has been presented to you. Look, I will put this simply, stay away from userboxes. I thought we had learned something from your actions on user christian. --Shell <e> 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for listing templates on tfd instead of just speedying them. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOL?

LOL?--152.163.100.9 01:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked for disruption.

You have been blocked for disrupting Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the blocking administrator was unable to bring this up at WP:AN/I, because before he got a chance, you blocked him. While certainly a wily maneuver, this sort of quid pro quo warring with other administrators is frowned upon. It is not wheel-warring, per se; it is more like...

... in Fight Club, where Ed Norton thinks he's fighting Brad Pitt, but really he's kicking the crap out of himself.

We will call it punchyourselfintheface-warring.

Please note that I substed the spoiler templates, so they won't turn into a thousand snakes, or perhaps a spinning Jesus. You are safe.

What I'm trying to get at, Cyde, is that obviously the fun you had with {{User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian}} pissed me and other people off, even though I also thought it was extremely funny. But what irked me more is that I think you're a good contributor. Wiki adminning ain't easy but you make it happen, and so it's frustrating when stuff like this happens. As User:Metamagician3000 said on the talk page for {{User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian}}, you're a valued user. We're waaaay more often on the same side than at odds with each other; even before you and I were admins we were able to have civil discourse about the Userbox Destruction of Alderaan (apparently "Holy War" is in bad taste). We need a better policy about template space (i.e., only content used to build the encyclopedia in the template space), but until we get one, pleeeeaaaaaaase don't pick fights with the little guys. Please.

so, anyway!

ahem ::

When your block expires, please edit constructively. And do not spin Jesus around. Dizziness he will not forgive. If you continue to destroy Wikipedia singlehandedly, you will be subject to blocking yourself for even longer periods of time; eventually, you may be so disruptive that you will have to become a bureaucrat in order to de-sysop yourself. Very sincerely, JDoorjam Talk 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole blocking myself thing isn't nearly all that it's cracked up to be. I have Cydebot (talk · contribs) working on some WP:CFD stuff, and everytime I hit a redlink anywhere on Wikipedia, boom, I trigger an autoblock and Cydebot gets blocked. So Wikipedia is like a minefield to me and each redlink is a Bouncing Betty. --Cyde Weys 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked myself. It's not nearly as good of an idea as it sounds (and I don't recommend it to anyone else). I found it restricting lots of work I needed to do to process the CFD backlog, so I unblocked for the good of Wikipedia. As Jesse says, "Blocking *anyone* who's not actively trying to edit in a damaging way is a bad idea." --Cyde Weys 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cydebot category renaming to "People condemned by Nazi courts"

Hi Cyde,
Your bot does great work, but I fear it may've been released on the above a little prematurely...? Yours, David Kernow 03:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a big deal. If you're re-categorizing, the name of the old category doesn't matter anyway, and in the mean time, until someone does take the time to go through and re-categorize, it is under a better name. Win-win. --Cyde Weys 03:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem; I was concerned in case you weren't aware. Thanks, David 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointed, confused

Cyde, I supported your RfA when you were saying you were going to get out of the userbox business. That turned out to be a bald-faced lie, which suggests a lack of respect for those who supported you. Since you're generally doing good work, I didn't say anything. Now though, with this Christian userbox nonsense, I'm just really saddened and disappointed. What's going on with you, man? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Those previous statements were based on the assumption that the (then ongoing) Userbox Policy Poll would succeed and the problem would be solved with mass-userfication. It didn't; rather, it got slaughtered in a rather merciless act of votestacking using userboxes. I will uphold the statement once userfication finally succeeds. --Cyde Weys 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And {{User:Christian}}? What story do you tell yourself to make that ok? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a "story" for that one, hence why I am currently blocked. --Cyde Weys 04:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(e.c. with AmiDaniel below) Fair enough. It sucks because you're pretty much right, but then you go and make agreeing with you distasteful. That's kind of weird. Are you just irritated with the slowness of userbox deletions and eternal DRVs? Do you need for someone else to drive the deletion truck for a while; is it getting to you? If the new T1 sticks, this shouldn't be an issue anymore. You've done a lot of good work, you deserve a break, if you want it. Don't worry, we'll keep the fire burning. Maybe I'll delete some userboxes this weekend... -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with GTBacchus here. I regard you as a very trustworthy admin, but your actions on the {{user christian}} userbox are something for which an average user would be blocked indefinitely as a troll, and you would probably support the indefinite block of that hypothetical average user as well. This is the absolute lowest form of WP:POINT I have ever seen. I am absolutely appaled that such a reputable admin with as commendable a history as anyone could hope for would stoop to such unbelievably low depths just to ged rid of something he doesn't like. I have to second GTBacchus' feelings of disappointment and confusion, and I recommend that you remove yourself from the userbox debate altogether, as you clearly have let your passionate opposition to userboxes get the better of you. Just keep in mind: they're nothing more than tiny bits of text enclosed by a thin black frame. I generally agree with your views on (most) userboxes, but they're nothing to get upset about or to ruin your reputation over. I am very disappointed, and I hope you'll make ammends for this remarkable lapse of judgment. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that certainly told you, Cyde. I hope that from now on you will bear in mind that the Internet is serious business. In fact, I've half a mind to add a notice to that effect to the top of WP:DRV/U. For my part, in contrast with GTBacchus, I find agreeing with you highly enjoyable. Too many editors forget that anything that happens in the userbox war has no significance whatsoever, it being two steps removed from the encyclopaedia we're here to edit (articlespace -> editors -> their userboxes), with the exception of userbox-related blocks. I'll start wagging my finger and citing WP:POINT at you when something happens that a non-editing Wikipedia reader - apparently, such people do exist - would see and disapprove of. And on that subject, your block is unjustified. I think you should be unblocked and the abusive admin who did it blocked instead. (yes, I am aware of what this says, before someone goes "omg wtf"). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The two-steps-removed argument, while spot-on, completely demolishes Cyde et al.'s defense that it was all done in the name of NPOV. Cyde, I found it very unfair of you to block yourself. Sam is right there, that should be a blockable offense. If only because it would have been such a nice precedent. I think others were already setting up socks to use this successful approach to get rid of some Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist and Atheist user box templates. Think of the fun they could have had. Duh. AvB ÷ talk 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep your cite bot off talk pages

I noticed your bot fixing redirects for {{fact}} templates on article talk pages. Please don't do this; it's changing what users seem to have said. I know it's basically synonymous, but I think we should preserve users' statements even beyond synonyms. Thanks for the article-space work, though. --Davidstrauss 11:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've limited him to just article space. --Cyde Weys 14:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Any particular reason you're running it not logged in? Cydebot (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) isn't blocked. Anonymous bot edits look pretty weird on a watchlist. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I think something's bugging. Most of his edits are coming through under his real account, but some are slipping to the IP? Someone commented that Wikipedia might be flooded and losing session data. I myself have found myself getting logged out a few times today while just browsing. --Cyde Weys 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User boxes

Continued from Template_talk:User_Christian: Like you, I oppose the use (and existence) of (politicoreligious) user boxes. Perhaps the following may be of some help.

The user box issue has two sides:

One side is the effective advertizing on one's user page of one's personal biases (which may or may not be a good thing), credentials (which depending on one's view of Wikipedia may well be a bad thing). If this side is a problem, however, it is not solved, since one can always list such things on a user page without realtime inclusion of a template.

