User talk:Cyde/Archive008

Hurry up and do an svn up already
.... I'm waiting.... josh buddy, talk 14:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Cyde↔Weys 15:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology
Cyde, I am sorry for the spamming that I did before my block. I am still new at this, and I now realize my mistake. I hope to familiarize myself with all of the rules and regulations of Wikipedia from now on. I hope there are no more hard feelings and I hope you have a good day. -- Will Mak  050389  17:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN
AFAIK, I've not been listen on WP:PAIN. I think you should look closer at the conduct of User:JzG as well and tell me that this is how Wikipedia admins are supposed to act. Look at his talk-page as well. Just an advice. --Rdos 18:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. 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 19:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected Template:Sockpuppet
I am a contributor to the English Wikipedia. I just want to ask you a question. Why did you call this template a "High-profile vandal-prone template" when you protected it? Anyway, I request an edit to the protected template on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Please see there. -- ADNghiem501 06:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a high-profile vandal-prone template. -- Cyde↔Weys 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh really it is? Does it mean you're referring to vandals who tagged the page with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, that I've been checking the page history. Regarding the last part of my message I first left here, User:The wub already edited protected page that I requested on the talk page, if you disregarded this. -- ADNghiem501 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The template is used on lots of pages of indefinitely banned accounts. It's a natural target for vandalism.  -- Cyde↔Weys  19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I request for an edit to the protected page again, after The wub. Please go to the talk page. -- ADNghiem501 22:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's forget this last comment of mine. -- ADNghiem501 04:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Eep²
A couple of us pointed out that when re-adding entire sections and anything outside spelling/grammar changes shouldn't be marked as minor. His response was to tell us to get over ourselves. Maybe you might want to pass on the proper usage of the "minor" edit to him. --Crossmr 14:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Worrying statement on ANI
Replied on ANI, thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)  19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dalek
Not to be mean (because that's not the way I want to come across): I did get JoanneB's message about my edit (which yes, I shouldn't have reverted), but would you mind using a more descriptive message when you revert me so that I know what I did wrong? Thanks :) — Natha  n  ( talk ) 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Live update
Thanks for the slap on the wrist, but you should tell that to the user who led me astray as per this matter, if you haven't done so already.--JB82 21:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's not a slap on the wrist, it's just a friendly reminder. And second of all, without a name, I can do nothing.  -- Cyde↔Weys  21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think JB means IP 66.169.139.52 and/or Wesman1023. Anyways, I'm sorry about my own update, Cyde. Picaroon9288 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Input on a situation
I hate to keep poking you cyde, but you seem like a level-headed personable fellow. I see a situation where there is a recorded event of a user threatening legal action on wikipedia, and making personal attacks, and as far as I can see..nothing has been done if you get some spare time I'd appreciate some feedback. --Crossmr 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Userpage judging
Thanks for signing up for the last judge spot, we need two more nominations (there needs to be 15) to start properly. When all fifteen nominations are in place, you choose the best out nomination 13, 14 and 15 as your finalist. Further details will follow in an official spam. Petros471 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We now have 15 pages, so you can go ahead and take your pick of the last 3 for slot 5. Petros471 21:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've signed up for a new email account so you can go ahead and email me your scores. Here's the official template with a bit more info on scoring categories:

Hi Cyde! You've signed up to be a judge for the Esperanza User Page Award! You'll have three user pages to examine. The user pages you get coincide with your signup number. So if you signed up to be a judge in spot 1 than you will get nominations 1-3. Pick your favorite one, and list it in the finalist section. After all 5 judges have chosen a finalist it's time to award them 1-10 points in the four categories:


 * Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
 * Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
 * Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
 * General niceness: at the judges' discretion

Please see the Scores section on this page for additional information on your job as a judge.

Keep in mind that your scores are confidential! Email Petros471 with your scores and final picks. As soon as all the scores have been tallied, a winner will be announced! Thanks.

Let me know if you have any questions. Petros471 13:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Mischaracterizations
I'd say, that the statement "It would be counter-productive to showing that there exist sanity within Islam." is pretty difficult to misinterpret, isn't it? I wonder what made you think, that I'd consider the "lunatic fringe" in Islam reasonable. That would be weird indeed, since lunatic and reasonable seems like a contradiction to me. Raphael1 00:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's very hard to interpret, seeing as how it includes multiple grammatical errors. I tried my best, though. -- Cyde↔Weys 02:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it gets easier to understand if you look at MX44s recent edits: . Raphael1 12:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello
is my signature good yet? someone told me it was too long-- Bee (' y ') T i 19:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh sweet Jesus, your signature is five lines long!! That's totally unacceptable. In addition, you're using a broken line height superscript that breaks text interleaving. Why in the world do you have huge all-caps link titles in your sig, anyway? Here's a good signature for you:   -- Cyde↔Weys  19:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde I don't think that was very WP:CIVIL. Raichu 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

talk page spamming
Cyde, please define talk page spamming. It is quite common around WP:JEW to receive stock notices of goings on. I was doing the same. What on earth?! - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Añoranza
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted content
Do not recreate deleted content like you did with Articles for deletion. We are trying to get rid of cross-namespace redirects, not create more of them. -- Cyde↔Weys 15:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a self-defeating and apparently pointless idea, and why exactly did you expect me to know about it? I was acting in pure good faith to improve Wikipedia by making access to an important page easier. Your comment is a clear breach of the good faith policy and I trust you will express regret for the tone of your comments. As for the specifics, where is the policy? I wish to dispute it. CalJW 16:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone who accuses someone else of violating good faith patently does not understand the good faith policy, as accusing someone else of violating an assumption of good faith is itself a violation of assumption of good faith. Your extremely combative and Wikilawyering response to a simple warning is worrisome.  -- Cyde↔Weys  19:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just out of idle curiosity, would this - User talk:BigDT/archive2b - mean (according to the standard you give here), that you failed to assume good faith? BigDT 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a saint :-)  Cyde↔Weys  14:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL ... ok ... I can forgive your assumption ;) BigDT 14:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom planning law
Hi, could you now stop your bot moving articles out of Category:United Kingdom planning law we want to keep that category as a subcategory of Town and country planning in the United Kingdom. Many thanks --Mcginnly 18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, Cydebot didn't do any of that ... you're looking at someone else's handiwork. -- Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem has not been explained too clearly, so I will try again. Mcginnly proposed the renaming of Category:United Kingdom planning law to Category:Town and country planning in the United Kingdom at CfD. The proposal was approved and Cydebot appears to have been moving articles between the categories in the correct manner. However, Mcginnly wants to retain the Category:United Kingdom planning law as a sub-category of the new one and has been moving a small proportion of the articles back into that category. Unfortunately, as Cydebot still appears to be following its original instructions it keeps reverting the work by moving the articles back again, as shown here. I hope this clarifies Mcginnly's request. Road Wizard 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Planning Acts seems to be an example of an article actually touched by Cydebot. Town and country planning in the United Kingdom (the article, not the category of the same name) seems not to have been Cydebotted, although it was edited by what looks like a separate bot User:BetacommandBot.  Hope this helps. - David Oberst 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want bot work done on something because you have some other sort of categorization scheme in mind, remove it from WP:CFD/W post-haste. That will make it so that the bots can't get at it. -- Cyde↔Weys 22:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox generator
Cyde,

What's with the userbox generator? I thought you hated them and wanted to see them deleted, but you collect them on a subpage, then you dump them on everybody's talk page for April Fool's, now this. You are the most confusing user I've ever known. I don't mean that in a bad way, just, well...you're eccentric. -- D -Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 21:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That userbox generator is nothing new, it's been around since March. -- Cyde↔Weys 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: My comment
I ment meditate.Raichu 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.
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.

Message delivered by Ralbot 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:ESP/UPA
Hello, Cyde. This is a quick message to remind you that all 5 finalists for the Esperanza User Page Award have been chosen. You now need to judge those 5 pages, awarding each one 1-10 points for attractiveness, usefulness, interesting-ness and general niceness. Refer to the Scores section at the project page if you are unsure of how to score.

Once you have scored the 5 pages, email Petros471 using the specified format. As soon as all the scores have been tallied, a winner will be announced. Thanks. May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(review me!) 08:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

YOG
YOG--YΟG 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

IRC
No, seriously, I'm wondering. SushiGeek 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle
I don't think the block was appropriate - not without a warning, not for 24 hours. I'd like to ask you to reconsider. Guettarda 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ?? Guettarda 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By the time I noticed Kizzle had already spammed the notice to over a dozen talk pages. It was way too late for a warning. Much like if someone has vandalized over a dozen times, you don't need to warn them again before blocking. I would only ever even consider unblocking someone who has apologized and recognized that what they did was wrong. If you look at Kizzle's verbal explosions all over his talk page ... you can clearly see this is not the case:
 *  get blocked for 24 hours for "talk-page spam" soliciting both conservatives and republicans while 3RR violations get a 3hr block on a straw poll where I'm trying to find common ground between liberals and conservatives to describe her work at the CIR, where my primary opponent has many suspected sockpuppets and yet no action on either 3RR or Checkuser boards?
 * thanks cyde for making me realize wikipedia sucks. peace out guys.

