User talk:Cyde/Archive009

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

Archives
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N O
P Q R S T U V W
X Y Z 10 11 12

A new userbox you might like

Hi Cyde,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers,

 Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP: Policies & guidelines This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”.

• oh yes, this is exactly the person you'd want to show your brand new userbox to--152.163.100.9 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw your name

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mboverload#.5B.5BWikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FMboverload.7CMboverload.5D.5D

This person upset me so much tonight that I seriously considered leaving WP and I have only been here now for about 3 weeks. Ste4k 10:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were an admin too. I'll still watch this section for a reply. Ste4k 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad title

I've just restored this page you deleted. This page is the target of a MediaWiki bug, and is explained on it's talk (which you left orphaned). If you still want to discuess it's deletion please bring this to WP:MFD due to it's nature, or to WP:DRV if it's been deleted through RFD (especially if it was in a lareg group of items being deleted at once). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Kylu

Hey Cyde, in a non-unanimous RfA, it would really behoove a respected and well-known user such as yourself to back up your opinion with something more than this. At least say, per nom... - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The "per nom" is implicit ... as is the Support, really, which I usually leave out unless I'm making a play of it (like turning it light red). --Cyde↔Weys 15:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am colorblind, and always thought your sig was light blue, but I consulted a coworker and she swears it's "Pink", not "Light Red". I ain't never even heard of "Light Red". {{fact}}? :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Feh, how've you never heard of light red? It's like red, only lighter. --Cyde↔Weys 03:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I reblocked Xed

I checked his contribs after my last unblocking, and really, enough is enough. I did not make my block an "official Jimbo block", instead I asked that people treat it as simply my returning things to the status quo before my intervention, which was with your indefinite block and what apparently looks like a general community ban.--Jimbo Wales 03:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

CNR quote

Hello. While it's nice to be quoted, I think splashs responsed to one rfd debate are actually correct, and I did mis-interpret that section. From further reading I think it's more aimed at cases where a mirror changes an article from "blah blah blah This nonexistent article blah blah blah" to "blah blah blah This nonexistent article blah blah blah". Regards, MartinRe 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, drat, I'll have to come up with my own reasoning then :-P Cyde↔Weys 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Welsh-speaking people

Hi. Please restore this category pending completion of the discussion -- which was wrongly marked "completed" by an inexperienced user. Deb 11:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Cyde. I'm repeating my request, as I don't think you can have read it. Note that [1] User:Betacommand supports restoring it, even though he depopulated it first time round. I could restore it myself, but I would prefer you to do it of your own accord. Deb 17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, go ahead and repopulate it, and make sure it stays off of WP:CFDW .. that's how Cydebot got to it in the first place. --Cyde↔Weys 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap

I just let my mouse pointer hover over your signature, and it turned into the double-headed sideways arrow. How did you do that?--M@rēino 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The secret is in the source code ... Cyde↔Weys 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, thanks! I didn't know about span codes.--M@rēino 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

you blocked all of 152... for 3 hours?

why did you do that? there wasn't any vandalism coming from that range--Rr-vb 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but you don't have access to the right tools to be making any sort of statement on whether vandalism is coming from an IP range. From a single IP address, maybe, but not an IP range. --Cyde↔Weys 23:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• What, you mean recent changes? Why wouldn't I have access to that? Can you show any acts of vandalism coming from that range at all?--Rr-vb 23:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Cyde means that there were a bunch of bogus articles created by 152; that would only show up in the deletion log. --M@rēino 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you can show me a way for a non-CheckUser to efficiently check the contributions of 253 different IP addresses I'd be really interested. --Cyde↔Weys 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Easy, only a tiny sampling of those IPs have ever been used to edit wikipedia, and they all show up when you whatlinkshere Template:AOL, also, you personally don't have checkuser status anyway--152.163.100.9 03:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Accelerating the German solution

If you look at my user page, you'll see that (horror of horrors) I have several user boxes over on the side of the page. However, if you look at the code of the page (wonder of wonders!) I don't have any of the code on my page, because it's on a sub page and I just sub it in.

So here's where we come in. Let's offer user page cleaning service.

1. Cydebot (or Userpage ScrubBot or whatever) seeks out userboxers. The bot could start with one userbox "what links here" list and use that as a roster for step 2:
2. The bot leaves a message on the talk page that says, "Hey, I noticed that you've got userboxes on your user page. If you'd like, I can move your userboxes to a sub-page, User:Whoever/Userboxes and then put just one line of code on your user page to replace the bunch of code you have there now. Your user page will look exactly the same, but if you want to edit your user page later, you won't have to swim through to do it. (Take a look at User:JDoorjam to see what I'm talking about -- click the "edit" tab and notice that his userboxes are on a sub-page so the code doesn't clutter up his main page.) Off of your main page, I'll put the actual code for the userbox instead of just a reference to it, so the userbox won't change or get deleted. And, of course, this being a Wiki, if you decide later that you want to go back to having the userbox code on your main page, you can just revert back to it. If you're interested, put your name on the sign-up list. Cheers, Cyde Weys."
3. Users sign up.
4. You, I, and/or other admins interested in accelerating WP:GERMAN cut user boxes from self-elected user pages and put them on a sub page; we either subst them ourselves (probably convenient) or get a bot to do it.