The other side is effectively offering the whole world a way to canvass (and Wikipedia editors to organize a posse or a lynch mob) due to the fact that these boxes usually contain one or more category tags.

Once a user box template has been deleted, editors can no longer simply call the template. However, they can still copy the code from others - just like it always was: you meet an editor you (dis)like, go to their user page, see a user box you'd like to have yourself, click edit this page, copy and paste. The same applies to the category.

In other words, I was wondering if you had thought it through. The templates are not the problem. Advertizing personal info on user pages (with or without user box) may be a problem. Doing same using categories can be a bigger problem. Both remain possible without user box templates.

The way I see it, the problem can only be solved by banning (certain types or all) user information and user categories as per policy (either by consensus or by decree from above). Fighting user boxes any other way may prepare the way for this, but it is not going to solve the problem by itself.

Just my two cents. And please don't WP:POINT again. I found it truly embarassing. Really. AvB ÷ talk 12:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, funny, cute, but in the end not in keeping with a serious project. You have a substbot don't you? I'd say you should have run that first. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Teehee. It refused. It always does. I made it too intelligent. But it's a canvassbot, not a substbot. If it works, it automatically spams, erm, recruits users who self-identify as members of certain categories. In other words, I'm serious about the vital shortcomings of T1 - even with sufficient traction it still won't solve the real problem I'm afraid. AvB ÷ talk 00:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for taking the time to clean up useless templates. I may disagree with two of them for personal reasons, but it doesn't mitigate your efforts. Thanks man! --mboverload 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

At the current rate it is going to take over a year to deal with all userboxes, and that doesn't include the new ones that are being created in the mean time :-O Cyde Weys 05:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. Sadly, people saying "Keep" in the debates don't seem to understand that deletion takes them out of template space, but doesn't "destroy" the boxes, which can still be used on user pages (some of which I still oppose there, but they are far less disruptive there.) That message just isn't getting through, and I suspect some are willfully misstating the facts in order to "save" boxes in template space, where they can keep Myspacing. But I suppose that is not WP:AGF on my part. ;-) Nhprman 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template of User Cow Vandal

I hope this message doesn't bother you, but, why on earth did you delete the userbox template, User Cow Vandal? I know your description said Personal Attack on the deletion log, but I don't find any attack. Please correct me of my mistake on the personal attack userbox on my talk page. Thank you. Weirdy 08:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

It was a direct personal attack on Tawker. --Cyde Weys 10:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi Cyde/Archive005,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jain and Hindu Userboxes

I have decided on a compromise offer. You keep your category and I keep mine. OK? It will still have user templates but it will also have the category it originally had. --Shell <e> 12:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a compromise at all, seeing how how Category:User templates is necessary and not even to be negotiated on at all. Methinks you were just repeatedly removing it to try to manufacture some compromise. --Cyde Weys 13:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave the categories alone. We have each gotten our way now. Also, on that category page it does not say that it is MANDITORY. --Shell <e> 14:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just thinking aloud again

You said Personally I find the whole symbol ridiculous. Especially the really explicit ones with Jesus still on it and the painted on leaking blood from the Longinus wound and hands and feet. Why you would want something like that in your house or around your neck is beyond me. here which made me think of the dying-God-motif (Life-death-rebirth deity) and the extensive emotional relationship fundamental Christianity has with the blood-and-gore of the death of the Christ including regularly eating God and drinking God's blood (Eucharist). The Old Rugged Cross was sung very frequently in the churches my parents took me to.

On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
The emblem of suffering and shame;
And I love that old cross where the dearest and best
For a world of lost sinners was slain.
Refrain is: 
So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross,
Till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
And exchange it some day for a crown.
O that old rugged cross, so despised by the world,
Has a wondrous attraction for me;
For the dear Lamb of God left His glory above
To bear it to dark Calvary.
Refrain
In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,
A wondrous beauty I see,
For ’twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,
To pardon and sanctify me.
Refrain
To the old rugged cross I will ever be true;
Its shame and reproach gladly bear;
Then He’ll call me some day to my home far away,
Where His glory forever I’ll share.
Refrain WAS 4.250 13:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Userfying userboxes"

Hi,

I have noticed your bot seems to be going through and changing templates on user pages to subst:. Is there consensus for this?

From a technical standpoint, I wouldn't think it is necessary, because user pages are probably hit comparatively rarely, and so the ability to update templates (and save database space) probably outweighs the extra database strain in this case.

Of course, I wouldn't disagree if users chose to userfy userboxes on their own userpage, but on others seems somewhat extreme. A1kmm 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the only reasonable compromise likely to occur - see {{User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian}} and {{User atheist}}, both of which were deleted before being substed, which is probably worse than substituting first. T1 allows deletion of userboxes such as these; they certainly have no business being in template namespace. I'm doing everyone using these userboxes a favor by substituting them (which keeps the look on their userpage exactly the same). --Cyde Weys 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then at least give us a text or code that we can put on our pages to tell your bot to stay out. --Shell <e> 14:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I did ... substituting is directly putting the template code onto all of the userpages that had originally included the template. --Cyde Weys 14:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what substing is. I said give us a way to tell your bot to stay off our user pages. --Shell <e> 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You won't even have a choice in this matter for much longer. Once the template is deleted, if you kept the bot off the userpage, then the userbox would simply disappear. Unless that's what you actually want, substitution is preferable. --Cyde Weys 14:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I understand you have tremendous distaste for the user boxes, and quite frankly, I can understand why since they have no encyclopedic purpose. I discovered this "campaign" against them the day I discoverd them. As for substing, I think that's a fantastic compromise and am not at all opposed to it other than I won't be able to identify fellow users of similar taste, but I guess that's the point, isn't it? Not knowing other users' politcal and religious tastes will help stop conflicts. But I'm curious how much real damage this is truly causing. Are these templates really so detrimental to WP's servers' performance? I'm not looking to change your mind; I am genuinely curious what it is you're working so hard to stop. --ThatNateGuy 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I really hate to use it, as its usually not civil in 99% of instances... but in this case it would seem you are simply being a WP:DICK. No offense intended, but wikipedia is not a soapbox, and if you have a WP:POINT to make, whatever, but at least dont be asinine about it. Wait until the Vote process has been completed and you have won (which it seems is certainly not going to happen in at least several instances) before you enact your bot on this nonsensical crusade. Preemptively substing before the debate is done is quite a bit more hubris than wikipedia needs from any of its users. Once again I mean no hostility by the WP:DICK linkage, but in this case it seems to at least be somewhat accurate.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Jimbo v. Willy

OK, I'm wrong. Sorry.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All the boxen!

Hi! I noticed you apparently have a lot of time on your hands and are spending it by putting loads of boxen on TfD. While I'd generally recommend more fruitful contributions (like writing articles), I'd also like to remind you that you should really put {{tfd-inline}}s on them. You may not like it that it'll attract "keep" voters, a lack of a TfD notice may be a valid basis for putting them on DRV later on and we don't want that, right? Misza13 ^{T C} 16:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this; while I don't care about these templates enough to speedily keep them myself (which would be the correct thing to do), you as an admin should know how to nominate a template for deletion. Also, please don't use "not funny" as a reason; you demonstrated that you have a rather weird sense of humor recently, and most of these templates are a lot funnier than your recent "fun" at User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian. Kusma (討論) 18:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to chip in here, and say that it's really important to follow procedure when dealing with somethign like this. It's fairly new policy, and affects a lot of people, so it needs to be done right. Please add {{tfd-inline}} to your recent nominations, and maybe even move the discussions to today to give everybody the full amount of time before they are closed. SeventyThree^(Talk) 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Phew ... I just added the text to the lot of 'em. I dunno, some of them kind of "broke" though. They sure look much uglier now, anyway. --Cyde Weys 20:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sumofpi2 deletion

You recently put a deletion notice on the sumofpi2 template. When you did, it through off the whole table in the list of math userboxes. Instead of it having

   PI=3.1415980287400
        981207589401221
        8410322142104124
(obviously I don't have the real value)

it has

 PI= 3.1415987498120794 18924037189204732891 12378940712904 47238190479012 4123890471290 ..

which skews the whole page Can you fix it?