That doesn't look like someone who should be unblocked to me. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Spamming is very different from vandalism. It isn't all that rare, and as long as it isn't campaigning I can't see how it's blockable at all.  I don't agree with this rationale for a block.  As for his reply, it isn't all that surprising - if I got blocked for something that I didn't think was bloackable, and no one raised a finger to help, I'd be pissed off as well.  It's a bit much to ask for contrition when he didn't commit a crime.  Guettarda 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Guettarda 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Naming of military conflict articles
Please note the discussions at Naming Conventions, Talk:Operation Power Pack, Talk:Operation Joint Endeavor, Talk:Operation Golden Pheasant, and Talk:Operation Restore Hope. Añoranza 20:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page spamming policy question
Cyde, I saw your block for Kizzle talk page spamming, and was curious -- is there a policy or guideline defining the practice? As far as I can tell, WP:Spam seems to contemplate informing interested parties of a vote, as long as the user (1) doesn't cherry pick one viewpoint and (2) cleans up the pages after the vote and WP:Straw, seems to contemplate that "posting on talk pages" is ok, as long as the posting doesn't use language that suggests bias.

Alternately, do you think those policy pages should be edited to say "don't post on more than x pages about a poll?" Thanks, TheronJ 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold
Hi,

I have to say, I came very close to ignoring your message. You know very well that there is a legitimate disagreement about policy in this instance, and you also saw many established Wikipedians arguing for the reversion. Their arguments bested yours in numeric support and policy merit. As much as I hate WP:IAR, it does exist as a fairly venerable principle around here, and it applies here more aptly then elsewhere, in a case where abiding by the letter of a guideline leads to an impractical result disfavored by the community. You are welcome to believe that this is "in violation of policy", but that belief is clearly out-of-touch with the reality of consensus, for the reasons given above, and I will rebut it no further, especially when I am addressed in such a brusque manner. Good day, Xoloz 18:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a comment on Kusma's talk page I'm copying here. It provides some good reasoning against cross-namespace redirects that can't be overwhelmed by whatever numbers you want to throw at it.

I'm just wondering, have you read WP:ASR recently? Your string of comments on WP:RFD leads me to believe that you may not understand why the distinction between the encyclopedic content and the process of building the encyclopedia is important. We haven't allowed self-references in article space since almost the beginning. How would you feel if you were thumbing through Encyclopedia Britannica and you ran across some entries that were dealing with the editorial process of how inclusion of entries was decided by the Britannica editors? Encyclopedia Britannica does a good job of separating content from process and we can do the same. In addition, there's a good technical reason why cross-namespace redirects are to be avoided: they break on mirrors. Remember, we aren't just writing content for en.wikipedia.org; we are writing encyclopedic content that is used on dozens of other sites. And those sites use database archives that include articles but not project space. So each one of those cross-namespace redirects creates a broken "encyclopedia entry" on the mirrors. We should keep the articles entirely separate from the project stuff, which necessarily means two separate namespaces and a strong division between the two, not the blurring that we see with cross-namespace redirects. Please reconsider your stance. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand those arguments, and have sympathy for them. Nevertheless, the community is entitled to exercise discretion and favor one guideline (WP:IAR for the sake of user ease) over another (WP:ASR.)  The choice here is not so clearly absurd that I will stand against consensus.  I have no stake in this debate whatsoever, and couldn't care less, except that I am constrained to act as the community chooses absent evidence of clear contravention of our basic mandate.  I wouldn't let a contrary consensus alter or veto one of the five pillars, but this is minor question over a redirect of convenience.  Let the majority have its will, and the encyclopedia will come to no harm here. Xoloz 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you not see the irony in citing WP:IAR as the justification for this? I can just cite WP:IAR as a justification for what I'm doing, and then we're at a stalemate.  So we have to look for other policies that might have something to say and ... ohh ... what do you know, WP:ASR is very clear on this issue.  If you look at articles like Wikipedia and such you'll see the only possible way that we can link to non-article space from articles.  We have to use external links.  Otherwise it breaks on mirrors.  I'm not sure you're understanding the importance of this part.  We aren't just writing for Wikipedia, we're writing encyclopedic content that is used in many, many places (which is why we're writing under the GFDL).  There are dozens of mirrors who likely care a bit about this issue, but generally they don't participate in DRV, whereas a few Wikipedians are trying to overrule our policies and create an environment of namespace criss-crossing redirects that break on mirrors.  It's unacceptable.  Policy is policy for a reason, and it can't be overridden by a few people on a DRV who don't even understand the larger issues.  -- Cyde↔Weys  19:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are already cross-space redirects for many well-known policies, as well as the standard "WP:" cross-space redirects, since "WP:" is still in the article space. It is my understanding, as well as the majority of DRV, that ASR is not the paramount issue you believe it to be.  It is important, yes, but capable of being overriden at the community's behest.  If you disagree with the DRV outcome, you may 1) file an RfC; or 2) file a new RfD, but please don't revert-war.  I'm just doing my job as I see it -- you may disagree with me, but I expect you to remain respectful of status-quo until some consensus empowers you to act.


 * As for IAR, no one hates it more than I, and I understand your contradiction proposed above. The difference between us is that I am acting as an agent of a DRV consensus (IAR is their rationale, not mine), and you (and like-minded reverters) are acting on your own.  From my POV, this gives my actions a better warrant.  Again, though you may well disagree, it is best to discuss these things, not revert endlessly.  I, for one, am done reverting today.  Best wishes, Xoloz 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be operating under the assumption that DRV is the pinnacle of Wikipedia and that it can override everything else. This simply isn't true.  And for what it's worth, I dispute the outcome you claim to see in the DRV, as I believe the consensus there was to redlink them rather than revert to cross-namespace redirects.  It's worrying to me that you consider yourself "an agent of a DRV consensus", as if a few people who show up on DRV can do no wrong and whatever they decide sets binding policy across the entire encyclopedia.  A few people on DRV saying something doesn't give you the right to ignore policy and revert many other admins, and it certainly doesn't give you the exclusive mandate on what happens to these two redirects.  -- Cyde↔Weys  19:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * DRV is certainly not a pinnacle of anything, but it does have the purview to overturn XfD's. As I indicated, you have other avenues open to you (RfC, RfD again) which could override DRV.  I act as an agent of DRV when I close a decision and carry it out, as you act as agent of (whatever forum) when you close a debate and carry it out.  It isn't that I'm special -- I just happened to be acting with a consensus behind me.  Your only claim to consensus is your own reading of policy, which is a claim of lesser merit.  If you brought this to RfD, and it agreed to delete the things, any closer could then carry that out as an agent of RfD.  See the distinction? Best wishes, Xoloz 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As for WP:, it is a pseudo-namespace. It's a lot better that all of the cross-namespace redirects are located in WP:, WT:, and CAT:, which can easily be filtered out for the mirrors (and hopefully will be converted into shortcut namespaces at some point). But your ideas would have cross-namespace redirects scattered willy-nilly across the entire main namespace, impossible to find robotically ... that's an unacceptable situation. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If we can filter things out for the mirrors, we can compile a keyword list of important terms in policy that good redirects to policy, whatever those might be as selected by consensus. Your point proves my argument, in my view. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As you also use your arguments from my talk page here, let me add my answer as well:
 * I will explain why I don't really buy these arguments (and I actually believe CNRs to be less self-referential than links from actual article pages to Wikipedia space: unlike articles, CNRs shouldn't have any incoming links from main space). Although I don't really believe the arguments are all that good, I don't have a big problem with the deletion of many of the CNRs, but want to avoid having them speedily deleted (or deleted after a one-day debate, which basically amounts to speedying). I certainly believe the distinction is important. Redirects from article space to Wikipedia space from plain English words and phrases will, however, only be visible to users if they either type them in the search bar or use Special:Allpages. If we often (say, more than twice per year) get the situation that a user types a CNR in the search bar and gets taken to a totally unexpected Wikipedia page, the CNR should be deleted. I don't see how a user can be surprised if typing Wikipedia is not in the search bar leads him to a page about Wikipedia. Whether this is a problem at be bold is something at least worthy of debate. In Special:Allpages, cross-space redirects do indeed mix encyclopedic and meta-encyclopedic content, a situation we should try to avoid. (Here the WP: shortcuts are so nicely grouped together that an exception for them is no big deal). The question is at which cost we try to avoid these. If links as be bold are orphaned before deletion/retargetting, at least only old versions of pages break. Old versions of policy and talk pages are worth something, but how much exactly should be found out by a more centralized discussion. The time certainly isn't ripe for speedy deletion of CNRs. For those such as BJAODN I don't see much possibility of confusion with encyclopedic content anyway: a user who sees this on Special:Allpages and clicks on it will get at least the expansion of the acronym. The Special:Allpages argument is actually the strongest pro-delete CNRs argument I see, but I still am not certain enough that disallowing natural and more easily typed links such as be bold insetad of be bold are really worth it if all we get is a "cleaner namespace".
 * A problem with deleting CNRs is that they are popular and often get recreated. If somebody then replaces the redirect by deletedpage, we have the worst possible situation. Instead of a useful self-reference (the CNR) or a redlink that discourages linking (deleting), we get a useless self-reference (the deletedpage template) and encourage linking to it by making the link appear blue. This is a bit self-defeating, and pages that exist as deletedpage also appear in Special:Allpages, mixed with the real encyclopedia entries. Per WP:ASR, we should use deletedpage as rarely as possible and delete these pages as soon as we can.
 * Your argument about mirrors is something I can not quite follow. I expect our mirrors to be smart enough to remove all cross-namespace redirects from their database, which can be done easily (just like removing cross-namespace and red links). I understand that links to cross-namespace redirects could lead to a problem (a bit harder to remove, needs a second pass) but there shoudn't be any of these in article space anyway. Do you have a specific example of a mirror that has problems? Can we solve these without deleting our CNRs? How does that mirror deal with our shortcuts?
 * Certainly we should make sure all self-references are appropriately marked, so we don't have a naked link to Wikipedia space as the one in the hatnote on boldness. Yes, I know it is wrapped in selfref, but that template doesn't actually do anything (maybe we should wrap stuff in the right CSS, I guess you know more about how to do this than I do). This leads to breaking on mirrors such as this (scroll down to Wikipedia, notice the not working link). In this case, the CNR might have produced a better result than the hatnote. Answers.com is, by the way, smart enough to have figured out not to display deletedpage anymore. For real mirror stupidity, you can also look at Brian Peppers or Userbox at help.com (Answers.com still had them a couple of weeks ago).
 * Another topic are CNRs to template or category pages. Many CNRs to category pages probably break on mirrors, and (worse than those to Wikipedia space) are probably linked from article space. However, linking to category space from article space is useful, and we should do it. Often, the intent is just to link to an automated list. Probably it is better to move some of the content of the category description page to a stub article instead of the redirect. CNRs to templates are often stuff such as a sports team template posing an extra article, which is probably unnecessary.
 * So perhaps I don't have strong arguments for keeping, but I find the arguments for deletion weak. The arguments for deletion certainly also apply to deletedpage, but we use that since we believe it to be useful enough to allow these self-references in main space. Many CNRs may also be useful enough to sufficiently many people to be allowed in main space. Kusma (討論) 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add that I am happy with the current situation at be bold and boldness. As there is a valid possibly encyclopedic use (the Ford campaign, although our article doesn't cover that yet) the possibility of confusion is evident and there is no reason to keep be bold as a CNR. That doesn't change much about my general argument, though. Oh, and while I'm here: Would it help to revert Template:Selfref to this version? Kusma (討論) 04:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Be bold et al
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on almost every point in your comment. A few experienced users have stepped forward - just like a few experienced users stepped forward when the RFD decision was made. You consider the DRV decision to be "monumentally stupid". That would be a very accurate description of my reaction to the original RFD decision.