The main point here is that, instead of battling to reduce the template-space userbox population, if we can find a way to incentivize the removal from template space of user boxes, as this would do, if we can provide some sort of value-add that they can't or won't themselves, we can get users to want us to subst their userboxes. I'm bringing this to you because you have the desire, as I do, to move userboxes out of template space, and because you have the technical abilities to know where bot-run automation can be employed to take the sort of incentivizing I'm talking about to a large, efficient scale. I'm more than open to tweaking this formula if you think it can be made more efficient, but regardless of what form this may take at some point, I feel like we could be more effective if we think of this in terms of how we can turn substing userboxes into doing people a favor. Let me know what you think of this. JDoorjam Talk 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

inline reference conversion

Could you run your conversion bot on Data Encryption Standard? Thanks. Phr (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can run it, see User:Cyde/Ref converter. --Cyde↔Weys 13:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox: Roman Catholic

Perhaps I missed the reason, but why did you delete the Roman Catholic userbox? Killua 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

T1. If anyone actually cared about it they would have migrated it to userspace already. --Cyde↔Weys 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian provincial (non-geo) types

There has been a proposal on SFD since June 9, 2006 for the deletion of stubs for three Canadian provinces and the three territories. It has now lingered without being closed, one way or another, for over a month now. I've put a lot of effort into populating these stub categories, and decided to finish things off by nominating the creation of stubs for the three remaining provinces. However, I don't want to do any further work on any of this if the proposal at SFD succeeds. I just want to know if I'm wasting my time or not. Could you review the discussion and close it? Agent 86 17:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Greetings

Don't worry, I'm not an impersonator, I just like the sound of the name Cyda. I put a notice on my Userpage. Sorry for any confusion. Cyda (T) 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed the invalid sig for this user and added "Greetings" to the heading, since you left a message with this to his talk page. -- ADNghiem501 23:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Greetings

Don't worry, I'm not an impersonator, I just like the sound of the name Cyda. I put a notice on my Userpage. Sorry for any confusion. Cyda (T) 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed the invalid sig for this user and added "Greetings" to the heading, since you left a message with this to his talk page. -- ADNghiem501 23:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fake User

So, who is he a sockpuppet of? And please excuse my extremely long signature, I'm trying to find a solution for my signature template problem... Fredil Yupigo 02:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, I don't even know the guy, all I know is that he wanted to delete a bunch of templates and suddenly people keep accusing me of being him. It makes no sense. If I'm an administrator and I want to delete a template, I delete it (and many people can attest to this). I don't need to screw around with sockpuppets. --Cyde↔Weys 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux/UBX + category usage

Cyde, after consults with others, FSM and IPU templates I've german-ified no longer have the templates included in them, they are included only for reference. Although related, user categories are not the same as the template: namespace concerns, and WP:GUS even states that consensus on what to do with them has not been reached yet. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Images in Signatures

HUNDREDS of users have flags in their pictures. why am i singled out? User:Denelson83 has VERY similar formatting to my signature. OTher people also have flags in their signatures. i feel i'm being injustly targeted. i'll remove them, but i'm keeping my mask icon between my User page and Talk page, in the signature, as shown here → User:Raccoon Fox Talk 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't play the persecution card. Do you think I inspect every single person's signature on-wiki? Of course not. In the course of my daily business, if I see someone with an inappropriate signature, I let them know. I always do this. You're not being singled out. And your signature is still a bit too obstrusive, and still contains an image. --Cyde↔Weys 19:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not, and i don't need to. I thought that as an administrator, you would at least try to be fair and unbiased. I also don't understand your definition of "unobtrusive". can you be a bit more specific for me? User:Raccoon Fox Talk 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am fair and unbiased. I leave the same comment on the talk page of everyone I see using a signature with images in it, no exceptions! --Cyde↔Weys 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

fair enough. is this signature more to your liking? (I may put in a character like "|" in between my userpage link and talk link...). I want to know if i need to continue editing or not. User:Raccoon Fox Talk 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see why it needs the thick black border and gray background. That's what I meant by obtrustive. It looks more like a placard than a signature that is supposed to flow inline with text. --Cyde↔Weys 20:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

All i wanted was a unique signature...i also thought a grey background with a brown/black border would be nice...(the colours of a raccoon). User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 20:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try asking some other administrators what they think about your signature. --Cyde↔Weys 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

my current one? i don't know who the other admins are....i just keep to myself here and contribute to articles... User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Try a different font. Play with the font size (just don't make it excessively large or small), etc. Play with the font colour (again, be sensible). You could even play with the way the date is displayed. Lots of different ways to change the signature. Remember the whole signature issue with me, and the other stuff that followed? My signature was unnecessarily large and contained images (remember some people still access the Internet with dial-up - adding images and unnecessary code - no offense - increases the page load time for people who use dialup). This should not be read as "Nathan's taking sides". — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 18:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)}

HTML

Would HTML be alright to start in? GangstaEB (penguin log~petition) 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