Macwiki 20:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been fixed Macwiki 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

Please do not spam your personal opinion on a underbox's deletion into it. Please use a more neutral template. Thanks! --mboverload 20:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cydebot is prescient!

Parks of Foo and Foo Parks to Parks in Foo - The result of the debate was rename per nom. Syrthiss 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Parks in Tehran - 16:22, May 13, 2006 Cydebot m (Robot: Moved from Category:Tehran parks. Authors: SouthernComfort, Pouya, Mattbr30)

Did someone close it before I did and just not put a closing notice? Looked through CFD/W and didn't see them listed so I want to make sure I am not crazy. ;) --Syrthiss 22:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It also copied the cfru notices over to the new cats. I've fixed that. --Syrthiss 23:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just modified pywikipediabot so that it shouldn't do that anymore, tell me if you do see it occurring. --Cyde Weys 02:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template Space.

Hi, I just saw that my antiderivative's template space. But I think that it's inappropriate use space for Template space because it belongs to Mathematic Template Space. So, It's not necessary for great template Space. How do you think about that? But, Some of them wants to be existed. So, What's wrong with Template (My antideritave)? I think that someone decorated template. That can be reason. Anyways, Could you send me message about Template Space? Thanks. Daniel5127, 03:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User Cyde, your template hunting spree is quite meaningless for those templates are protected by Template:Humor. -- G.S.K.Lee 09:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and transclude Template:Humor from every userbox. That's a great solution. --Cyde Weys 17:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, Template:Humor is used to mark up Wikipedia pages so they don't get confused with policy or serious business about running the encyclopedia. Project space is already inherently non-encyclopedic. Template and category space, however, were created to help write the encyclopedia, so Template:Humor can't really apply to them. --Cyde Weys 17:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake from Cydebot

[9] Please see what made my page go crazy. Thanks --Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This was already discussed at User talk:Cydebot ... long story short, during a content dispute, the template was messed up and Cydebot ended up substituting that messed up version. --Cyde Weys 18:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes?

How come you don't use any userboxes but recently request a bunch of userboxes to be deleted? Why were userboxes created - free expression. x1987x^(talk) 15:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just happened by Cyde's site and couldn't pass this up, if he doesn't mind. "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." also "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." (from What Wikipedia is not). Cyde understands these policies and is a great defender of Wikipedian principles. - Nhprman 17:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Nhprman, BUT: if one were to wiki Wikipedians, one would find a sentence that describes Wikipedians as a color and creative bunch. Without userboxes, how would we express our creativity..? 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC) The Hero of Time

Wow, are you serious? You think copying a template is expressing creativity? I have a better idea ... how about writing a story, or maybe some poetry. Hell, compose a song. But copying over some templates is the opposite of creativity. --Cyde Weys 20:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But it would seem that writing a story, poetry, or a song and posting it here is exactly the MySpace ideology that deleting userboxes seeks to abolish... AmiDaniel (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't say that they should do it here :-P Cyde Weys 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, okay. Just clarifying ;-). AmiDaniel (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be mean to the Userboxes... Just SMILE!

[edit] Excuse me

But there seems to be a grudge against you and User:Nathanrdotcom. Why is that so. is it against what policy to do it? Whopper 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, there's no grudge, I just wish he would abide by the guidelines and clean up his sig. --Cyde Weys 23:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you attacked me, were repeatedly incivil and broke several Wikipedia policies (WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL while bullying me). I would call that a grudge. You don't get what you want, you start bullying? It's a guideline, a suggestion, not a policy. Big difference. "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar" - ever heard that one? — nathanrdotcom ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 02:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to play these silly passive-aggressive rules-lawyering games. I asked you to conform to guidelines; you did not. End of story. --Cyde Weys 02:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing userbox debates

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Closing_userbox_deletion_debates (since you closed a bunch of them). TheJabberwʘck 01:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User boxes

Why do you want to get rid of so many user boxes? How are they hurting anyone? Its not as if they appear in any articles, and the general public (people who are not registered users) rarely if ever look at user pages. And your reasoning, Unencyclopedic template, doesnt make sense, as per reasoning stated above. Also, simply not funny, no point in having around is a purely relative term. Perhaps you just dont get or understand the satire behind the user box(es). No one is forcing you to use the boxes. Thanks. --Gephart 06:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll address your points in order. I don't want to get rid of userboxes per se, I just want to get rid of unencylopedic templates. I don't care about userboxes that are fully in userspace because I realize there's nothing I can do about them. "Not hurting anyone" is not an inclusion criteria. We are here to build an encyclopedia, nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia is not an experiment in social networking. So just because something "isn't hurting anyone" doesn't mean that it should be permitted to stay. Although, of course, my contention is that userboxes are hurting things, because they give the wrong kind of impression about what Wikipedia is (as well as aid in vote-stacking efforts, several of which I have documented). I've seen people introduced to Wikipedia by way of, "Check out the userboxes, put some on your userpage." And then they inevitably end up using all sorts of userboxes that group Wikipedians by nationality, religion, beliefs, et al. It's not good. I believe Jimbo himself has said that it is poisonous to our culture. I agree with him. And frankly, I find your accusation that I don't understand humor or satire rather inaccurate seeing as how I tend to accumulate barnstars for my humor-related contributions. A few jokes in the course of normal Wikipedia process is one thing, but when I see userpages that consist of dozens upon dozens of tiring userboxes (that no one even takes the time to read), I can tell it's gone way overboard. If you want to write jokes you can start a page on MySpace or something. You don't need to use templates, which were created to complement the encyclopedic content, to showcase your stabs at humor.

Regular people reading the encyclopedia end up reading userpages far more often than you would guess. Any time they come across a user page sprawled with dozens of silly and unproductive userboxes, it lowers their opinion of Wikipedia a little bit. It's simply unprofessional, and readers tend to doubt the seriousness and quality of the end result if the people who have made it are associated with such unprofessional silliness. --Cyde Weys 08:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree mostly with your comments, but to step in; surely you don't want visitors to get the impression that Wikipedia is a dictatorship that doesn't allow any fun or freedom? I know thats a long stretch, but if the prescence of a humorous userbox can lower their opinion, what about my point then? Mopper ^Speak! 08:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We do allow "fun" and "freedom" on userpages. Some people take it too far, and some people take it waaaaay too far, by creating dozens of pointless jokes in the template namespace and then campaigning to get as many other people as possible to include it on their userpage. You know you've seen the last bit ... a talk page message with something like "Here's this new userbox I just created; if you like it you can put it on your own page..." --Cyde Weys 08:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] how short is short