While you are correct in a sense that no decision in Wikipedia is "binding" (except an edict from Jimbo), DRV decisions are given a great deal of weight. They are widely viewed and get active participation from some of our most experienced editors. Now you could argue that didn't happen in this case but I don't think this is the case.

You keep referring to a policy prohibiting cross-namespace redirects. I have politely and repeatedly asked for a link to that policy. At this point, I am again tempted to use your own word - is this a mythical policy?

When the Deletion Review process was established, the community explicitly decided that it was to be in scope to review and reevaluation any deletion decision, not merely those which end in deletion. While it might have been acceptable to move the discussion to a different place, well, I asked that when I opened the DRV nomination. No one (including yourself) suggested an alternate forum and the discussion continued.

If you want me to stop, simply point me to a policy-level decision where the community decided to outlaw redirects like this. Or show me a new consensus decision where the community explicitly decides to overturn the DRV decision. Rossami (talk)

I hate to say "you lose", but ... you lose. There's now a useful and valid disambig page at what used to be a hard redirect into project space. This disambig would never even have existed unless people like me had stepped forward to get rid of the hard redirect which was squatting on what legitimately could become an encyclopedic page. I'm frankly astounded by the number of people who have fought tooth and nail against the encyclopedia in this instance. Why in the hell should some editor's convenience come above the project? Remember what we're doing here people! We're writing a free encyclopedia! -- Cyde↔Weys 02:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot WP:CFD renaming request for cults
Cyde, I'm looking to rename articles in Category:Cults to refer to Alleged Cults because labeling an organization a cult is highly subjective (see Category Talk:Cults and the CFD entry. I'll probably add the request to another bot owners page or two so you might want to check that it hasn't been done yet. If you do get to it, please leave a message. Antonrojo 01:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Run it through the normal CFD process and once it reaches WP:CFD/W after the CFD is over, it will be acted upon. -- Cyde↔Weys 02:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your deletions
Cyde, before running around speedying things, take a look at the histories. Bladed weapon for instance... Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was merged into a category (???). And unfortunately you can't move pages in category space, so it's impossible to preserve that page's history. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I ask that you please restore that page and revert away from the redirect. Otherwise I will use WP:DRV to request undeletion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You could do it yourself, I'm just avoiding cross-namespace redirects ... if a valid article can go there, just go ahead and do it. -- Cyde↔Weys  13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but there are some who would accuse me of wheel warring. Thanks for restoring it. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Bleagh, some arbitrary rules against "wheel warring" shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing. -- Cyde↔Weys  13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It has in all seriousness been proposed once. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is another good example why cross-space redirects should not be speedied. Most of those to category space actually deserve at least a minimum of thought. Did you read my arguments and could you reconsider your stance and go slow on these deletions? Kusma (討論) 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Kay, I'll be more careful about checking the ones with page histories. -- Cyde↔Weys  13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold, etc. redirects
Cyde, I said my piece, and I support Xoloz because he closed a DRV, and I believe he closed it according to consensus. I disagree with you guys reverting him because he's doing it as an action in closing a DRV, but I'm simply not going let my blood boil by arguing with you about it. Please bring your arguments elsewhere. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just had to respond his outright false argument that no one had given any explanation. -- Cyde↔Weys 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problems, I can understand your need to clarify things (just as Xoloz has). In my mind, Xoloz is one of the good guys, he does a lot of the work, and he closes DRVs and *fDs regardless of how he personally feels in the matter. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see him as one of the good guys. Yeah, he closes a lot of DRVs, but he gets a lot of them wrong.  He seems to do a strict numerical count, nevermind any applicable policy.  I've seen him undeleting some blatantly inflammatory userboxes and now here he is undeleting some cross-namespace redirects.  It doesn't make any sense.  DRV is not a vote; as an admin, you're supposed to exercise your judgement and discretion.  DRV can't come to a conclusion that violates policy, no matter how many times discussants feel like throwing around references to WP:IAR.  It seems to me like the best thing now would be for Xoloz to uninvolve himself in DRV and let someone with a better understanding of policy do the work.  -- Cyde↔Weys  22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rest assured, Cyde: I have a firm grasp on policy, and I will continue to close DRVs in which I am uninvolved regularly. You may close them yourself within policy (when you are uninvolved, of course) as you wish.  We'll see if you could do a "better" job.  I am coming very strongly to resent the suggestion that my mental acuity is lacking in some fashion, and I ask you to refrain from making those disparaging comments unless you are willing to support it with evidence.  If all we do is throw around insults loosely, I can just as easily call you unqualified as you can call me so.  Are Rossami, Deathphoenix, Kusma, et al., and the other admins who support some part of my view in this similarly "stupid"? Best wishes, Xoloz 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cyde, the problem is that DRV, as it is written now, is based on numbers. This could cause problems, especially when popularity and policy collide, but having the same admin discretion in DRV closures as in *fd's leaves them just as open to debate as the original closure, resulting in a circular problem. (review the reviews? :) I'd support updating DRV to remove the explicit dependance on numbers, but possibly the ability for DRV to totally reverse an *fd decision should be reviewed, only allowing a relist at most, which would cover the review of the review issue.
 * In any case, I think this DRV was flawed from the beginning as it boiled down to a content dispute instead of a deletion review. All the DRV should have decided was whether or not the "keep" was correct, overturning the rfd should have resulted in a deletion, instead of specifying what content the kept article (redirect in this case) should contain. Regards, MartinRe 00:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, Cyde, I like you, but I definitely take umbrage with your fragging Xoloz the way you are. I'd like to see how well you do in DRV, but I'll just sum it up in one sentence: I don't think you would do as well as Xoloz does. Heck, I won't do as well as Xoloz does, so I don't even bother doing anything on DRV. Xoloz is doing much better than I would. So you can go around and accuse people anyone who disagreed with you in the Be bold DRV of being stupid, and you can credit yourself with being the person who was the main catalyst behind the brilliant disambiguation page that resides there now, but please don't go around and accuse him of being stupid and of making many wrong decisions in DRV, because while I consider you one of the good guys, and I'd like to consider myself as one of the good guys, he's far better than either you or I. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we can agree to disagree ... I, personally, have simply seen him undelete way too many inflammatory, useless, and unencyclopedic userboxes to ever approve of the way he's handled DRV. -- Cyde↔Weys  18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah... the userbox thing. In that case, I guess your reactions or behaviour toward him would be understandable, although I haven't seen how he closes any of the userbox debates. I actually don't really care too much about the userbox issue (apart from opinion-expressing userboxes, but once again, I only care as much as to comment on it, and little else), but I do know that you feel quite strongly about userboxes, and I understand that a lot of other people feel strongly about it as well. Apart from userboxes, you have to admit that Xoloz does good work, though. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC) (I still don't condone fragging him, though)

User:Raphael1 and WP:COPYVIO
Your reversion of User:Raphael1 latest attempt at an edit on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy couldn't have been more correct! User:MX44 actually found a source for the text. Prior to User:MX44's exposing of the origin, User:Raphael1 never made mention of where the text came from, despite inquiries about it. May the end of his arbitration case arrive soon and have the final arbitrator agree to the ban! Netscott 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I didn't discover the copyvio myself, I was just working off a sort of gut instinct that something felt wrong. -- Cyde↔Weys  14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very understandable given User:Raphael1 history on that article. To be honest I was a bit suprised to see Rapael1 propose such an addition it was very uncharacteristic for sure which is why I was quick to question it... and then finally not being surprised when the truth to the matter was revealed. Netscott 14:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In hindsight we went about this arbitration incorrectly. I should've asked for an injunction against him editing the article.  I have it on good authority from an arbitrator that that injunction would've passed :-/  Cyde↔Weys  14:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We live and learn.. that is good to know for the future. Netscott 14:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Abuse of 3RR on Ann Coulter

 * You misunderstand. I'm counting down in an effort to check myself.  I fail to see how making an effort to check yourself could be seen as gaming the system.  I'm very absent-minded, and these edit summaries are my way of making sure I don't go over, since my time is several hours off the displayed time and I don't know if this or that reversion was made yesterday or this morning.  Please assume good faith.  If you thought the "violation" was blatant enough that WP:AGF wasn't necessary, why didn't you at least ask me for clarification before admonishing me?  Psycho Master (Karwynn) 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This reply is also on my own talk page. I'd prefer you to reply there, to keep it all together. I just replied here so you'd for sure see it.