HTML isn't a programming language, it is a markup language. This may sound like some insignificant distinction, but believe me, it's not. HTML lacks the property of being Turing-complete, which is one of the main criteria of being a programming language. Among other things, this means you wouldn't be able to write in HTML, say, a Wikipedia bot. Think of HTML more as a document format (like a Microsoft Word document), because it's not even close to being a programming language. Programming languages do things, HTML just formats things. Understand? --Cyde↔Weys 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and don't link to a petition in your signature. Editors (notably Karmafist) have been blocked for doing stuff like that before. Signatures should just be used to identify that you wrote comments; they shouldn't be used to advertise your ideas. --Cyde↔Weys 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a planned bot. It will be for archiving talk pages. Every week it will count the kilobytes in the talk page and if it is over the kbs before the talk page is archived, it will archive it via page move. What would be language to start in? Perl? Or is that to complicated? GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perl is not a good beginner's language. I would definitely recommend learning programming before trying to jump and program a bot, because that certainly isn't the easiest thing to do. But if you really want to, you're going to need a good bot framework, because writing everything from scratch would take ten times longer. The best bot framework out there is pyWikipediaBot, which is written in Python, so I guess you'd end up using Python. --Cyde↔Weys 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

{{current}}

Hi. I removed this template from 21st century, as it would need to stay there for an entire century, due to the fact that things change at the present. Per template talk:current, that template needs to be used only for short amounts of time and when significant changes happen to an article, at least that's how I interpret it.

You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot on CFD and templates

User_talk:Cydebot#Cydebot_on_CFD_and_templates. Kotepho 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Best edit ever?

Maybe... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It seemed like the thing to do :-P Cyde↔Weys 13:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User meritocracy

Just wondering why you deleted the user meritocracy template? I thought the general consensus was to go for migrating userboxes as per the German userbox solution rather than deleting them. I'm sure you had a good reason for doing so though, just wondering what it is! Cheers. Caprosser 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:TGS is the solution, but it seems to be stalling out. It needs some prodding. --Cyde↔Weys 15:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Prod" as in poke or "prod" as in {{PROD}} ?? :) (I agree it does look like it stalled, which is too bad because it's the way to go of all the alternatives so far) ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Prod" as in poke. Although now that we have that userfying category things look to be getting a bit better, so long as things in that category are userfied on a reasonable timeframe. I see a lot of people with archives competing to have the largest archive, though, so I'm not too worried about it getting done. --Cyde↔Weys 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Comment on RfA

I wasn't talking about Sean's comment; I was talking about his edit summary. I hope you don't think that was appropriate. -- joturner 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could call it harsh language, but I don't really care about "harsh" language ... it's all just phonemes, and it only has the impact you assign it. He wasn't making personal attacks on anyone, just expressing frustration that someone was messing up the sections on the page with bad formatting. That pisses me off too, truth be told. --Cyde↔Weys 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Object to crisis --> conflict on the basis of unanimity

Most users on the talk page object such a move, which means that such a move cannot be made on basis of almost unanimity. See the poll in the section "discussion about the name of the article"). Please restore the page. Sijo Ripa 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see a single person on the talk page who objected to upgrading the name from crisis to either conflict or war. Since I'm not sure everyone would consider this a war just yet, I went with conflict. Conflict is a more neutral name than crisis anyway. --Cyde↔Weys 17:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User rc

If you unprotect it, I'll move it. Rfrisbie^talk 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User politician

You added the Userfy/GUS template to the User politician userbox. This userbox is not an advocacy box. It's simply identifying the user's profession (just like User academic, User actor, etc.). It doesn't specify any particular political party or ideology. Is it your intent to have all profession templates userfied? —GrantNeufeld 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It was on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. If you want to make an overall organizational restructuring to the Wikipedia:Userboxes repository, go right ahead. It needs it! Right now it focuses a lot on stuff that belongs squirrelled away in userspace archives. --Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ridiculous

I did not discount what you said, I just mentioned that your approach and phrasing was uncivil. But apparently, berating those you don't agree with is what you're doing on this particular RfA... perhaps you should consider the fact that your approach may be doing more damage to Sean Black's chances than good. Anyways, I felt insulted by those comments, and you came onto my talk page to reinforce the fact that you don't care if I felt insulted; well good for you, I wish you the best of luck. Themindset 18:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If it seems like I'm berating anyone it's only because so many specious reasons are being thrown around to oppose giving Sean Black the mop back after a brief reprieve. Anyone who's been an admin for awhile is inevitably going to attract some detractors who swarm from the woodwork in the event of another RFA. A lot of the diffs being cited in the Oppose section aren't even Sean Black doing anything wrong, just exemplary actions of an admin valuing the end product and making the tough decisions. That's always going to leave behind some people who feel wronged because they didn't get their way. And I'm sorry if you feel that I insulted you, but that was not my intent. I was just pointing out that I think it's ridiculous to treat a seasoned admin with the same kind of requirements as a newbie. --Cyde↔Weys 18:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not spammer :) but so grateful

Clyde/bot/admins in general

As a dj for a hospital radio station here in the uk i must thank you all for the hard work and dedication you must put into this site.