When some are calling for the standard signature to be enforced - just how short do I need to go before I'm left alone? Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 08:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one, I noticed you have a link in your sig to User:Archola/The_Centrist_Fellowship. I don't really know what that is but it isn't necessary to have a link to it from your sig; just link to it from your userpage or something. All of the font color tags take up a lot of room too; you might want to condense them down. Also, the Esperanza link isn't really necessary – that's another thing you can link from your userpage (and also, your name will be on the Esperanza member list). If I were you, my sig would look like this:

Sophia 08:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you really wanted the user talk link you could do something like this:

Sophia 08:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde Weys 08:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And check it out, I just made my own sig even shorter! --Cyde Weys 08:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to trell Esperanza that as when I joined I was given advice on how to be a good member and this included linking it into my signature. In fact that's how I found out about the project as a newbie - by clicking on other users funny coloured letters. I will do something about my signature but I need a day or two to think about it if that's ok. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 08:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Esperanza link is kind of unnecessary though; the reason they have you put it in your signature is for advertising reasons. This isn't really appreciated by people outside of Esperanza because it inflates the sig size and adds a rather unnecessary link; sigs shouldn't be link farms, they should be linking only to the absolute essential information. --Cyde Weys 08:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Again - Esperanza need to know this and I'll let them know your concerns. I have a problem with my name in that my user ID is actually SOPHIA as there is already a Sophia who made 1 article edit 2 years ago. I'm watching to see if she ever comes back actively as I'm aware what I've done to my name may cause people to confuse the two of us but I didn't really like the capitalized version of my name as to me it always looks as if you are shouting ('ol intenet protocol is very well ingrained in me I'm afraid). I'd appreciate some ideas as you are obviously a much better HTML programmer than me! Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 09:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about that other Sophia. She doesn't edit at all. And even if she did, her signature wouldn't be purple, so we'd still be able to tell the two of you apart. Plus, anyone can simply mouse over the link in your sig and read the URL which clearly shows User:SOPHIA. --Cyde Weys 09:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Better? Still not sure about the lack of direct link to my talk page and I haven't told Esperanza yet that I've dropped the link less than a week after joining but I feel the hounds are massing and I'm getting messages from people I've never come across before - so - the community will is obeyed by a loyal unquestioning citizen. Sophia 10:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better! Very nice sig! It has a sort of simple elegance to it. And don't worry about Esperanza - they're not allowed to exclude you from their club for something as silly as a sig link :-P Cyde Weys 10:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes on TFD

Hi Cyde! I would like to say that I am pleased that you have brought these userboxes to TFD where they can be debated in a much much more peaceable manner than on the DRVU page with calls for desysopings, bans, hanging, drawing and quartering. I have not agreed with all your nominations, but on several of them I have called for a move to userspace or outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hrrmmm, I was kind of hoping on a call for all of them to be moved to userspace at least; they simply shouldn't be templates. Remember, substituting them means that the appearance of the pages that had included them is exactly the same. The only difference is that they are no longer in template space, where they tend to bug encyclopedia-wonks such as myself. It's a compromise where everyone "wins", and I do think it is a very generous compromise. I'm not asking you to give up your userboxes at all, even though, ideally, what I would want is for all of them to go the way of the glacier in another century. --Cyde Weys 09:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Just a little note - a friendly request more than anything, but you are welcome to not act on it. I personally think that closing debates that you have brought to TfD, and refering to them as "junk" could be seen to convey a bad faith image. I understand you may dislike userboxes for whatever reasons, but I think you should try and express your opinions in a slightly better way, since they do form peoples contributions, and it is a sensitive area (people have left due to the userbox debate). Also - I personally object to you closing debates you have brought to TfD, since I think it would be better for someone with a more neutral POV to handle it. I also would doubt closing TfDs on userboxes before they have finished, again due to sensitivity, and because there are such a wide base of opinions that can arrise over time. I hope you can view this as I intended, and can see my slight cause for consern. Thanks! Ian13/talk 16:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm the only one who's actually bothering to substitute these things. No one else has a bot and is willing to put in all of this work. So me closing the debates is probably the best solution. I'd like to clarify that nothing is being deleted outright - none of the user page appearances are even being changed. --Cyde Weys 18:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the technical side does make you the person for the job. I just would personally like to see someone else make the final judgement, but I would hope you were as impartial as possible anyway - so it should be an issue. I do still think the comments could be made a tad more constructively than "junk" though. Thanks for your reply! Ian13/talk 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also there have been conserns over your 'everybody wins' view - so it does make me think you should hold your horses a little. Ian13/talk 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's as good of a test as any. Cydebot is currently substituting userboxes where someone else made the final judgement. And thanks for the compliment :-) Cyde Weys 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out by closing some of these if you like. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substs

Thanks, was already advised by another user and am now substing. NawlinWiki 11:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations

Will you QUIT nominating every article/template/category for deletion? It's getting very annoying, and you're angering a LOT of fellow wikipedians, myself included. I will bring this to arbitration if you do not cease immediately. --User:Raccoon Fox 18:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Bring it on. --Cyde Weys 18:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why must people always be so stupid? --User:Raccoon Fox 18:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Bring it on" is my standard response to threats that are so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable that it's most likely they're just a bluff and not going to happen anyway, but even if they did, they'd be totally unsuccessful. Do you really think ArbCom is going to hear a case for using process to nominate things for deletion?! --Cyde Weys 18:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say so, becuase you've nominated hundreds of templates for deletion that people use. you say they're unencyclopedic if you don't like them. so, does that mean we need to get rid of userpages? --User:Raccoon Fox 18:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because getting rid of unencyclopedic templates is such a bad, evil thing. --Cyde Weys 18:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you try to limit free speech, even if it is only on this site, it seems very pointless to delete all these templates. Cyde, I suggest you do something more productive with you time rather than deleting templates and blocking users. You are stirring up a storm, or is that your intent? Do you feel you have to get noticed on this site? --GorillazFan Adam 19:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm sick of people trying to ascribe all sorts of absurd motivations to my actions. Is it really so hard to believe that I'm simply doing what's best for the encyclopedia? I'm not trying to limit free speech, I'm not trying to delete everything, I'm not trying to stir up a storm, and I'm not trying to get noticed. --Cyde Weys 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not refer them to CSD T1 and Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion? Raccoon et al, you're way out of line. T1 implements Jimbo's view on userboxes. Perhaps you should take it up with him. AvB ÷ talk 20:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What I can't figure out is that the ones you sent up for deletion are MENT to be funny or amusing. Many many of our fellow wikipedians use them and enjoy them. They are for userpages not for articles. They are harmless. People use there userpages to express themselves, they don't want to use just text. Aeon 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a template "for userpages". Templates were created to help write articles and that is still their primary function. There is no separate template namespace for userspace. And you can still use a colored box if you want - you just don't need a template to do it. And I believe the brouhaha around these clearly demonstrates that they are not harmless. --Cyde Weys 22:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lo and behold, we have yet ANOTHER administrator openly flouting policy with no fear of reprisal or disciplinary action against him. I'm starting to see why Willy On Wheels does what he does. Not that i endorse his actions...i just don't blame him for being wrong about it. Cyde seems to think since he's an admin, everything he chooses not to like can be Speedied, and it will go through with little resistance, due to his connections high above. You not only do NOT have a neutral point of view, but i think you are nothing more than a troll, to cause hell on wikipedia for your own amusement. Well, i think it's time his cushy ride ends. Time to start voting KEEP! for all of our beloved Templates, fellow wikipedians! He claims to not stile freedom of speech, but he clearly does so. I'm putting a Totally disputed template on his page until further notice. I think it's also time that Jimbo Wales sees the utter chaotic mess that the adminstrators have made Wikipedia. And just to make myself very clear, i do NOT assume good faith anymore. I assume hostility until proven otherwise. I'm sorry. I USED to be very kind, but after a few years of idiocy like this, i have lost my tolerance and patience for this. --User:Raccoon Fox 04:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba, Lulu, Zleitzen