Block
Haven't we discussed before about you blocking without any warning...now you do it again...--MONGO 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey MONGO, hadn't we discussed about you blocking people you're involved in content disputes with? Multiple times? In other words ... pot ... kettle ... black ... Cyde↔Weys 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So Cyde, two administrative wrongs make a right? How does MONGO's own record excuse yours? The block at issue here—the one you enacted—seems to me to be an arbitrary block based on an imaginary policy. I strongly protest this clear abuse of admin authority. Either cite policies/guidelines or don't block people. How does blocking someone without warning help to encourage editors to be bold? Dick Clark 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Be bold refers to editing articles, not contravening Wikipedia policies. And I have a right to point out hypocrisy.  -- Cyde↔Weys  21:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You have the "right" to say whatever you want. I'm saying that the above is neither germane nor constructive when one's goal is to build an encyclopedia through community consensus. Now, since I am not an admin and therefore do not have any unrighteous blocks in my closet, what is your explanation? Ad hominems are the last refuge of the guilt-laden. Point to a specific passage in a particular policy or guideline, please. Dick Clark 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For one, stop process wonking. Ask yourself, do you really want to inhabit a Wikipedia where spam is commonplace and ever-present, and each even vaguely controversial discussion results in rallying cries from all sides involved?  That would be incredibly unconstructive and disruptive and would result in a sheer departure from Wikipedia's basic mission.  Most administrators agree, users can be blocked for vote-stacking and talk page spamming ... and keep in mind that policy is merely a written codification of practice, not the other way around.  But if you want to get really wonkish, here's the in-policy justification for blocking spammers: Blocking policy and Help:Talk page, which says, "The practice of "spamming" - posting similar messages to more than a few users' talk pages, often for the purpose of soliciting a certain action - is discouraged."  -- Cyde↔Weys  15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which brings this argument right back to Mongo's original point. Since the policy says "discouraged" wouldn't a warning have been more appropriate? If it said "is not tolerated" i could understand your action. David D. (Talk) 18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oookay, lemme go change the wording to reflect established practice. -- Cyde↔Weys  18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So you blocked me for violating a "no tolerance" clause which you unilaterally wrote into policy without discussion after my incident? Seems to me a clear-cut case of Ex_post_facto justification, which is absolutely inappropriate for justifying blocks on Wikipedia. --kizzle 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like you need to stop being so defensive when you're so clearly in the wrong and learn how policy works. -- Cyde↔Weys  19:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please address my point and not blindly dismiss it as "defensive" behavior. You have at least four other users contesting your block, so I don't see that I am clearly in the wrong.  I also think its unfair to accuse me of not knowing policy when you revise it to include a "no tolerance" (meaning blockable offense) after I posted the straw poll invites. --kizzle 21:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly I have no problem with the edit you made to "not tolerated", but you're treading on thin ice to justify the block in this instance. Regardless, unless the user is aware of such policy a block without warning seems a little steep. If kizzle was fully ware of the policy then no problem, although the fact you just edited the page makes it hard to see how kizzle could have been aware of such a policy.
 * Is there a spam template out there that can be added to the talk page pointing users to the relevant policy? Such a template could say some thing along the lines of "Be aware of WP:Blocking Policy, WP:Spam, and WP:Straw that states spamming talk pages is not tolerated. Any further spamming will result in a block without warning"? That would seem fair. David D. (Talk) 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find one and I can't seem to think of a good name spam is already taken, so why don't you take a shot at it? -- Cyde↔Weys  19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyde, if I could make a suggestion, I think it would be a good idea to edit WP:Blocking Policy, WP:Spam, and WP:Straw to make clear that spam is blockable, even if the user doesn't vote farm. It never would have occurred to me to look at talk page help to find the policy, and I think standardizing the policy across the pages would be helpful to future users.  Thanks, TheronJ 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this something that's already been decided or up for discussion? Without the intent to vote farm or vote stack, and incorporating such limits as only contacting users that appear on the talk page already or maybe simply a numerical limit, I can't see how contacting other users about a poll with such incoporated limits would hurt Wikipedia. Look at the effect of my "blockable" offense, the straw poll now has many diverse opinions and several different conclusions from editors on all political perspectives; to me this seems like the effect of my actions had a positive effect on the talk page in question. --kizzle 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking of Travb
He had previously apologised for his actions and was in the process of seeking an advocate to help him resolve the issues. Blocks aren't mean't to be punitive, and I see no benefit in keeping him blocked at the present time. Should he keep up the same behaviour, I might not object to a new block in the future. Rebecca 13:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think blank unblock reasons are very communicative though. It leaves a lot of people wondering.  -- Cyde↔Weys  13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that much, anyway. Rebecca 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I confess
I recently climbed the Reichstag dressed as Batman, is this allowed?--152.163.100.9 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it would be a copyvio. Cyde, I think you have your very own troll now. - David Oberst 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research (the redirect)
Hi Cyde. I tried to redirect Original research to Research rather than No original research, on the grounds that I think it could genuinely be a source of confusion to people trying to look up an encyclopedia article. I was reverted on the grounds that there are currently many links to it, which I think is a legitimate reason to delay fixing the redirect. Is it possible for you to set up your bot to change all talk-page occurences of Original research with Original research (and likewise for the same with the o decapitalized)...? Let me know. Thanks, SCZenz 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Cyde. Fixing the redirect is all well and good, but it is a problem that there are lots of pages linking to that page with the intent of going to WP:NOR.  This should be fixed as outlined above.  Will you do it with your bot, or should I put in a more general bot request?  Please let me know. -- SCZenz 09:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CFD working
Any chance you could have your bot work its magic on Categories for deletion/Working? the wub "?!"  10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation templates
It's probably best to enter them all at once, in one single edit, as opposed to one or two at a time. Regards, El_C 04:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. -- Cyde↔Weys 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been burned by too many edit conflicts in the past to try a huge change on a highly active article all at once, though. -- Cyde↔Weys 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here comes the Spiderman!
(No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman)

I have threatened to climb the Reichstag, dressed up as and did so, became bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and then had it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great!

"In extreme cases editors may be tempted to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman in order to promote their cause. This is absolutely forbidden and can result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia."



This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia! Horay!

Thats what I love about this Wonderful, wonderful website.

Next stop: The Kremlin!

Thankyou!

Dfrg.msc 08:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cyde, you make me laugh. :-) Netscott 14:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Lamest edit wars
"rv. - it's not within the purview of someone INVOLVED in the lame edit war to delist it form this page"


 * From where do you draw this rule? This is a borderline personal attack page (which asserts that the participants in these disputes are mentally ill), and its ability to exist is based purely upon the fact that it's not to be taken seriously.  As such, I fail to see why you're treating it as sacrosanct documentation (by applying strict rules of non-involvement), particularly given the fact that I invited the editor to restore the entry if he/she still believed that the subject of the conflict was "petty."  Personally, I'm of the belief that the ability of visually impaired people to use this site is important, but perhaps you disagree.  &mdash;David Levy 15:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Antivandalbot is preventing a legitimate merge
I was merging Travel with ferrets into the Ferret article (as per an AfD debate on the article). I had already copied contents into their new home, but your bot will not allow me to perform the final part of this move- that is erasing the old article and replacing it with a link to its new location. JeffStickney 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a fatal flaw with AntiVandalBot
I can't believe AVB would treat a formatting correction as vandalism and treat me unfairly, no matter what edit summaries I use. If this continues, I will be forced to quit. 69.117.4.237 21:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Crossnamespace redirects
Could you keep Cydebot off User:Invitatious/cnr? This is wrong and annoying. Kotepho 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I lack a delete button, so it isn't all that useful. Kotepho 04:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Request for RoryBot
Cyde wrote (on User talk:Rory096):


 * Hey, can you handle this? Thanks.  -- Cyde↔Weys  15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto Original research. Thanks!  -- Cyde↔Weys  19:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately Rory096 seems to be on a wikibreak (see his user page) so probably won't be running his bot until mid-August. Just thought I'd let you know that I've done a couple of hundred for Wikipedia is not paper; looking at the above discussion Original research seems to be a priority, so I'll start on that one now. If you have any other requests, let me know and I may be able to handle them (at least until July 27th when I, too, will be taking some time off). Hope I'm being useful – Gurch 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, having said that, I'm now being yelled at for changing cross-namespace redirects. Apparently it's a system burden (though nobody mentioned that when I made 13,000 typo-fixing edits). I don't want to get into any more trouble than I already appear to be in, so I'm stopping for now. Anyway, if you want me to try to get a bot approved and go ahead and do it anyway, please say so. Thanks – Gurch 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore them, they don't know what they're talking about. It's perfectly acceptable to edit a page to fix a redirect; they're trying to throw the rules on you about not bothering to bypass working redirects. But these aren't working ... they're being deleted as cross-namespace redirects. -- Cyde↔Weys 04:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've found something a little less controversial to do: delete about 100 redirects into user space that were listed on User:Invitatious/cnr. These are, of course, already covered by policy in the form of CSD R2, so there shouldn't be any problems. I think I've found most of them, but there may still be one or two hiding in there. – Gurch 13:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