I am a aol user and am appauled to see some childish little ****** defacing the pages.... to that person or persons.................... 'Its Not Big Nor Is It Clever'

'nuff said

ChrisUK
Nottinghamshire
UK

Thanks, and I agree with you. It's amazing how many people become vandals and assholes when granted just a little anonymity. It makes you think what's keeping a lot of people in check is not holding to a code of ethics and morals, but rather, the simple threat of negative consequences. Anonymity takes away those potential consequences, and then you get a bunch of people acting like two year olds. I believe some other people may have discovered this connection. --Cyde↔Weys 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

cydebot removing of category error

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Playboy_Cyber_Club According to that, certain playboy related categories and articiles were to be deleted. but it never said that the category "Playboy models" should be deleted. your bot deleted it and removed it from pages leaving the msg - "Robot - Removing category Playboy models per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 9." I went to that page and the "Playboy models" is never deleted. it is asked to be merged but that's it. am i missing something??--Jaysscholar 21:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you're not missing anything, the bot messed up. I've fixed it. --Cyde↔Weys 23:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 29	17 July 2006	About the Signpost

Library of Congress, Holocaust Museum negotiate with Wikimedia	Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, single login
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Treebark (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

AC0

Ya, the game is great, but I've only been able to play it once-my PS2 says "disk read error" on any CD you put in. I have to trade it in for a refurbished one when I get the money. And the new message template is sweet, but it scared me when it looked different. I was like what the heck?!?! and then I saw your message. :) the_ed17 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but seriously, how many mercenary aces are there in the world today???? the_ed17 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

It was quite frustrating to be continually spoken down to by Cerejota on the Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Could you recommend a strategy for dealing with the user; I have attempted to engage in discussion, but the user does not respond in kind and constantly rebrands the article. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Now Tewfik, this is not true. I have engaged in discussion, civil discussion, and you have continually reverted my changes. Others with a different POV from me have commended me on my civility and willingness to compromise. Perhaps you should never give up conversing, as when good faith is assumed wonders happen.--Cerejota 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You seriously need to stop referencing "assume good faith" ... anyone who references that actually only serves to reduce their credibility further. --Cyde↔Weys 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I didnt mean good faith as the wiki term but the general term used by regular people, I didnt wish to imply anything. Now, as to the original accusation by Tewfik, I hope a reading of the talk pages in question will show that while we disagree, I have responded assidiously and respectfully to our differences, and in other discussions I have also reached compromises. I do think Tewfik is not being truthful in his above description of our differences.--Cerejota 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, others branded the article NPOV, I just wanted it branded POV Check...--Cerejota 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing RfDs

What is the reason for putting closing templates inside the section header as opposed to outside like at AFD? —Centrx→talk • 03:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It functions a lot better (it's also how they do it at WP:CFD). This way hitting (edit) on the section heading actually displays everything related to that subject, not just the title, discussion, and closing text. --Cyde↔Weys 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Userpage.

I really like your new userpage. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 08:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)}

Thanks, I must give credit to freakofnurture ... oh, and I'm not nearly done with it. That Falkirk Wheel just stuck in my head ever since I saw it as a Featured Picture a long time ago. --Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't forget your request...

I just delayed it until after I took a nap and loaded the DB on the fast system. :) Wee. Query only tool 1 second. Here are your results. --Gmaxwell 09:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really not as bad as I thought. It shouldn't take a single person more than a few hours to clean all of that old mess up. --Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rename

Thanks for the rename, I was at a loss what title to put and yours is bettter...--Cerejota 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Automotive company stubs

When you closed out the automobile manufacturer to motor vehicle manufacturer umbrella CFD last month, you made a slight mess of things with this stub category. Stub categories aren't handled by CFD, but solely by SFD, in part because there are several places that updates need to be made, besides the stub template and the category. I've reverted your change to {{auto-company-stub}} and the change to Category:Automotive company stubs save for updating the non-stub parent cat from Automobile manufacturers to Category:Automotive companies which is where it should have been in the first place, regardless of the CFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't play jurisdictional games, just fix it everywhere it needs to be fixed, because apparently I'm not aware of all of those little niggling places. --Cyde↔Weys 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly site

Why did you revert my edit of the External Links removal? Why is there a need to clutter an article with unofficial links, including direct links to video files??? The WP:EL has sections about the type of links that were listed. There's no point in them being there. --EmmSeeMusic 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that you removed all of the links that were critical of Bill O'Reilly while leaving all of the ones that were supportive in place. In particular, you really can't justify removing the Media Matters link at all. --Cyde↔Weys 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's untrue. The only links I left were the Lawsuits against him from Smoking Gun. You can not say that Media Matters is a neutral links since their job is to bash conservatives. I don't fall on either side, I just like to clean out articles of junk links that have no reason to be there, Wiki it's a link directory for each topic. --EmmSeeMusic 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • One more thing, the only links I left were the OFFICIAL links ... per WL:EL - I am totally in the right to remove the other junk. --EmmSeeMusic 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Media Matters is run by David Brock ... you know, the guy who became famous as a conservative journalist. Your attempts to delete this link by slandering Media Matters as existing solely to bash conservatives speak only to your own partisan motives and provide no actual reasoning as to why the link is bad. --Cyde↔Weys 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And please learn how to deal with edit conflicts, you just blanked my comment to another user. --Cyde↔Weys 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• So as I was saying - What are you talking about? I'm not the one with an agenda. Media Matters is obviously not something one should reference on Wiki.
• "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
• Peter Brock: "David Brock is the author of four political books, including The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. His preceding book, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, was a 2002 New York Times best-selling political memoir in which he chronicled his years as a conservative media insider. Brock serves on the advisory board of Democracy Radio Inc. and is the recipient of the New Democrat Network's first award for political entrepreneurship. He is the President and CEO of Media Matters for America."

