User talk:Cyberdat

unblock: reasons detailed below 02:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

October 29, 2009
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Specifically, your username contains the word "bot" but you are a human editor.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. –xenotalk 16:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

December 05, 2009
Hi there Xeno. I just logged in to my account and found two columnns -- old version/new version which were totally unreadable since they were in wiki code. At the foot of the page I found your note of "Welcome".

Your welcome is a bit belated! I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for over 5 years. I formaly created an account in 2006 and have submitted several articles without any problem. Nor was there any problem with the name I happened to choose when I created the account. If there is some problem with usernames containing "bot", the policy must have been enacted after my account was created. Therefore my username would be "grandfathered" in.

The name wasn't created with any agenda. I simply liked the name -- as a regular Wikipedia user making contributions and new entries when needed, I was actually using "bot" in an ironic sense -- I was a human in a cyberworld! I can't imagine that if someone wanted to call themselves "RoverRobot" that that would also be considered a "violation" because the name contains the "suffix" letters "bot."

However, beyond that I don't see what the real issue is. There are some "bot" accounts I've noted. I have no idea whether these are actual "bots" or, like me, other humans who happened to like a name containing "bot". But what problem is created by the name?

If Wikipedia happens to use actual "bots", the fact that a user might choose such a name does not imply that they are part of the Wikipedia organization. Conversely, you are presumably some sort of Wikipedia sysop. I wouldn't know that from the name Xeno -- if you made changes to my contributions, I would probably assume you were simply another user.

In summary, I don't feel my username or any of my actions violates the spirit of any policy. 07:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

September 29, 2010
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Cyberbot, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).''' A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

November 27, 2009
Dear Cirt, I just found your note and am again astonished at this silliness. I replied to this same poin nearly ONE YEAR AGO, explaining the facts and my reasoning. It was apparently accepted since the issue did no arise again until you -- who seem to be yet another administrator, decided to block me again. There are MAJOR problems with Wikipedia that need to be dealt with, and Jimmy is soliciting money to keep it alive and free. Yet it seems that some individuals would rather spend time searching out "name violations" than correcting important problems.

One of the worst problems on Wikipedia is many of the administrators theselves. As with the moderators on Craigslist, too many people lacking good people skills and common sense manage to get admin rights and then spend their time making the experience of contributing to Wikipedia and posting to Craigslist forums a less than pleasant experience. Some admins are openly hostile in their replies -- in effect, telling users "Those are the rules. If you don't like them, get lost!" Hardly the open, consensual community Jimmy founded.

A quick review of my contributions will reveal that I have never misused my username in any way. I have never pretended to be a Wiki bot, which does actual Wikipedia tasks; and I don't see what "disruption" or problem I've created or even could create without being an actual bot account.

I'd suggest you make REAL Wikibots identifiable with some bit of code that distinguishes their names from those of regular user names -- e.g. the text of the name might be a unique color, say gold. Please remove the block. And perhaps you can simply add me to the list of bot names so this won't happen again. There was no problem with the name *bot when I created the account. We should not be penalized and inconveniences because you decided to change some policies.

Thanks in advance. Checker (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

January 28, 2011
Contrary to my appeal request of last November, this block was never reviewed!

Feburary 11, 2011
Are you folks speaking some other language!? The insistence on changing names ending with "bot" is specious at best. However, though you left my account alone for well over a year after I explained my rationale, you suspended it last Septmeber. Since you persist in not responding to my explanations, I asked to have my name CHANGED to Cyberdat. Instead you wrote back that "you are allowed to create another account, provided it does not have the term "bot" in it, in a way which would indicate that it may be a bot account. No administrative actions are required for this."

More importantly, it appears you DECLINED my request to change my name as well, simply noting that I am "allowed to create another account." That rather misses the point since I do NOT want to lose all my contributions!

If there are other adminstrators that can be contacted, please make yourselves known or direct me to a page where I can find a hierarchy of admins. There is too much denying and blocking by whatever admin who happens to notice something they don't personally like. And you seem to INTENTIONALLY make it nearly impossible to appeal decisions directly to anyone. Checker (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment on my user page.
Thank you for your comment on my talk page about the Rochester Poets-related articles. I have replied to you there about the issues you raise. As far as your comments on my User page, though, those were inappropriate. Especially since you overwrote some of my material. Those comments should have been included on my talk page. The User page is my page for what I want to say about me, etc. Not a place for your comments. And you marked your edit as minor which it is not. I have moved those over to my talk page and have replied to them there. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)sp


 * Joanna, I was very careful to not delete or overwrite anything of yours -- I hope you're not suggesting, if that happened, that it was deliberate! If it happened, it was an accident and, fortunately, you were able to easily retrieve the prior version.