self-reference categories
Hi Cyde - thanks for your explanation on ANI about self-reference categories and self-reference templates. It gave me an idea that perhaps the categories could solve the self-referential redirects as well? I havn't followed that debate too much so far though, so I am probably missing some obvious stuff there :). RN 07:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They still take us away from our goals of making an encyclopedia independent of "Wikipedia", though, and should be minimized, not used en masse and neatly categorized (which gives them even more of the appearance of being okay). Remember, the vast majority of users of Wikipedia are readers, not editors, so it doesn't make sense to prioritize some editor conveniences over the basic goals of the project. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Blu Aardvark
Please note that I have reduced your block to one year per the arbcom ruling. Ian ¹³ /t  12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No original research
Please don't change the original research redirect without first gaining consensus to do so on the redirect's talk page. The redirect has been around for more than two years and is linked to by well over 1000 talk pages. Of course, if consensus forms to change it then that is fine but we shouldn't be unilaterally doing that without discussion. Any discussion should also include no original research, which also links to No original research. Also, I'm not sure what reason you used to originally delete the article b/c it doesn't appear to have had a vote for deletion and wouldn't have been a candidate for speedy delete. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have started a vote/discussion on this at Talk:Original research. Please join in with your thoughts and vote. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I'm happy to change the article IF consensus develops to do that. Please take part in the discussion at Talk:Original research.--Alabamaboy 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need consensus to turn self-referential bullshit into actual encyclopedic content. That's just common sense.  -- Cyde↔Weys  13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahoy-hoy. You might like to know that there is a new proposal on the page, Talk:Original_research. You might like to add your comment. Regards, Iola k ana |T  15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice
Applause. It's times like this I find myself wanting to reach through the computer screen and smack people with that kind of insensitivity. --69.145.123.171 19:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ref templates
Cyde, I know you are aware of the cite.php turnover, so you seem like a good person to ask about this. I'm trying to get a template to link from the first sentence to the opinion at bottom, but when you click on the footnote in the first sentence (at Mobile v. Bolden for example), you get nothing. Footnotes and Template_talk:Ref indicates these are still available, so maybe it's a problem I'm not catching. Any advice?--Kchase02 T 08:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I fixed it for you. -- Cyde↔Weys  13:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I could have done that myself, but thanks. Are all the old ref systems deprecated or is there still something available that works?--Kchase02 T 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Canadian charities
No Canadians participated in the debate, so I don't recognize the outcome of that disucssion. Ardenn 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I do believe that's not a criteria whatsoever for overturning a CFD decision. You're trying to play WP:OWN with an entire nationality.  -- Cyde↔Weys  18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Ardenn 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This talk page is archived automatically by a bot that removes all sections older than four days. And I don't appreciate you trying to turn this around on me by making a false issue out of my talk page.  The issue is very clearly about your very strange decision to run around reverting the outcome of a CFD process calling it vandalism.  -- Cyde↔Weys  18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I really should thank you. By protecting my talk page, I don't have to respond to comments, since no one can leave them! You're doing me a great sevice, so thank you! By the way, I don't reply to comments left on someone else's talk page, just my own. You really should have read the box at the top. Ardenn 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyde, I only recently became aware of the CFD, by seeing the resulting changes on some of the articles in this category. I don't really care about the change one way or the other, but out of curiousity I wanted to read the discussion. Unfortunately, I cannot find the log entry. It's apparently supposed to be in the log for June 22, but I can't find it. Is there a missing link, or am I just needing some more coffee? Agent 86 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I found it after posting this message. You can disregard my request! Agent 86 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup
Thanks for protecting the 2006 FIFA World Cup page from anonymous editors. It is difficult to maintain a page with complex code involved, when it frequently changed by those with good intentions, but do not fully understand how to read the code. Flibirigit 21:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No kidding. I saw someone totally munged up the bracket, which is why I came to view the page in the first place, and I saw that it was removed some two dozen edits earlier, in a fast span of editing of a rate at over one edit a minute.  At that speed it's simply impossible to keep track of what's going on and make sure nothing gets screwed up.  As for the large section blanking, I have no idea of knowing whether that was a well-intentioned mistake or vandalism, but I'm leaning towards vandalism.  Someone was being sneaky and hoped that their changes would go unnoticed in the sea of anon edits - and they did, for a little while.  Also, some other anons didn't know how to deal with edit conflicts, so one of my big reorganizational fixes got killed in an anon edit conflict.  Enough was enough.  -- Cyde↔Weys  22:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbots.
Hi, Cyde. I have some questions about Tawkerbots. I was very interested that Tawkerbot4 is also another vandalbot. I know that Your bot is AntiValdalBot and Cydebot. Is Tawkerbot3 also existed? I'm just curious. *~Daniel~* 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, there's no Tawkerbot3, just 2 and 4. They're both run by Tawker, just on different computers.  And of course I run AntiVandalBot on my own computer.  -- Cyde↔Weys  23:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My talk page
Could you please unprotect my talk page? Since I've been unblocked, there's no need for me to revert and readd that template. Ardenn 00:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ardenn has also asked me to unblock his talk page. Is there any reason why I shouldn't?  Since he's unblocked, I don't think it serves any continued purpose.  CJCurrie 03:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your signature
Hello there, I was wondering if you would please modify your signature to conform to the guidelines laid out at Sign your posts on talk pages. The general guidelines are that signatures shouldn't contain images, they shouldn't contain unnecessary internal links or any external links, and they shouldn't be unnecessarily long in Wiki source. The reasoning for this final bit is that overly long signatures tend to overwhelm the actual comments in edit mode, making it hard to track down and respond to specific comments. You can fix your signature by removing any images and external links, any unnecessary links (like links to Wikipedian organizations, articles, or subpages in userspace), and removing excessive color, font, and formatting code. Thank you. -- Cyde↔Weys 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Hope it's better. Regards. Orane (t) 19:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I felt 'naked' after I trimmed my signature, so I 'reclothed' it somewhat. Have I again gone overboard? Oran e ( talk  •  cont. ) 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. 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 04:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Namespace redirect
Hello Cyde, Maybe you could have your bot fix all of the links that point to &#091;&#091;Geographic_references&#093;&#093;? Thanks. Netscott 19:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-references
Cyde, it strikes me that the approach being taken to this question is somehow suboptimal. The main approach (of you, Mackensen and Kelly Martin, principally) is to tell editors who disagree with you how immeasurably stupid they are, usually using profanity or/and incivility to clarify your point. This is the kind of argument that has at its root "I'm doing what I know to be the right thing and so stuff you". I know that is an approach you are fond of, but really there are *much* better ways of doing it. Rather than telling people what bullshit a redirect from original research is, be nice about it, be persuasive about it, make the case somewhere/places relevant. Relying, as you are, on the assumption that some form of "common sense" makes these a scar on the face of Wikipedia that must be removed by edit and wheel war if necessary is to overblow the issue, and to overlook the fact that many reasonable editors disagree with you (and branding them unreasonable is just a defence mechanism). There is always, remember, the possibility that you may be wrong. I'm not saying you necessarily are, but you need to persuade people of how right you are rather than trying to bludgeon them with it. -Splash - tk 14:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I use profanity when I get pissed off, though I don't recall calling anyone stupid. But by all means, continue thinking the worst of me is that is your liking ... Cyde↔Weys 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's more-or-less impossible not to get pissed off at times when working 'behind' the scenes round here. But maybe, when irritated, just using show preview several times before deciding whether a particular phrasing is definitely the best there is before pressing save? I'm not sure why I should think "the worst of [you]", though. I think you could handle this cross-namespace stuff in a markedly better way (for your own sake and others'), philosophically, linguistically and executionally, but that doesn't mean I regard you as lowly as you think I do. -Splash - tk 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And the reason it's really annoying to have to patiently explain this is because there are hundreds of cross-namespace redirects that need to be fixed, and I simply don't have the time to deal with the various dissidents that seem to pop up on each one. I guess I wish people would just get it, but on a site with 900+ admins, it looks like I'm always doomed to run into resistance. So if I seem exasperated ... it's because I am. Because it's really annoying to keep on running into the same arguments of "oh but it's been there for awhile" or "oh but it's convenient" with people who are just entering the fray and don't know anything about the issues. -- Cyde↔Weys 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As nicely as possible, if you're "having" to do things sort-of alone, might it be that you're going the wrong way? We work by consensus here, and "dissidents" actually have just as much right to their opinion as you do.  Why is it, exactly, that these cross-namespace redirects suddenly "need to be fixed," for example? -  brenneman  15:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly alone on this issue. But, sure, maybe it is time for centralized discussion, to get all of the arguments in one place.  -- Cyde↔Weys  15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That way, at least, whatever the outcome is (and I think that at least some of these redirects would be removed by it), there is a place to point to when encountering resistance subsequently. Do be prepared for it not to flow entirely your way, though, and not to simply regard that as "dissident"s getting in the way; perhaps not all of them need to be removed. An obvious starting point might be that something should be done whenever a legitimate encyclopedia topic might sit on that name. This approximates what you're doing already: original research would have to go, but votes for deletion probably not. -Splash - tk 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cyde, the problem is that under Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, you can not speedy delete a redirect for the reasons you are giving. As a result, the deletion must go through Redirects for deletion. I can totally understand your desire to simply fix what you see as wrong at Wikipedia but when other editors disagree with your actions then dialogue and consensus are the next steps. Anyway, I suggest you read up on criteria for speedy delete. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * After checking your deletion records, I see that you've deleted tons of these redirects. You definately need to bring up such a major change in some central place. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, a lot of those were absolute crap and fell under the general CSDs. -- Cyde↔Weys  15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, many of those are obvious accidents or outright bad 'article' creations. -Splash - tk 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree than many, if not most, of them should have been deleted. The problem is, though, that Cyde needs to follow the proper procedure for deleting them. In addition, after checking the deletion log I saw that there are a number of dead links left by the deletions. When we delete an article we're supposed to correct anything that linked there.--Alabamaboy 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Go look at Gurch though - he got yelled for fixing these links because it was "unnecessary" :-( And taking them all through RFD would take a long time (there's over a thousand links to deal with on the cnr page alone) and would be something like 20X the effort involved, once you add up having to file the RFD stuff, other people commenting on it, then having to close the RFD, etc.  Can we at least compromise and say that cross-namespace redirects to non-Wikipedia-policy pages can be speedily deleted?  It'll be a huge timesaver, and there's really no point whatsoever in having redirects from main space to templates, categories, RFA subpages, AFD subpages, all the stuff that I've been deleting recently.  -- Cyde↔Weys  17:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to agree to that. I personally don't have an issue with you deleting the redirects as long as 1) If someone objects to a particular deletion you then discuss it with them, and 2) If a redirect has hundreds of pages linking to it, you bring it up for a discussion or RfD. Do realize, though. that some editors are sticklers for the delete rules so don't be surprised if someone else calls you on speedy deleting those redirects. Still, I'm not going to raise any more fuss on this and I totally understand that you're just trying to improve Wikipedia. Best,--Alabamaboy 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd second Alabamaboy's comments about what to do when people object. It appears to me as though the problem is not so much what you are doing as the way tht you are going about it.  So perhaps a little bit more patience, a lot more civil discussion, and an MFT less bot-assisted edits and controversial deletions/closes while this is a hot issue?  There is no emergancy here, so why the histrionics? -  brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Block
It appears that you blocked me. My name is Barry Popik, and I'm a consultant for the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm a word historian, and I use large, commercial digital databases. I also frequent the New York Public Library. I am aware that not everyone has these resources, but it yields magnificent results. I'm known for solving "the Big Apple" (someone else did that page with my work, or I'd surely have been blocked) and "the Windy City," a Wikipedia entry that I was going to correct just now. It (perhaps) is true that I've included "original research" on Wikipedia, but most of my word origin work has already been vetted by scholars at the American Dialect Society and the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, Historical Dictionary of American Slang, and the Dictionary of American Regional English. If I cannot contribute to the Wikipedia, your entries will not be very good. I'd like to continue to correct the Wikipedia. Barry Popik 04:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No one has ever blocked you. -- Cyde↔Weys 04:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He might have been collateral damage in an IP block. Netscott 19:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Must've been. Nothing to do now, obviously.  -- Cyde↔Weys  02:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