Sex

I'm sorry, I was just wondering, because I've heard a lot of stuff lately...are you male or female? Sergeant Snopake 10:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really relevant :-D Cyde↔Weys 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I knew you were going to say that. :) Sergeant Snopake 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

(In response to your edit summary) Who is the bet with? --Cyde↔Weys 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a user I know. Sergeant Snopake 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Snopake: "Has someone been naughty?" — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}

Light Red Support Thanks!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting me in my Light Red RfA! I appreciate it! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:UB

Ok, I'm gonna sound ubx-naive here, but did you know there's a WikiProject explicitly for the purpose of increasing the population of userboxes on Wikipedia? Is this worth doing something about? We've learned that direct conflict is often counter-productive on this issue, but I can't help feeling this is totally inappropriate. JDoorjam Talk 05:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:UB has been around since last fall, and helped spur the geometrical growth in the number of userboxes we saw late last year and early this year. Trying to do something about the project now would just open up a hornet's nest. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot moving HTML comments

In going over the Oscars / Academy Awards moves, Cydebot has moved a lot of HTML comments away from where they're supposed to be, see for instance this edit. —Gabbe 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't move the HTML comments so much as he moved the categories to the bottom of the article, which is standard. --Cyde↔Weys 13:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, the comments are no longer listed together with the category they describe - and are hence useless - as a result of your bot. —Gabbe 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot move incorrect

Your bot made a major cock-up re some CfD moves.

It interpreted the vote Category:English & British princesses to Category:Princesses of England and Britain as having been passed. The decision was 1 vote in favour, 3 against. The decision, as recorded, was merely to replace the ampersand in the original. A rename was thoroughly rejected.

Similarly the result at Category:English & British princes to Category:Princes of England and Britain was the exact opposite of what your bot did. 1 supported. 2 (3 if you interpret someone else's unclear comments that way, and on balance of probabilities that is how it should be interpreted) opposed it. Again the decision was

The result of the debate was replace ampersand. Conscious

Yet your bot recorded the following on the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom page.

Robot - Moving category English & British princesses to Princesses of England and Britain per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 9.

You will need to undo these moves. Not alone are they the direct opposite of the decision (the vote to move didn't even get a majority, much less the required percentage), the reasons why the proposals were voted down was because they contained a massive error. There is no such thing as a Prince or Princess of Britain. British Prince covers princes of the throne of Great Britain (1707-1800) and of the United Kingdom post 1801. (The wording was used on that basis.) But there ain't such a place as a Kingdom of Britain, at least not for millennia. So to be accurate unless the pages are moved back everyone post 1707 will have to be removed from the categories.

I wonder has the bot made many other errors? I only spotted these ones because I was a participant in the debates and had looked up the results, and only just noticed on some pages that the exact opposite of the result had been implemented. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot just did whatever was recorded at WP:CFDW. What gets listed there depends on how the admin closes the CFD debate. If you want the categories renamed again take it back to CFD and make your case so that the debate gets closed with a different result this time. By the way, calling something a "major cock-up" isn't very productive. --Cyde↔Weys 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way you still have an image in your signature despite strong admonishments against doing exactly that. If you can't even follow simple signature guidelines why should I think you know how best to interpret guidelines on category naming? --Cyde↔Weys 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's my mistake; see Jtdirl's talk page for details. WP:TEA, anyone? ;) Conscious 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable redirect

Hi Clyde, I may have created a "cross namespace" link when I recreated notable. I didn't realize this was a problem until I started looking through the Articles for Deletion requests. Please wipe it out again if it's incorrect. Thanks! Dreadlocke 20:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about that! Dreadlocke 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross name space redirects

RfD - I've left a reply for you. - Richardcavell 00:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User childfree

Hi Cyde, I noticed that you deleted this page because the userbox there was moved to user space. While I don't dispute this action, I wonder if you could restore the page temporarily so that I can use AWB on the pages linking to there to change the links to the new location. I wouldn't need it up for more than hour, if that. Please let me know. —Mira 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the request? This is working perfectly for me. If it's already moved to userspace, just change all of those links to point to the userspace location. --Cyde↔Weys 03:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's not it then. But AWB tells me that nothing links there. I don't get it... —Mira 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, just recreate the page with some nonsense content long enough to do your replacement work, and then tag it for speedy deletion once you're done. --Cyde↔Weys 04:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Another user restored it, and that seems to have worked. Thanks for suffering through my cluelessness. —Mira 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving some userboxes.