I'm not sure that the blocks of Lulu and Zleitzen were warranted. Seems to me that the two of them were making good faith edits in the face of KDRGibby's relentless edit-warring; perhaps they should have stepped back until an admin intervened, but it doesn't look to me like they have the same culpability. Of course, I'm of the opinion that Gibby should have been banned months ago; still, would you reconsider the blocks on L and Z? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly laid out in policy that it doesn't matter if someone is on the "right" or the "wrong" end of a content dispute; all that matters is the behavior. Since all of them were revert-warring, all of them were blocked for it. Lulu and Zleitzen are free to contribute once their 24 hours run out. --Cyde Weys 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, but: if one of the participants is a vandal (like Gibby), what does one do? Besides, I've looked at Zleitzen's contributions -- I looked at all of them pretty carefully -- and they don't even come close to qualifying as 3RR. I'm not sure that blocking them sends a useful message other than "call an admin for help more quickly when Gibby shows up". Note that I'm not considering undoing your block -- my basic policy is to not do anything that even looks slightly like wheel warring. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Congratulations!

Hi Cyde,

Is that so extraordinary? I like pi. Mmmhh... pi...

--NorkNork ^Questions? _fnord? 20:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Question

With Userbox Templates that have been deleted, can we remove links to the templates from major pages, (Example: Remove from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing) or is there a special policy? (I assume it's ok, but the fact that no one had removed the links for a few days made me want to make sure.)

Thanks, Macwiki 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, once it turns into a redlink it might as well be removed from the linkfarm. --Cyde Weys 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Deletion

Why are you trying to delete some funny userboxes? You're trying to delete the Bright Future, Edible Userboxes, The Happy Fun Ball box, and the Fortune Cookie Hostage box! On your User Page it says, "Without userboxes, how would we express our creativity?". Well some people have creativity for humour or goofiness. So please, stop asking for deletion on so many userboxes, thanks. вάвŷ pάйĉнǿ 01:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said. DanielZimmerman 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? You think a comment by a person who doesn't know of any other outlet for expressing creativity besides copying over templates is well said? Here's a hint ... I didn't put that quote on my userpage because I thought it was insightful. --Cyde Weys 17:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured that you where being sarcastic on your userpage. However, I do appreicate someone coming here and wondering why on earth you are requesting that all these userboxes be deleted because I wonder the same thing. Userpages are not supposed to be encyclopedic. So why are you demanding that userboxes, which are only supposed to go on userpages, be encyclopedic? It makes no sense. As per the userbox deletion that brought me here, Template:User Bright Future, why does it have to be funny to be included as a userbox. If you have not heard of Timbuk 3 that doesnt mean that others should be prevented from having this userbox? Go read their page and see why someone might want to have that userbox if they where a fan of that song. DanielZimmerman 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If only there were some way to make the same userbox visuals appear identically on a user's page without being a template... David Oberst 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice sarcasm. Perhaps we could get somewhere if people would refrain from the use of sarcasm when trying to discuss this issue. One of wikipedias biggest problems is the elitism of some contributors when determining what "belongs" and what doesn't. It seems to me that it would be more efficient to have the code for a userbox in one place and have users refer to those places than having each user who wants that userbox to copy and paste that code. An encyclopedia is made up of articles, not templates. As long as the userboxes dont interfere with the articles, I see no problem with them.DanielZimmerman 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 15th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 20	15 May 2006	About the Signpost

Publicity surrounds Chinese site reusing Wikipedia content	German chapter prevails in Tron appeal
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Time 100 Gala, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

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

[edit] Your opinion about userboxes

I've noticed your crackdown on userboxes; I was just wondering, are you opposed to their very idea or just to them being in the template space? Mopper ^Speak! 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See here. --Cyde Weys 01:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. So would something like user:Master of Puppets/Box be ok? Mopper ^Speak! 02:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. --Cyde Weys 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woops!

I said in WP:AIV that user:68.7.10.119, a recent IP of the communism vandal, was blocked by Curps, when in reality you were the one who blocked him. I misread your name. Sorry about that! :D Cowman109^Talk 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, it's well known that Curps is my alternate account (which I mainly use for dealing with vandalism). --Cyde Weys 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that makes a lot of sense! Have a cookie (though some may have been eaten already by Kungfuadam) Cowman109^Talk 01:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

It's rude to attack others and label them as "trolls" and "stalkers" just because you don't like them. There's this little thing called civility that you seem to forget.

Note that I would've been happy to concede to your signature request if you had remained civil. You weren't then and I'm sad to say you aren't now.

Insulting and labelling others is against Wikipedia policy. Who do you think you are to break policy whenever you feel like it? I would love a civil chat about this if you can keep yourself from making an attack two minutes later.

This warning is justified. Posting "you made a mistake" on your user talk is also justified.

My e-mail address is me (at) nathanr (dot) com if you would like to discuss the matter like adults. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the mess at TfD: Mental Illness

First off, I just thought I'd leave a reminder that your talk page is getting really long, and that it might (depending on your preferences) be time to archive again. Anyway, for the real meat of my message: will you be involved in closing the TfD debate on this particular issue? I ask because, as you'd mentioned, there was vote-stacking going on, making it difficult to judge consensus. I don't question your integrity or impartiality, but because you've shown a clear, strong opinion on this issue, it might aid the appearance of impartiality to have a non-involved admin come in for the final closing. I wouldn't bring this up, except that because of votestacking the information on consensus is fairly incomplete, and it's in those situations of incomplete information that biases and allegations of bias hold most sway. Cheers! Captainktainer * Talk 04:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

Next time, do not block an editor you have been at odds with and then fail to even inform him on his usertalk. At least when I have blocked someone I had the courtesy to inform them if they were a serious contributor.--MONGO 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted to WP:ANI, guess it just slipped my mind to notify them individually. Regardless, I expect better behavior than I saw on that page from everyone involved. --Cyde Weys 04:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lulu asked me via email to block him to keep him from edit warring over there...so I unblocked after he promised he would leave the article alone for a couple of days. I hope he'll help me with something else, and I just thought that since you and him had been at odds and not everyone involved in the dispute there was either warned or blocked, that it appeared a bit unilateral. I should have discussed the matter with you first. Anyway, I won't unprotect the page (Cuba) and that will force the parties to hash the differences out in the talk page.--MONGO 04:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But Mongo removed the protected tag on the Cuba page, which doesn't seem right. -- Beardo 07:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanking with a spinning crucifix

This is belated, and I know you've heard it before but I've just handed the matching pair to Gmax so, for completeness: Disruption blah blah blocking blah blah trout blah blah bloody funny blah blah SPUI blah blah.