wierd stuff
I thought that pornography was prohibited on Wikipedia. Why is you subpage allowed? False Prophet 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia is not censored. Wherever did you get the idea that it was?  By the way, you seen our lovely articles on vulva, penis, anus, and ejaculation?  -- Cyde↔Weys  03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: fake barnstar
Hi Cyde.

I did not put in the "add awards here." That was GeorgeMoney's doing; he did that when he put in an award. If I were to do that, it would be quite repulsive indeed though! -- Where 03:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

NFT / WC templates
Do you know why this bot has been replacing national football team and  FIFA World Cup templates? I try to always use the national football team template because it's way more efficient than writing out "United States men's national soccer team"

Please see User talk:Cydebot. While it may be slightly more efficient for you, it's a bit less efficient for other people, who are just trying to edit the article and don't know about these templates. Templates should be used only when necessary, not as a way to generated inline text. I can imagine lots of commonly used phrases that could be shortened through use of a template ... though I'd never do it. Which would make more sense in edit mode, "Experiments using the modern evolutionary theory synthesis have determined that skin color is epigenetic" or " using   that  is  "? Granted, that's taking things to the extreme, but there's no reason we should be using templates to replace the flow of text in edit mode at all. If you really depend on nft, use it in subst: mode, i.e. use it as an editor convenience that expands to the normal text. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:ESP/UPA
From your archive:

Hello, Cyde. This is a quick message to remind you that all 5 finalists for the Esperanza User Page Award have been chosen. You now need to judge those 5 pages, awarding each one 1-10 points for attractiveness, usefulness, interesting-ness and general niceness. Refer to the Scores section at the project page if you are unsure of how to score.

Once you have scored the 5 pages, email Petros471 using the specified format. As soon as all the scores have been tallied, a winner will be announced. Thanks. May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(review me!) 08:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyde, please could email me your scores asap so I can finalise the totals for this round? I know this isn't the highest priority thing to do, but I've had the other scores for a while now. As I said before let me know if you have any questions about the judging, otherwise I look forward to seeing what you think of the pages! Cheers, Petros471 17:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: sense of humor
I believe that what you may find funny other people find quite insulting, Cyde. For this reason, I told GM it was okay if he removed the things from my talk page in the spirit of WP:RPA. While you obviously meant well, could you please not try and post potentially insulting comments again? -- Where 13:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You told him he could remove it? Link please? -- Cyde↔Weys 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't tell him to remove it; he asked if he could remove it and I said okay. This happened on IRC. Cheers! -- Where</b> 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well tell him that he should pick a better edit summary to reflect that than "rv. troll". It's kind of hypocritical to do something under the guise of WP:RPA while simultaneously ... making a personal attack.  -- Cyde↔Weys  19:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree; I shall tell him that. -- <b style="color:blue;">Where</b> 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my signature
I have complied with your request, and thanks to someone's assistance, the umlaut-R can stay. This time, there are no images in my signature! *yay* —     04:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Kindness has no home in you
Thanks for your kindness. After having edit +300 articles on Italian communes, maybe a little error could be justifiable, don't you think? I'm frankly stunned by such a lack of gratitude in an administrator. It's totally out of the "Wikilove" policy here to advice people to stop editing instead of committing errors. I need excuses, or I'll inform of your unpleasant behaviour all my friends here. --Attilios 08:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you editing in some alternate universe wiki where I said something other than this? Your reaction is totally unjustified. All I did was inform you of an error you made and asked you to be more careful in the future. Is that too unreasonable? Should I have said nothing? Can you not handle a little constructive criticism? -- Cyde↔Weys 12:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My signature
That's a guideline not a policy, i like my signature so ill keep it! Thanks! Mike (T C) 21:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you asked any of the admins who have images in their signature to remove them? Guidelines are suggestions, policies are the law. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 13:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The "other people are doing something bad, so I can do it too" argument is really weak. And I have seen other admins using images in their signatures and I did ask them to remove them and they did do it.  Admins can't just flout guidelines.  Especially sensible guidelines.  And neither can normal users.  -- Cyde↔Weys  13:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is a guideline is only a guideline, its a suggestion to what to do, not the hard and fast rule. Policies are the hard and fast rule, I'd have no problem taking it out if it was a policy, however I don't feel the reasoning behind the guideline is very strong and therefore don't follow it. Also it isn't doing something bad. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh
Thanks, Cyde. "Everyone dies. " is about the funniest thing I've ever seen on a Wikipedia talk page. You made my day. --Jfruh (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

AWB
I was just reading your comments on Mboverload's RfA. While I do not disagree with you, I do not see what you mean by "WP:AWB strongly encourages the use of a secondary account for en-masse AWB runs." WP:AWB does recommend opening a bot account and getting a bot flag if you will be making "more than a few edits a minute," but en-masse does not necessarily imply quickly. Thanks. -- M @  th  wiz  20  20  16:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

EVE Online A&A
As you nominated EVE Online Acronyms and Abbreviations for deletion, you should probably be appraised of Talk:EVE_Online_terms_and_acronyms. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject tags
I've replied to your comments here; I'm a bit puzzled by your sudden opposition to something that has been almost (except for SPUI) universally considered to be a valuable and important component of editorial collaboration on Wikipedia. Kirill Lokshin 19:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Spamming
''Moved from my own talk page -- Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF) 
 * Ownership issues aside (the Military history WikiProject has, as far as I know, never made anything even vaguely resembling a claim of ownership over any articles), what exactly is the point of forcing the tags to be added by hand? Certainly I'm not aware of any interpretation of our guidelines that would consider legitimate addition of WikiProject tags—automated or otherwise—to be unacceptable. Kirill Lokshin 19:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely doing semi-automatically what we were doing by hand for months now: referencing all related articles for assessement purposes? Where is the problem?

You should talk to Kirill if something bothers you, since we set this manoeuver up in order to save precious time.

Best, Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  19:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think it's appropriate to be using AWB en masse to add what is essentially an advertisement for a WikiProject to hundreds of articles, a list you seem to be generating from a single category. Since I do not have much remaining time on this I am going to bring this up for discussion on WP:AN and ask that you please do not continue with the tagging until a greater community consensus has been established from outside of the Military History WikiProject. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. We'll hold off on any more automated tagging until a full discussion can take place. Kirill Lokshin 19:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Love for Cyde
Some love for you. 152.163.100.9

Thank you, whoever you are. -- Cyde↔Weys 03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many broken nostrils in this pancreas--152.163.100.9 03:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know you are, my anonymous benefactor, but keep 'em coming. This is quite intriguing. -- Cyde↔Weys 03:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a very efficient person, who can steer the ape.--152.163.100.9 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hrmmm .. are you intimating that you are Cryptic? -- Cyde↔Weys 03:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No i am just put things into google translate make words come out random order back fowards.--152.163.100.9 03:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it see that oft friction with me flies? --152.163.100.9 03:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately these latest links lack a certain something that your earlier ones have. Are you losing your touch? -- Cyde↔Weys 03:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, these and other proxies are shared among thousands of users, messages left on this page will not likely be received by the intended user--152.163.100.9 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Proxy check
You might like to look at, I indef blocked earlier as an apparent proxy (escaped single quotes). Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 14:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a hell of an interesting scan ...