I'm undertaking the project of moving some userboxes I created to userspace, to save you the trouble of tagging them later =) — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}

Portal: image credit

[2] I agree with you, but take a look at the main page. I would like the portal to become featured, so we'll have to argue our way out of it somehow, or get a lot more support without the credit. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

List of channel 13 TV stations in the United States

Hey there! I saw you closed this RfD and deleted the List of channel 13 TV stations in the United States redirect. If you get a chance, can you also do the others of the same format (List of channel 2 TV stations in the United States through List of channel 20 TV stations in the United States)? I wasn't sure how to list them all at RfD. GassyGuy 10:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Good Fence Togusa Kate Middleton Princess Alexandra of Hanover Princess Antoinette, Baroness of Massy Ralf Dahrendorf Prince Gabriel of Belgium Kiryat Shmona massacre Boma (Ghost in the Shell) Saad Haddad United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon Ishikawa (Ghost in the Shell) Ying Yang Twins Israeli MIAs Pazu Infanta Leonor of Spain Shafik Wazzan Janice Dickinson Litani River

Cleanup List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine Supreme Governor of the Church of England Peace Now! Merge Sar-El In the Zone Independent Nasserite Movement Add Sources Queen Sofia of Spain National Pact Honey (Mariah Carey song) Wikify MIT Enterprise Forum Supermodel Euromediterranean Summit 2005 Expand Ghost in the Shell (manga) Aitaroun Sex in advertising

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 15:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That B page

Hi. Let me start by saying I think you and Kelly Martin do a great job, and I have no intention of starting an argument.

OK. So Kelly Martin (and possibly others, i.e. yourself) disagreed with my vote. Fair enough. But while I understand the reasoning, I don't understand the reponse. She could have commented on the vote in the RfA itself, or left me a message on my talk page. Instead, she decides to add my name to an orphaned subpage of her userspace known only to her and a couple of other high-up administrators (such as your good self). Where I will presumably stay for... well, what? "Further monitoring"? All completely unknown to me, except that by chance I decided to take a look at "What links here" on my user page. Of course, there's nothing in any policy or guideline that says this is wrong, and I sort of see what's going on there. But if you, Kelly Martin or anyone else thinks someone's put a toe out of line, why not act the way Wikipedia:Dispute resolution tells you to – talk to them! Set an example to the rest of us. Or at least the rest of them. I have other matters to attend to. Hopefully things will have changed by the time I get back.

By the way, you'll notice the page now has an incoming link! If you wipe this comment in order to remove said link, I shall be very annoyed indeed, so please don't, thanks. If, on the other hand, you can find a way to discuss issues like these more openly, thst would be great. And what does the "B" stand for? I still can't figure it out :) – Gurch 18:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gurch, your suggestion of the use of dispute resolution is inapplicable. There is no dispute between us to resolve, at least none that I am aware of (although it does seem to me as though you are attempting to create one, for reasons that escape me). The purpose of that list is my own. It is used by myself and certain others to benefit our decision-making processes. If you are unable to find a use for that list, you are free to ignore it. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving RFD

You recently removed a number of completed days from WP:RFD. These should have been moved to the archives instead of only being removed from the main page. I've taken care archiving 2 & 6-12 July. Archiving used to be spelled out on the WP:RFD page, but the instructions were moved to the deletion process page awhile back. When I get a chance, I think I'll put back a summary of closing on WP:RFD as I think that move confused things. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually looked at all of WP:RFD for archiving instructions and couldn't find any, so I just sort of assumed there wasn't any archiving. --Cyde↔Weys 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ages and updating articles

I just read your comment here, and you say: "what good is it when the printed edition finally comes around, you buy the book, and you're reading it a few years from now and it's woefully out of date?" - this would actually not be a problem if people would only write in the correct, encyclopedia style. What is needed is for the template to say "<age> (as of <date>)". So in printed articles it would say something like "at the time of printing (date) Madonna was 46 years old". In the infobox, it would say "Age: 46 (as of <date>)". That way, when someone reads a print version of the encyclopedia 5 years after it is printed, they go "Oh, she was 46 back in <year>". Problem solved. Carcharoth 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that adds an extra back-calculation. If you say "XX old in YYYY", the reader first has to calculate the difference between YYYY and the current year and then add that to XX. It's just much easier to specify the year of birth and just calculate the current age off of that. --Cyde↔Weys 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The "in YYYY" changes. If you are reading the online, editable version, the YYYY is the date you read the article. If you are reading the printed version, the YYYY is the date the article was printed. Of course, in the online version, the YYYY could be replaced by "current" or whatever, but my point is that the printed version should show the date the calcuation was done on. Carcharoth 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm really not understanding why it's better to give two numbers, age and the date, versus just the birth date. Frankly, the birth date is a more encyclopedic number anyway, so it's more useful to our readers to just give them the birth date than force them to back-calculate the birth date from the age. Also, the birth date is very precise (born on this day, month, and year), whereas with the age thing, unless you want to get very precise and require even more calculation (currently 32 years and 168 days old), it's not as precise. I just don't see any possible advantages to giving current age over just giving the birth date. Probably the best indicator of this is to look around at history books and other encyclopedias: all of them, without fail, list birth dates rather than giving current age. It's just not the way to go. --Cyde↔Weys 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to give age and date without the birth date. I am proposing to give birth date and then, as a bonus, the date of key events in a person's life, plus, if necessary, the person's age at some points, right up to, and including their age at death. I get annoyed at being forced to work out ages, and many biographical encyclopedias do give ages within their biographies. This "age template" is really only for the current age of living people, and is not strictly necessary, as per my comments on the talk page, but I am just pointing out that your arguments that the template gives figures that are soon out-of-date is addressed by this timestamping of such figures with the date they were calculated. Just as all such statements should be qualified with a date. It is the unencyclopedic style of the template, rather than the template itself, that needs changing. Carcharoth 06:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have a problem with such encyclopedic sentences as "When he was 18, he enlisted in the Army." Obviously that makes sense. I just don't think it ever makes sense to give the current age. We should only ever be using static ages. It's just not encyclopedic to include a dynamyically calculated current age. As significant things happen in a person's life give the age when that happened, but there's no use to a dynamic age. --Cyde↔Weys 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalproof warning