 * Nevertheless, I offer my sincere apologies if I caused you any inconvenience. And I should add that I've NEVER received any similarly contrite response from any members of what, as you must know, many of us have come to call the Wiki Police.


 * As for which page to reply on, I responded where I thought it was relevant. I was never aware that it was "bad form" to reply on a User page vs. a Talk page. Perhaps they should make User pages ONLY editable by the owner.


 * And perhaps I'm confusing which post you're referring to. I responded in two different places to your continual Undos of edits made by me and others to two articles in favor of what you regard as "correct" form. These are the articles sarcastically named "Jank Frudge" and "Pochester Roets" by "Mickeymephistopholes." Significantly, he's contributed to neither article but has simply tried to use you (and anyone else who might see his comment) to abet a personal attack against the individual and the organization)


 * As I've tried to explain in the past, your squad of editors fixate on an article or part of one and mount a relentless campaign of reversions and negative, often condescending, summary comments until you either get the article purged and/or the author suspended. I and other regular contributors to WP, who meet OFFLINE via email or IM, find this sort of ridiculous, petty zealousness totally unprofessional and inappropriate -- actions which you justify under the catchall term of "consensus."


 * Whose consensus? We don't feel ourselves part of that process! And I've been involved in a number of consensus-based organizations. But, without exception, all have alienated more members than they've retained. The reason is obvious -- all such groups invariably result in cliques which, in effect, ultimately have the numbers and power to gang up on "transgressors" of the "guidelines" or whatever the policies may be called.


 * Iow, you and your fellow Guardians may be volunteers just like me and everyone else. BUT you and your comrades are "more equal" than the rest of us, having acquired the power to lock entries, freeze accounts, etc.


 * All consensus-driven groups -- unless there's a lot of good will (and I've found even small groups sorely lacking in this regard) -- only give the illusion of being democratic. In the end, they're often even more dictatorial than any strictly hierarchical structure, but the culprits aren't accountable. I'll always prefer an organization with a clear hierarchy so that the means of appeal and complaint are identifiable.


 * Regarding your point about a "minor edit" -- I probably clicked the box out of habit. In any case, this reply AND yours are both "minor" since they don't alter the original content of your User or Talk page but merely add a new section. Yes, we can quibble over that! My point is that I was not altering YOUR content but merely adding a reply. However, in an actual article, Yes, I'd agree that adding an entire paragraph or more would NOT be a minor edit! Checker (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep on making it sound like I'm part of some cabal or "squad" of editors focused on deleting or being hyper-restrictive towards articles relating to the Rochester Poets. I'm not. I am just an editor like you, not an admin or anything like a "guardian" of Wikipedia. If anything, we should ALL be guardians of Wikipedia guidelines. I don't have a group of WP editors that I chat with online or offline. Anything I have learned, I have learned from reading the manual of style, different WikiProject pages, and comments/corrections by more experienced Wikipedia users. If there are others who have tagged the article for anything or made other corrections you disagree with, they have most likely done it on their own. Just because several editors have come along over time and tried to clean the articles up doesn't mean they are all working together.
 * Frankly, I don't care who "Mickey" is. I didn't solicit any info from him. I did all those edits before he even posted anything on my talk page.
 * As far as consensus, you'll have to read the article about it WP:CONSENSUS and discuss your objections or opinions about what should be appropriate for WP on the appropriate guideline talk pages. If you want to have your voice heard, you really have to go to the Manual of Style and other Wikipedia guideline articles' talk pages and discuss the issues there. Just discussing on your or my talk pages is not really going to change consensus.
 * Please note that I did not originally target the Rochester Poets or Frank Judge out of spite or any concerted effort to delete the articles. I have not nominated any of those for deletion. I was cleaning up some other poetry-related articles, especially the List of poets from the United States and in so doing, I ran across the Frank Judge article and then some other Rochester Poets articles. I cleaned up and tagged some other articles. These are the ONLY ones I've run into any resistance by editors regarding my wikifying edits. Look forward to your replies to the discussions on my talk page. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Patricia Janus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Highland Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577090986 your edit] to Aquinas Institute may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * | mascot           = L'il Irish  boxing leprechaun}
 * }} }

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rochester Poets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Waters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Judge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Park Point. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rochester Poets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brighton, New York ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rochester_Poets check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rochester_Poets?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)