Interesting ports on 2.89.232.72.reverse.layeredtech.com (72.232.89.2): (The 1637 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered) PORT    STATE  SERVICE          VERSION 20/tcp  closed ftp-data 21/tcp  open   ftp              PureFTPd 25/tcp  open   smtp             Exim smtpd 4.52 53/tcp  open   domain           ISC Bind 9.2.4 80/tcp  open   http? 110/tcp open   pop3             cppop pop3d 20.0 143/tcp open   imap             UW Imapd 2004.357-cpanel 443/tcp open   https? 465/tcp open   ssl/smtp         Exim smtpd 4.52 953/tcp closed rndc 993/tcp open   ssl/imap         UW Imapd 2004.357-cpanel 995/tcp open   ssl/pop3         cppop pop3d 20.0 3000/tcp closed ppp 3001/tcp closed nessusd 3005/tcp closed deslogin 3006/tcp closed deslogind 3049/tcp closed cfs 3052/tcp closed PowerChute 3064/tcp closed dnet-tstproxy 3086/tcp closed sj3 3141/tcp closed vmodem 3264/tcp closed ccmail 3268/tcp closed globalcatLDAP 3269/tcp closed globalcatLDAPssl 3292/tcp closed meetingmaker 3306/tcp open  mysql            MySQL (unauthorized) 3333/tcp closed dec-notes 3372/tcp closed msdtc 3389/tcp closed ms-term-serv 3421/tcp closed bmap 3455/tcp closed prsvp 3456/tcp closed vat 3457/tcp closed vat-control 3462/tcp closed track 8888/tcp open  ssh              OpenSSH 3.6.1p2 (protocol 2.0) -- Cyde↔Weys 14:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it doesn't appear to be an open proxy per se, but it is associated with what appears to be a hosting company. It sounds to me like it's a colo or hosted server, and it could easily be being used to vandalize by people with shell access, or something else of that nature. -- Cyde↔Weys 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Novels
Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often refered to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WikiProject_Novels_announcements there. While you are updating your userpage, don't forget our userbox User WikiProject Novels.
 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but other methods are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines / template outlines some things to include.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
We do indicate membership with a userbox  if you could add that to your userpage that would be good. If you have an issue with that please let me know. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, lol, good question, do I have a problem with userboxes. -- Cyde↔Weys 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thought I'd seen your name come up in some debate or other about Userbox use. What do you think about serious userboxes then like ours that add WikiProject membership interest to a userpage and also functionally add a category to the user which groups members or participants then. And would you be able to describe what is essentially wrong with them (silly abuses aside). Thanks :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting away from all of the issues of divisiveness and POV, I just think they're ugly. --  Cyde↔Weys  15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Avoiding issues of divisiveness and POV, spot on!. Ugly, some are some not, nevermind. However, easy identification of WikiProject members will be just that bit less fun, & less easy.
 * I also wonder how many are aware of the issues, I was sort of aware but not, busy writing articles! So you may get one humdinger of a "feedback" if you try and remove the entire common userbox repository, which as I understand it is your aim. Correct me if I have that wrong. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to manually add the category Category:WikiProject Novels Participants if you are not keen on userboxes. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Cyde↔Weys  15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006
Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  14:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Running an end game around The German Solution
Cyde,

Happy Fourth of July. It was brought to my attention that a userbox I recently speedeleted as being divisive was recreated in userspace and posted at Userboxes/Beliefs. I'm removing it from there and will be deleting it out of the user space. I noticed that Userboxes/Beliefs is now filling up with userboxes that have been "Germaned" or speedied. I'm going to delete them as violating the spirit, if not the letter, of CSD T1 and making WP:GERMAN irrelevant, and was hoping for oversight from other admins. Let me know if you have any thoughts on the issue. JDoorj a m    Talk 16:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a problem. You do know the full scope of the German solution, right? All userboxes are moved away from project space and into userspace so it is clear that they aren't endorsed by the project. That means Userboxes and all of its subpages need to go too. I think it's time to start moving forward with this. -- Cyde↔Weys 04:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not included in the German solution, as described in WP:TGS, unless the Userbox pages are also userfied. Would you please undelete and do so? &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is included in the German solution. Go look at the German Wikipedia ... there's no POV-userbox-related stuff in project space.  The only userboxes they have in official namespaces are stuff like "I speak these languages" and "I live in _____".  All of the POV stuff is in userspace and it isn't listed on the directory in project (Benutzer) space.  As it should be.  The whole point of the German solution is to make it explicitly clear that userboxes are not endorsed by Wikipedia.  What is the point of moving them out of Template: space if they're all still listed in Wikipedia: space?  -- Cyde↔Weys  20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I should amend my previous comment "Userboxes and all of its subpages need to go too" - that's not true, the Babel boxes and encyclopedic interest boxes can stay in project space. It's just all of the POV and nonsensical ("humor") stuff that needs to go, like religion, beliefs, "Superman wears Chuck Norris pajamas", etc. -- Cyde↔Weys  20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your disruption of RFA
Please dont disrupt Requests for adminship/Standards by adding your long jokes list. RFA is not a playground. Hort Graz 07:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, RFA isn't a playground. That disgraceful list of "standards" makes it out to be one though, and even sets out a nice little set of contradictory "you must be this tall to ride the adminship" guidelines.  -- Cyde↔Weys  12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ohh, and speaking of "disrupting RFA", you're the one who was posting the question to actual RFAs comparing blocking AOL shared IPs to murdering Iraqi civilians. If extreme hypocrisy were a blocking criteria you'd be serving out a sentence with Willy on Wheels.  -- Cyde↔Weys  12:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm getting pretty depressed by the whole RFA process myself; I keep thinking that I should participate, and I look at the whole thing and I just get this urge to get the hell out of there. That whole "OH NOES USER HAS NOT JUMPED THROUGH ENOUGH HOOPS, MAYHAP SOME HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT SOMETHING WILL RECTIFY THE SITUATION" thing that's going on there is getting downright ridiculous. Yes, absolutely, there are some common sene standards that should be observed and giving adminship to people who're blatant vandals, completely new to Wikipedia or whatnot is obviously dumb, but c'mon. The whole Requests for adminship/Standards page in particular is downright grotesque -- I wasn't even aware of it until I ran into your talk page here. A bunch of people coming up with numbers and various "must wear a nice tie" standards off the top of their heads... Yeah, I guess that's really helpful, user-friendly and downright nice. Obviously, adminship no big deal, that's why everyone is so eager to come up with their own little essay on the subject. As if blocking someone's ass if he abuses the tools is somehow any more difficult than slapping yet another block on some dumbo with a fervent desire to paste "bon jovi loves penis" into every article he encounters or something. -- Captain Disdain 13:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Armhaed
Have a look at this user, an urgent block is needed! +Hexagon1 (t) 13:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm kinda surprised the vandal got away with it for over twenty minutes. Thanks for informing me.  -- Cyde↔Weys  13:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So was I, the #vandalism-en-wp channel seems to be dead, no active CVU members monitoring it. The vandal actually gave his vandalism accurate destriptions, he was probably using a script and didn't realize the descriptions were giving him away. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was kinda shocked when I looked at user contributions -- he just kept on plowing away at it. I dropped a on his talk page, but by then he was already blocked. Good job, Cyde! You might want to post a notice about that to the talk page, though? -- Captain Disdain 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Userspace userboxen
About removing userspace userboxen from Wikipedia:Userboxes pages, I was actually thinking the same thing ("Do they really belong there? Userboxes listed in WP:TGS belong in their own directory/list."). I was thinking of asking someone about that and you just answered it for me ;) — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it just sort of suffered a lack of enforcement. I guess Userboxes doesn't need to be deleted entirely, as the Babel boxes and pure encyclopedic interest stuff (e.g. "I am interested in mathematics") can stay, but the stuff that's being converted over into userspace is not endorsed by the project and should not be listed in project space. -- Cyde↔Weys 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did Userboxes/Media for you so you don't have to do that one. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

...as well as Userboxes/Humor. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 19:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

from armking
im im armking ...arm cheeseh wwzas one of my sock puppetsx...one of about 50 now but only about 20 are included on the armking sock puppet page....i figure ill tell you this and appearentlyget this accont banned...but give me propper respect i have no intiention of going anywhere
 * Jesus, the vandals at Wikipedia have gone delusional. Respect? For using a script-kiddie tool to redirect pages and having the spelling capability of a 2-year old? We have bigger fish to fry. PS: Sorry to Cyde for replying to this guy here. +Hexagon1 (t) 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
Cyde,

I see that you left a comment on my page with regard to posting links. I only posted links on relevant pages, and was wondering if you could give any advice as to what is and is not acceptable. I honestly did not mean any harm with any content that I had previously posted. TrisDG 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. -- Cyde↔Weys 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your bot, of course. David D. (Talk) 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, geez, that was just substituting a template :-/  Cyde↔Weys  20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, TrisDG, you need to ask User_talk:S.K. why s/he put the spam template on your page in the first place. David D. (Talk) 21:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms on Jimbo's page
Cyde. Where in the history are the criticisms? I can't find them. Can you help me find them by pointing me to them? Thank you. 69.67.230.13 20:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (moved from Cyde's User page -  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC))
 * No, I don't feel like wading through thousands of edits. -- Cyde↔Weys  21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think User:69.67.230.13 is another sockpuppet or open proxy of a community-banned user. I'd bet money on it.  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Foul Language
I wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree with your position about Foul Language (Even in the talk pages). There has been usage of foul language in the past as I foresaw it, and judging from past use of foul language, I see it more of a problem as opposed to an occasional "clean" NPOV fix. Generally people use foul language in everyday lives, but as I see it, during a flame and/or a personal attack, people direct foul language upon others, and I see foul language to be more of a problem that Wikipedia needs to address. Now people may flame and flame other people from time to time, but at least they shouldn't be using foul language, or if they tend to bring up POV issues in an article, it should be done but without foul language. Now I could debate with a Wikipedia Admin and defend my belief of "no-foul-language" talks/edits, but at least the foul language needs to be rectified because currently, people can type down an edit, discuss about "things" in NPOV pages, but Wikipedia from my point of view shouldn't allow any foul language under any circumstances, as it should be of Encyclopedic quality. Talk Pages too, as the tone of the messages will affect other users as well. Now eventually, I had beefs with past Wikipedia Admins (Madchester since I admittedly had an edit war regarding about Rebecca Jarvis's application result in The Apprentice 4), but the foul language issue needs to be fixed, though the website isn't censored. Civility is why I currently had a beef with Kiand regarding about use of foul language, and I really bite too hard when it comes to "things" that has foul language. Sometimes discussions have to be either moderated, or a talk topic has to be purged due to bad words, but you guys supporting foul language the rules have to be changed a bit in order to forbid use of bad words. Now there are time I might feel like using an occasional bad word, but I feel that using bad words are a sign of flaming and/or trolling too hard.