Hi, I saw vandalism on the page which the warning stated by an IP as the last diff. I then clicked "Rollback" to revert and add a warning to the IP, but as the program was going through the processes of reverting vandalism, I saw the name "AnitVandalBot" and thought "this cant be right!?". To try to stop a warning appearing for antivandal bot, I tried to shut VP down, and I tohught I'd stopped it. Obviously I failed - sorry about that. I've removed the warning, and I think it was caused by the fact that while I was examining the diff of the IP for vandalism, AntiVandalBot reverted and when I clicked rollback, the page was reverted to the second newest edit - so removed AVB's revert. I'm really sorry about this - I would record it as a mistake on VP, but that function causes the program to crash when I try :(. Thanks Martinp23 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've worked out how to use the mistakes log and reported the revert in it (see User:Martinp23/VandalismMistakes) Thanks and sorry Martinp23 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what happened here was that the anon IP vandalized, AVB reverted, and the anon IP used the same vandalism again. Because AVB was set to calm he didn't revert it. Then another user came by, fixed the vandalism, and AVB reverted him because he thought it was blanking vandalism. You were right to fix the vandalism again, though the vandalism warning was unnecessary :-) I'll leave AVB in angry mode for awhile; vandals seem to be more adept at exploiting it when it's calm. --Cyde↔Weys 15:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Help - a bug

Because you're an administrator, I report the following bug: every time I edit a talk page (since today) other parts of the talk page get deleted. I didn't delete them though (although edit history seems to suggest this) and I have double checked this several times today. Also, the talk page structure seems to get messed up. For instance: I edit merely the "discussion about POV" section in the Talk: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Afterwards another section loses content and my comment ends up in another section as well. (This is not a joke, nor am I a vandal.) Sijo Ripa 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, question number one: Are you using any combination of the following: Firefox, tabbed browsing, Google toolbar? Question number two: Sometimes pressing the [edit] button doesn't bring you to editing the section you had intended. Are you double-checking that the edit source you're looking at is actually what you intended to respond to? --Cyde↔Weys 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(1)I use firefox which has a google toolbar included. I don't really know what tabbed browsing is, but if it means I have multiple tabs open in Firefox: yes, I have. (I thought that using firefox only caused cutting off pages once in a while - which means that articles and talk pages are de facto unavailable to read or edit). (2) Yes, I double checked that it was the right edit source. Sijo Ripa 22:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what's happening is that you are experiencing the Google Toolbar Firefox tabs bug. Basically, what happens if that if you switch between tabs with a tab open with a large amount of text in it, it gets truncated. This is a bug with the Google Toolbar and the Google devs have been notified and are hopefully working on it, because it affects not just Wikipedia users but anyone using any Wiki or other type of site with lots of text in an edit box. --Cyde↔Weys 22:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So if I only use 1 tab or don't switch between tabs, I won't experience these problems? (Thanks for helping me out!) Sijo Ripa 22:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to have fixed it for me. Which is annoying though, because oftentimes I need to go back and refer to another source for information while composing a reply, and with this bug, I can't really do that. --Cyde↔Weys 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection

Well.. Didn't know.. It said if removed, replace. I thought they were only talking about the tag. Thats one weird rule... ahh If i could be an admin.. *dreams* :p --Deenoe 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, whoever said that doesn't understand how protection works either :-P And being an admin ... heh, it takes awhile to get to the point where you get admin access, and it's not really that great. You get to block people and delete pages and such, but there's lots of restrictions on this, and if you go outside the accepted bounds you're dealt with in a hurry. --Cyde↔Weys 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Did you just move-protect or fully semi-protect? --Hello32020 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the protection log. --Cyde↔Weys 14:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note:

Your bot just got reverted. Hello32020 14:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Move

The page move is justified . thanks and I do not appreciate your threatening tone for a legitimate editing of wikipedia. If pages moves were not allowed then the feature would not be enabled in Wikipedia.--CltFn 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

GDFL and edit summaries

Sorry about the summaries and both picture we're took on Wikipedia. --Deenoe 17:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You could of told me before! :D Life is going to be so much easier now :p --Deenoe 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Images in Signatures (again)

Well, User:Earl Andrew has been using a curling rock icon in his signature... should i re-add my fox icon where the current middle point (•) is in mine? User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 20:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, no, just because someone else is doing something wrong doesn't mean you can do it too. I've asked him to change his sig. --Cyde↔Weys 21:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. Keeping the dot. :) User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 23:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

if you have time, your opinion please

• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Ste4k#Curse_hoax
• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k