You do remember that userboxes can get people upset, right? And the while I think that they are mostly stupid and pointless, upsetting people is usually bad. Now back to regular programming.

brenneman^{L} 09:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chill

Too much haste, friend Cyde. Too much angst and conflict. Stick to slapping the real trolls, there are plenty of them, and if you want to go after the bigger fish, assemble a posse first to share the blame. Just my €0.0156322 (exchange rate as of timestamp). Just zis Guy you know? 09:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I have raised an objection to the 'process' of 'deleting userboxes following keep decisions' on the noticeboard. You may wish to respond there. --CBDunkerson 11:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Dear Sir: I find your "Userbox vendetta" quite irritating. There is no problem with Userboxes, especially the humorous ones. As long as the boxes stay in templates and Uzser pages--and out of main articles--I see no problem. So please stop causing arguements. They're userboxes and they are harmless. If you don't like them, DON'T LOOK AT THEM.

Your quote: Regular people reading the encyclopedia end up reading userpages far more often than you would guess. Any time they come across a user page sprawled with dozens of silly and unproductive userboxes, it lowers their opinion of Wikipedia a little bit. It's simply unprofessional, and readers tend to doubt the seriousness and quality of the end result if the people who have made it are associated with such unprofessional silliness.

I think you are quite mistaken. When I came to wikipedia, the first thing I noticed is that Wikipedia is written by REAL people. Do you know why I stay? Not because the information is so good. I stayed because I know that the information, which is written by REAL PEOPLE, is written for REAL PEOPLE, in terms that REAL PEOPLE can understand. What Userboxes do is to add to the reality of the fact that this site is the convergence of knowledge from so many people...real people. I reccomend that you rethink your decisions and stop making TfD's simply because they are not what YOU would like to see. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All encyclopedias are written by REAL PEOPLE. As far as I am aware we have not yet developed sentient robots to write encyclopedias. --Cyde Weys 17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply astounding words stemming from a editor with a meager 493 edits to his name, of which an amazing 22 has been atributted to his userpage. Young chap could benefit from ceasing the wikilawyering and contributing on building the encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In the same idea, thanks, but no thanks. I've just reverted your edit you've made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APv7721&diff=53399991&oldid=50661113

Please leave my user page alone, it is simple enough like it is now & definitely don't need a huge wiki source code I don't understand. Thank you! :) --Vlad|-> 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All encyclopedias are written by REAL PEOPLE. As far as I am aware we have not yet developed sentient robots to write encyclopedias. You first off, have no right to patronize me. Second, by REAL PEOPLE, I mean, everyday people—businessmen, waiters, lunch ladies, thespians, movie addicts, music junkies, couch potatoes and alcoholics. Most other encyclopedias are written by scholars and specialists, not by your everyday Joe—Something which is as frustrating as it is unfair to people with uncommon trivia in their noggins. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 14:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truly Amazing

Can anyone tell me how someone this underqualified for the job actually BECAME an admin here? I mean, other than being being appointed by a friend or cronie....Now, is there a way to nominate someone for de-administration? Either wikipedia is letting anyone become an administrator, or they want to make things as dull and stupid as possible for intelligent people. User:Raccoon Fox 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you go and ask the 106 people who voted for him? -- Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And what about the 30 people who didn't? I think that this RfA should have gotten no consensus based on the opposing arguements. I sense a conspiracy. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fake User

Is this true? TheJabberwʘck 20:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, is this a serious question? --Cyde Weys 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just making sure. I only took it seriously cuz of his strange edit history. TheJabberwʘck 00:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

I'm inquiring about when you say a userbox is, "Unencyclopedic template." I guess, according to you, we should get rid of all of the userboxes, because they all fit the category of an "Unencyclopedic" template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherman1126 (talk • contribs)

• I'm sure Cyde won't mind me answering because he's probably answered this 10,000 times. Some people do hate User boxes, but the point here is that templates are tools used to edit articles. Userboxes do not fit that criteria, so Cyde and other administrators feel it best to move them to the "User space" (where user pages are housed.) There, they are not "unencyclopedic" since User pages aren't articles or tools to help write them. Hope this helps. Nhprman 22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• We should get rid of all of the userboxes, because they all fit the category of an "Unencyclopedic" template. — Pretty much. --Cyde Weys 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's with the userbox TfDs?

No offense, but I'm curious: why are you so against oh-so-many userboxes?--Joseph 21:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Read a few sections up on my talk page, I've outlined the reasons there (and in other places repeatedly). You seem to be under the impression that getting rid of unencyclopedic templates is a bad thing and needs explaining. The opposite is true: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and wanting to keep the unencyclopedic templates is what actually needs explaining. I should turn the question around: why are you in favor of oh-so-many userboxes? --Cyde Weys 22:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why he is, but I can answer for myself. They're harmless, they don't intrude into the actual articles, they don't violate any policy for which there has been a consensus, and at least one person likes each of them, or they wouldn't have been created to begin with. I'm still surprised that you care enough to bother recommending the deletions. DCB4W 00:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you care enough to come talk to me about it here. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So am I, actually. I just noticed that the same person proposed several deletions that I voted against, which piqued my curiosity. DCB4W 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But for a non-flippant response, pick any random object X and more than one person is going to like X. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't get rid of X, especially if X runs contrary to the fundamental goal of what we're doing here. And they're certainly not harmless; read some examples I have given above on my talk page. Or on WT:MACK. --Cyde Weys 00:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it does, and I'm considering as a bastardized Pareto efficiency problem. If the deletion doesn't really make anyone better off and makes at least one person worse off (even if only by denying him the cute widdle userbox he likes) then it's a bad idea to delete it. Probably our more fundamental disagreement may be in the definition of "harm;" I didn't think any of the counter-examples you cited were particularly harmful to the Wikipedia endeavor. In particular the vote-stacking problem doesn't seem to be a problem. If we're actually interested in consensus, expanding the base of editors strikes me as being an advantage more often than it's a disadvantage, if you assume the people brought into the discussion will actually familiarize themselves with the subject before weighing in. It may be a naive assumption, and certainly I didn't directly experience the vote-stacking incidents you cited, so I acknowledge that reality may slap me in the face if I encounter one of those scenarios. Still, I tend to think that loons will be able to identify one another by their interactions on loony pages, whether they have a loony template or not.

If that's your concern though, the silly "crappy jokes in colored boxes" userboxes that you've been going after might well be the most harmless ones. It's hard to imagine someone mounting a ballot-stuffing campaign by contacting the people with the "I think I'm a wombat" userbox on their pages, for instance. And the procrastinators might forget to vote. DCB4W 01:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thats just getting annoying...

I'm glad that you're closing cfd's, but can you actually close them on the cfd pages? I had mentioned it lightly above, but I've now read a few discussions on the May 5th that were already decided and moved but I didn't catch on until halfway through reading and making a decision. I realize this may have some time delay from the above so if you've corrected it already then I apologize. :) --Syrthiss 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I'll pay more attention in the future. I have a lot of things going on right now :-I Cyde Weys 22:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh I know. I think you need a few more angry hordes with torches wanting your dress removed! --Syrthiss 22:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Seeing as WP:SIG doesn't ban images, but rather discourages them, in addition to it being a guideline, not a policy, I would rather keep my image. Thanks, and have a nice day. JohnnyBGood t c 00:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It discourages them for a few reasons. Have you thought about why those reasons might be valid? --Cyde Weys 00:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've weighed the reasons and found them wanting. The main complaints are server load and dial up users. Server load doesn't concern me at this time as Wikipedia has shown no signs of being overburdened at this time. If that changes I'll reevaluate my position. As for traditional 56k dial up users, dial up is currently being replaced by DSL, Cable and High Speed dial up and will not be in use for much longer and doesn't concern me. --User:JohnnyBGood 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good God

Good God man, what is with you and deleting, along with electing things for deletion? Ebb 00:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Ebb

I'm a Luddite. I want to get rid of all modern technology, but I'm starting small by getting rid of some Wikipedia content. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In another year I'm going to put microwaves and electric can openers up for deletion. Then once I get enough support I'll go after the deletion of all automobiles. --Cyde Weys 00:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, do you know a guy named the Unabomber by chance? --User:JohnnyBGood 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

FACT #65435: There's a fine line between humor and trolling. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

True, however I don't think that's been crossed here do you?. --User:JohnnyBGood 00:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category change error

Members of the Category:Algol programming language family category have been mistakenly moved into the Category:ABCL programming language family. The original error was made on the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 6 list.