I feel that Foul Language Policies needs to be changed a bit. No Censorship is fine (Don't get me wrong), but I feel for the least the bad words need to be rectified, and I feel that there will be times when the No Censorship policy might not be used in good faith. The last thing I want to do is lose my cool and have an ongoing beef with guys like you, so at least have the foul language policy fixed. &mdash; Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I detest Kiand's stance regarding about this matter. I don't want to debate about this forever, as the reason why I had to delete a talk clause on the Sennheiser talk page is because literally, No Censorship should only be done in good faith, and I felt that the person who cussed abused this fact. I believe that No Censorship does NOT mean that people can cuss, though.

What is "foul language" though? I bet a lot of things I wouldn't even blink an eye at you'd think were "very foul". Why are some words worse than other words, anyway? They're all just combinations of phonemes. I think we have many better things to do than reprimanding people merely for using some words in the dictionary. Incivility is another thing, of course, but "foul language" does not mean "incivil". Wikipedia is not censored is actually very powerful ... check out our articles on penis, anus, vulva, ejaculation, Piss Christ, and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Censoring ourselves is fundamentally incompatible with writing the best free comprehensive encyclopedia possible. Please don't try to take up some personal mission to "clean up" Wikipedia - it's a monumental task, it's not going to succeed, and you'll be blocked within hours. -- Cyde↔Weys 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, words like "fuck", "shit", "ass", "asshole", should not be used (excuse me, but I'm using examples here) because 99% of the time, words like what I've mentioned are used during personal attacks, flame wars, and uncivilized edits. Anyway, if you don't believe why I feel that who posted the latest comment at the Sennheiser Talk Page deserved to be either edited and/or deleted, please read the latest comment. &mdash; Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 21:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

However, articles like penis I can actually slide because this article is an example of "Good Faith of No Censorship" because the article was made out from credible sources. "No Censorship in Good Faith" means to make sure that the "thing", from my point-of-view, has plenty of credible sources, and is verifiable, as long as nothing violates copyright. I generally don't touch articles like those, since those articles always give credit where it's due, but (Please excuse me again) saying words like "fuck", "shit", and "asshole" is what I'm more worried about. I originally deemed "ass" as an unacceptable word (I don't know about "crap", but it's somewhat of a mild-language word), but it's actually a body part, but "ass" shouldn't be used to describe a person, though. &mdash; Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, 'ass' has two meanings (maybe more). When you call someone an ass, you're comparing him to Equus asinus. The British make a nice distinction, using 'ass' for the animal, or an asinine person, and 'arse' for the human rear. Of course, calling someone an ass is an insult, and probably a violation of WP policy, but it is not foul language. --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  01:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your "Name Link" leads to your Userpage
Frankly, I really hate to do this, but when people click your name on a selected talk page, it takes them to your User Page. Personally, you should also provide a link to your talk page as well so that people can talk directly to you (like I did yesterday, I'm gonna go ahead clear your name from the July 7, 2006 incident involving Kiand and RadioKirk) just in case people have a beef with you, but you should also encourage people to keep the discussions clean as you, as much as I hate it, don't want to get "user-crapped" (being a victim of discussions that hurt people's feelings). I didn't want to tell people like you about this, but sometimes there could be people wanting to talk to you rather than to look at your user page, so I thought that you might want to change your signature.

For example: Vesther Delantis (U (That's your User Page) * (T/R) (That's your Talk Page) * (CTD) (Your Contribs to date))

I use U as a link to my User Page, T/R as a place for my Talk/Reply Page, and CTD for my Contribs-To-Date

The reason why I dropped this line is because I noticed that you were touchy about Users' Signatures. &mdash; The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 21:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Inertia
I don't think I'm exactly arguing inertia, but rather that status quo reflects a community consensus. I am thinking about a naming system that might be workable as policy. Some moderate position must be doable. Suggestions? Gimmetrow 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that naming system is the pseudo-namespaces beginning with WP:, WT:, and CAT:. -- Cyde↔Weys 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I'm not logged in, but I am ForestH2. Are you saying you'd like me to remove a talk link and a contribs link from my signature? And what is wrong with it? Actully, I'm suprised you left the message on my talkpage, I am going to remove the Main Page link and the Userspace link but otherwise my signature is fine. If you could point out some things, that would be great. Regards, ForestH2


 * I am logged in now. I just fiddled with my signature and it is now this:

ForestH2 | + | √ | -

Reply on my talk page. Thanks. ForestH2 | + | √ | - 23:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the main page link is totally unnecessary. It's already linked from every page on Wikipedia, there's no reason to have it in your sig. -- Cyde↔Weys 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Human-computer interaction
Hi Cyde. Just an FYI, there is some discussion on the HCI talk page about the recent page move, specifically about when to use a hyphen vs. an en dash. --Alan Au 17:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

AntVandalBot
Hello Cyde, I was trying to move translations in the article Expressionist architecture and was stopped by AntiVandalBot. The article was growing (at 42kb) and the translations seemed more suited to the talk page. I copied the translations to the talk page, then cut them from the article, and was reverted. I tried again and was reverted again, is there any way I can do this without the Bot stopping me? DVD+ R/W 23:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As the bot is not supposed to be reverting admins' edits, I've blocked it for now. --Ixfd64 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm done now, can you start the Bot again? DVD+ R/W 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's possible for me to unblock the bot. However, since malfunctioning bots can cause a lot of damage, I think that it's best to leave it blocked until Cyde or Tawker can get a chance to see what's going on. --Ixfd64 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: Tawker says that he has fixed the problem. --Ixfd64 00:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know why it reverted me, it was because I removed two sections that were translations of the German and Polish pages. It didn't notice however that I put them on the talk page. Well, with the Bot off line, I was going to go do extra RC Patrol, but now that its back, I might write some more. Not sure, thanks again. DVD+ R/W 00:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was probably what caused the bot to revert your edits. Also, it seems that the bot does not check for administrator permissions through special:listusers. Instead, it checks its built-in white list. Since you acquired adminship only recently, you weren't added to the bot's list until now. Tawker has updated the list, so this shouldn't happen again. I hope that this clears it up. --Ixfd64 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Deputy
Does AntiVandalBot need a deputy bot keeper? I will be one. Gang sta  EB  (sliding logs~dive logs) 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A what? No, you're not getting shell access to my server. -- Cyde↔Weys 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh no I didn't mean let me have your server. I meant like make sure any vandals it reports were actually vandals. I've seen Tawkerbot2 revert a user reverting a vandal 4 times on one article! Gang sta  EB  (sliding logs~dive logs) 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, anyone is free to make sure the Vandalbots aren't reverting legitimate edits (and indeed that is encouraged). It doesn't need a special position name, however. -- Cyde↔Weys 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Verbatim copying
I thought that was an interesting point, and I had missed MartinRe's comment in that regard. Since it's material, I thought I'd copy my reply to you at RfD here; I think MartinRe has misunderstood the point of the page, or I have misunderstood MartinRe. Either way, it's useful to examine it again. -22:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect in interpretation. That document (apart from being a little speculative in style) deals with the Wikipedia as a "Collection of Documents". It invalidates itself in terms if the pedia is to be viewed as a single, whole work. It describes that "Each Document comprises...". The page describes what people must do with a single article, not with the whole project. A mirror remains free to not include the cross-namespace redirect page in its entirety without having any trouble with the page you mention. -Splash - tk 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology
Cyde, I want to apologize for not contacting you directly when I learned you deleted Template:User soul. At the time you did it, I was in the middle of bypassing redirects. I didn’t know how to check deletion logs until today, so I couldn’t contact you at the time. Clearly, my approach has little, if no support from admins. Even though it’s a foregone conclusion, I still believe treating people with dignity and respect when migrating and deleting userboxes is the best way to go about it. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 00:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

YoG
YoG--Y o G 00:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A (belated) barnstar
I know you made your userbox generator a while ago, but I've been "tittering uncontrollably" ever since I found it. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 01:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 10th
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. Treebark ( talk ) 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cyde
I am temporary, and not knowing how regular things go...I just looked at July 3rd, and didn't see a sig so I didn't put a sig. I'm only temporary as the regular contributors are away. Treebark ( talk ) 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 10th
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. Treebark ( talk ) 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cyde
I am temporary, and not knowing how regular things go...I just looked at July 3rd, and didn't see a sig so I didn't put a sig. I'm only temporary as the regular contributors are away. Treebark ( talk ) 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)