Category:ALGOL dialects to Category:ABCL programming language family

should have read:

Category:ALGOL dialects to Category:Algol programming language family or, possibly, Category:ALGOL programming language family

Chris Burrows 01:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I think I have fixed everything. --Cyde Weys 01:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corbin's Signature

This will be a bit messy. I obviously constructed my signature to be useful to me as well as unique and in touch with me as a person. On the other hand, it is, to my knowledge, the biggest signature on all of Wikipedia in terms of wikicode. So, I wanted to ask for your input. Below are a handful of ideas that I cooked up, ordered from most to least disruptive. I'd like to know at what point my sig becomes sane again.

• - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!}
  The evil box of death.
• - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} No box of death.
• - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} No crazy wikilinks. Only contribs, Esperanza, and my talk page remain linked.
• - Corbin ∫1ɱpsɔ♫^{Rock on, dude!} Same as above, but no longer spaced (does not wrap partially on paragraphs). This is similar to, but shorter than, User:ILovePlankton's sig.
• - Corbin∫1ɱpsɔ♫(Rock on, dude!) Back to older colors.
• - Corbin∫1ɱpsɔ♫ Going back to my previous sig. The Unicode characters are still there.
• - Corbin ∫1ɱpsɔ♫ Same as above, but with em and strong switched. I personally like this one.
• - CorbinSimpson The sig that I had before my current one.
• - CorbinSimpson Same as above, with emphasis removed.
• - CorbinSimpson Vanilla sig.
• - CorbinSimpson If the last one was vanilla, this is like vanilla that has been bleached out.

Um, so those are what I came up with. Obviously, I'd like to keep as much of the chill and cool as possible, but I know that I have to tone it down a bit. Please tell me which ones you like and where the threshold of acceptability is — your input matters quite a bit! Also, sorry for cluttering your talk page. I'll sign with something plain in return - CorbinSimpson 04:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally like CorbinSimpson ... it provides all the necessary links with nothing unnecessary. I guess you could colorize it if you really wanted. But the stuff towards the top of that spectrum ... shudders ... the code for it is seriously ten times longer than the default vanilla sig. --Cyde Weys 17:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I'm going to keep the colors; my vision is not the best, and the colors help me find my comments. The Unicode characters are out; I logged in on my Ubuntu box and realized that none of the default fonts have the integral, mu, or eighth notes in them and they don't display properly. Thanks again. Happy editing! - CorbinSimpson 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That is much, much better. --Tony Sidaway 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better, obviously! Thanks for listening. Most people don't realize but when they refuse to conform to sensible guidelines they are really lowering many admins' estimations of them. --Cyde Weys 23:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Babel substitution?

I had commented on the TFD talk page about this issue, but I don't know if you saw it. What is the thinking behind substituting 'Babel box' templates onto user pages? This creates a potentially confusing mess for the user... especially in the case of Babel-X where the parserfunctions don't 'condense' properly, which is why WP:SUBST says not to substitute them. --CBDunkerson 13:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I know it's terribly ugly but there's not much else I can do when I need to substitute a template that's being deleted. The only alternative is to just not subst the Babel-X box and let it become a redlink. For this reason I tend to suggest that people use {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}} since they deal with template substitution gracefully. --Cyde Weys 16:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't thought about the problem with subst'd templates - the 'delete the template but keep the content' bit doesn't make alot of sense to me because I don't see any problem with transclusion or use of the templates in User: space. Since others obviously do I might suggest moving the subst'd template(s) outside of the Babel box until the user figures out what to do with them. On that whole mess... do I understand correctly that your objection is to the existence of userboxes in the template namespace? You'd be ok with them if they were all stored in the User: namespace or on 'Wikipedia:Userboxes'? If so, it would really seem simpler to just relocate all of them and transclude from wherever they end up rather than substituting all the code onto each page. --CBDunkerson 01:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cydebot again

I see this has been raised, but it's popping up elsewhere so:

Rename using motor manufacturers for the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. It's good to see that someone took the trouble to make this long needed nomination.Carina22 15:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC) ([10])

This is correct usage for the named countries, so could you please dust off the bot and fix? Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning and put this up on CFD here. --Cyde Weys 17:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

I'd like to know why you felt it necessary to nominate the Evolution Wikipedian tags for deletion. Since these tags only show up on personal pages how can their deletion be a priority? Basique 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If it was a priority I would have speedy deleted them immediately. It's because they weren't a priority that I nominated them for deletion. By the way, I'm just talking about userboxes in general ... I'm not really sure what these "Evolution Wikipedian tags" you are referring to actually are. Can you link me to them? --Cyde Weys 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant the userboxes, and since you seem to be hell bent on a slash and burn reshaping of the 'pedia according to your personal agenda, we'll just have to take steps to conserve our userboxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basique (talk • contribs)

Saying "the userboxes" doesn't mean anything to me at all. I've recently nominated several dozen of them for deletion and I don't recall that any of them specifically dealt with evolution (they were humor and advertising boxes). I ask again, can you provide me with a link to exactly what you are talking about? --Cyde Weys 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your leadership

You sterling example has inspired Gosse (talk · contribs) and Butterbean (talk · contribs) to emulate your behavior. At the risk of violating WP:BEANS, I have to say that I'm worried what similar pranks may be inspired. Followers of some religions might respond a bit more strongly to this type of ridicule and disrespect. Can you explain what purpose is served by the continued existence of this image on Wikipedia?

--MediaMangler 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for vandals. I wouldn't call it ridicule and disrespect either - at least I wouldn't call it that, and that's not what I was intending. The image is no longer hosted on Wikipedia; it is now on Wikimedia Commons (which is a collection of free images, not necessarily just encyclopedic images). This image is GFDL'd and could conceivably be useful for some purpose in the future, so it's hosted there to prevent unnecessary duplicated effort at some point down the line. --Cyde Weys 16:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Several editors have been chastised for calling such behavior vandalism. You created an image which, as far as I can tell, is unlikely to be used for any other purpose. --MediaMangler 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with that. Does that make me evil then? Gun manufacturers produce weapons that are primarily used to kill things and put holes in things (and are unlikely to be used for any other purpose). Just thought I'd mention that little non sequitur. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing TFDs

Hi I've noticed you've closed multiple TFDs that you yourself have nominated. You do realize that is against policy and an abuse of admin power. You can't close debates you have an active part in. User:JohnnyBGood 17:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read up on what the rules actually are before you start trying to tell other people what to do. Admins routinely close their own nominations. It's only when the nomination is controversial that the closure is, ah, controversial. --Cyde Weys 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Admins routinely close their own nominations" - I've honestly never seen that much of this (as an admin myself), certainly not several from one. My impression was it was explicitly not allowed except for extreme cases due to conflicting interests... at the very least I thought it was considered very poor form. User:RN 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete, "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it." --CBDunkerson 10:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Even I don't do that myself, cos' in most cases being that the nominator is advocating deletion. It is all the more important given that deletion debates are no longer regarded as a vote. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're never fully dressed without a smile!

[edit] Signature?

Can I ask what you don't like about my signature? --User:Buchanan-Hermit 01:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's waaaaay too long. It's three lines of code in my edit window, and I run a high resolution setup. Large signatures are strongly discouraged because they overwhelm comments in the edit text. Please see WP:SIG for more information. --Cyde Weys 01:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't want it to be that long either but I really hate the default link colour on Wikipedia. If you can think of a way to shorten it up (and yet make it look the way it does right now), I welcome you to share... --User:Buchanan-Hermit 01:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not going to be possible to make it look the way it currently is. You're going to need to sacrifice some of the flashiness for basic usability. Here's how long your sig is, in case you haven't realized:

--→[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]]
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">rmit™</span>]]
..[[User talk:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 8px; color: #669900;">smack</span>]] 01:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--Cyde Weys 01:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I cannot stand the thought of having the default link colour for my sig, I'm going to leave it the way it is for the time being. However, I will continue to look into ways to shorten it to an acceptable length. Thanks for your concern. (Removed sig: oops, my sig's formatting got screwed up... anyways, this is Buchanan-Hermit. Need to fix my sig now.)

[edit] Userboxbot

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

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

[edit] My Signature

I have added hidden text to the end of my signature to indicate its end. Since the signature does not actually violate any part of WP:SIG, I think this is sufficient extra courtesy to my fellow editors. User:Cuivienen 18 May 2006 @ 02:15 UTC

[edit] Your bot

Hi, I noticed your bot modified my babel page. I was hoping you could modify it to not do that. I don't usually like other users modifying my userpage unless reverting vandalism. Thanks. Gateman1997 04:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's Talk page

Hello, I see that you commented on the section I put in Jimbo's talk page about the RFC and the block. The reason I wrote that I wanted only Jimbo to comment was because comments from other users and other admins were already made and available at the three links I provided. Jimbo's page often becomes cluttered with people's conversations, without Jimbo ever getting involved. I wanted Jimbo to read that there was an issue and go to the provided pages to read the discussion from there, not going into reading it with a comment by someone already in his mind. Frankly (and hopefully civilly), I have certain problems with admins, and with the way certain things are run. Getting Jimbo's opinion, without the influence of anyone else was my intention, and I hope you understand that. I would like to ask you to please remove your comment, and place it somewhere else (eg, the pages that I provided links to). Thank you, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 07:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Note: This has nothing to do with me agreeing or not agreeing with the sig problem.

If you want to get an opinion from Jimbo without other people commenting then you need to use email. If you post something on his talk page, you're going to have to expect other people to comment and there's really nothing you can do to prevent that from occurring. --Cyde Weys 07:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's why I just asked if you would remove your comment and I would go from there. I stated my reasons. Thank you again, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 07:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding me. You can't ask people not to have their say on a wiki. It's very un-wiki. If you want private conversation you need to use email. --Cyde Weys 07:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My problems with some admins in a nutshell. Thanks for not even trying to discuss something with a user. No reasons why you specifically want your comment there and not the other links. In fact, because it is a wiki, I can ask people to remove their comments from talks. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 07:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the point of this entire conversation. Why don't you just email Jimbo? --Cyde Weys 07:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just e-mailed him. Sorry for the possoble incivilty above also. I just feel very strongly about admins being held to the highest standards. Thanks you for your time, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 07:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mischievous

You make me laugh some times with your bold editing. The Christian Userbox deal was particularly bad, now the templates. heh Netscott 07:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your comments on my RfA; I've responded there. dewet|✉ 08:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ref converter

Do you think it would be possible for the ref converter to be adaptated to correct minor style issues with <ref>s? Namely:

• Strip spaces before refs
• Move refs after punctuation

Both are part of the style suggested at WP:FN. Circeus 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you inquired with Lulu? I know he has a Citation Tool that is probably better suited for this than Ref converter. --Cyde Weys 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

I'm going to start off by saying something positive. Now I can see the possibility of this getting reverted for certain reasons, but what I'm about to say is a compliment and should be treated as such:

I like the idea of Cydebot subst'ing userboxes after they've been deleted. This is a really Good Thing(tm). It should've been done a long time ago - there are a lot of mysterious redlinks on my userboxes page that I can't subst. (I am also saying this not only because I'm honest about it, but to promote civility between us)) That's all I wanted to say, bye now. -- Nathan 18:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cydebot

Your bot screwed up my user page. Would you please block it?Cameron Nedland 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take the time to read up on what's actually going on before you accuse others of messing things up. Would you rather have the template's code or a redlink? --Cyde Weys 21:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Does sig mean Gangsta-Easter-Bunny and Sig mean a customized one? And thank you for adjusting my rules!I removed the images from my Sig(they started annoying me to tell the truth, I was going to remove them). Is that All right? Please respond on my talk page, O.K.?--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 22:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what was going on with your sig. As far as I'm aware there's no standardized /Sig or /sig thing, it's all just JavaScript injection I'm assuming? And yeah, the new sig is much better. --Cyde Weys 22:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I was curious as to why you are making all the userboxes you come across "neutral" when a. It violates the previous precendent that they don't have to be neutral and b. it often is skewing or even changing their original intent? User:JohnnyBGood 00:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You have two options: either they don't associate a user with a specific belief or they get deleted under T2. Deleting them would end up causing more uproar, so making them neutral is a better solution. --Cyde Weys 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you link me to T2? Because I've yet to see anything that supports that userboxes must be neutral since they're not in the main article space. User:JohnnyBGood 00:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD#T2 --Cyde Weys 00:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask who made those changes to T2 and when it was done? User:JohnnyBGood 00:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Try the edit history. --Cyde Weys 00:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What a shocker... it was Tony fairly unilaterally and without much discussion. I would heavily dispute that T2 is a viable reason at this time to continue doing what you are doing. It has only been in place for 2 days and has not been subject to discussion or consensus. User:JohnnyBGood 00:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to dispute policy do so on the talk page ... asking admins not to follow policy is a non-starter, though. --Cyde Weys 00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it following community policy, or setting your own and then following it? Also I intend to dispute it right now. User:JohnnyBGood 00:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You might could ask someone else, I didn't actually put this policy in place, I merely supported it. --Cyde Weys 00:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As a side comment, the policy has not actually been put in place, It is in discussion. Ansell Review my progress! 00:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet another reason "enforcing" it is VERY premature. JohnnyBGood t c 00:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to focus more on real wikipedia issues

I wrote the essay Reduce confusion by following policy as an attempt to deal with comments on my editor review. Please comment on it and perhaps improve on it. Ansell Review my progress! 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it missing something? I only see two short paragraphs. --Cyde Weys 00:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Quality over Quantity. But what else do you see as being included in the area. Ansell Review my progress! 00:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, just when I think of essay I think of something with at least five beefy paragraphs and a thesis statement. I'm not necessarily saying this needs any more, as being concise is good ... I just wouldn't call it an essay. --Cyde Weys 00:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ind Catholics

Thank you for correcting that. Recognition of the differences between Catholic sects is very important. JohnnyBGood t c 01:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also just to let you know I tweaked it ever so slightly. JohnnyBGood t c 01:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)