Ste4k 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Kelly, I'm curious as to why my name was on a list in your user space. What was the purpose of this list? Given Cydes comments there is no reason to stay silent. Many are saying that we should assume good faith. In this case the obvious answer to such a statement is why? The well of good faith is not bottomless, as you have just found out. David D. (Talk) 15:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Kelly >:-( Cyde↔Weys 15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry a bit too cryptic, I cut and pasted it from her page. i thought, since I quoted you, I should at least let you see it. David D. (Talk) 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I really cannot divulge the nature of the B. Let me just repeat that I think the reaction to this is way overblown. I've heard accusations of harrassment and vote-stacking; that's totally not it. Now, due to the exposure, Kelly's gone and made a Q list, and I don't even know what that one is about. --Cyde↔Weys 15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Q list, I assume she is trying humour as a form of defense. Not very effective though, it just makes people suspect her more. AGF seems to be long gone in this case, whether the reaction is overblown or not. David D. (Talk) 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the list at WP:AN/I

Hi Cyde. Just a note. I put back the list you removed from WP:AN/I. I explained my reasoning in there.

If you feel strongly about removing it, I won't revert you, as I don't do revert wars and the whole matter is not worth all the fuss to start with.

However, I would like to ask you to not remove it again, and let me explain why.

You see, I am sure that both you and Kelly and a few others are well-meaning people. In the same time, I hope you understand how unhappy some people are that tabs are being kept about who votes against whom in an RfA. Really, that damages trust, and I hope it won't happen again.

I suggest you let the list stay at WP:AN/I. Removing it gives almost as bad an impression as creating it to start with. Let us leave things as much as possible in the open and move on. How does that sound? You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please expedite block

Can you pleas expedite this block, especially since the user has reverted again (6th or 7th time). This is very disruptive to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes consolidation support

What's on the slab Do not use these templates yet

You have recently either supported my userbox consolidation efforts or at least applauded them. Currently, I am putting together another larger batch of userbox deletions which will have master templates. (The master templates are not "live" yet.) Would you be willing to support me in this and any future consolidations? There will probably be a lot of resistance at first to this, so having a group of people supporting me would be greatly appreciated.

At the moment, 5 master userboxes are in the works to replace 72. That may increase significantly if I can get the sixth one to work as I would like. Some of the templates to be replaced are widely used, but with the consolidated templates there is more funcitionability.

Please let me know, you can click [edit] above as this conversation is transcluded to all.

Sent to: Aeon1006, Andrew c, BigDT, Billpg, Brian Olsen, Cyde, Gperrow, Khaosworks, Luna Santin, Marcus-e, MiraLuka, NKSCF, Pegasus1138, Phil Boswell, Plange, RedZebra, Rfrisbie, Riana dzasta, Stefanmg, and Tuspm
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting use of transclusion. :) Can't promise I'll always vote to support, but I imagine that in many cases I will. Feel free to let me know when you post them (I tend not to watch TfD too often), and as always I'll be more than willing to lend what technical advice I can. Luna Santin 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lady Aleena, as noted in an earlier discussion with you, I think consolidation is fine for thematically related userboxes. However, I also support diversity through mass customization, so I'm more inclined to support consolidations that maintain display differences in images, colors and especially wordings. That's easy enough to do with parser functions. I wish you all the best. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As per the two posts above, I might very likely support it but I'll determine it on a case by case basis. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't overly care too terribly much. I will say that I think having generic userboxes is a good thing from one standpoint - it helps newbies learn Wikicode. If you can't just add {{User Hokie}} to your page but instead have optional parameters like {{User Hokie|year=2001|border=maroon|major=CS}}, that's definitely a good thing. BigDT 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here - case by case. I only voted on the Doctor Who box because it was part of the Wikiproject, anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just let me know when you need my support LA, Most od th eboxes I use are aprt of a wikiproject anyways or made myself Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't use userboxes, I only got into this because of the Doctor Who project. But I'd take a look on a case by case basis, certainly. --Brian Olsen 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT. Userboxes with optional parameters taught me how to use Wikicode. A master template isn't a bad idea... hell, it should be like that for most userboxes. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like this use of transclusion. I think I'll vote on a case by case basis, but I do like and support the idea as a whole. —Mira 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also take a look on a case-by-base basis. --Gperrow 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have appreciated your efforts so far and will extend my support to similar "consolidation" projects. RedZebra 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you know of anyone who may be interested in this, just transclude this to their talk page as it is transcluded to yours. - LA @ 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up! Stefanmg 11:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa ... time travel! ;) BigDT 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... I always copy some of previous posts. It's easier... I just forgot to change the date Stefanmg 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So Far I like what you have done! See your Talk page to find out How much! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One concern I have about this form of communication on a topic that admittedly might be controversial is the potential for accusations of recruiting for votestacking. What are others' views on this? Rfrisbie^talk 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I had wondered about this, but unless I am mistaken, this is an uncontroversial tidy up operation. Stephen B Streater 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As a lot of you have said, you will take my recommendations on a case by case basis. That tells me that you are ready, willing, and able to tell me when I have crossed the line. - LA @ 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just anticipating a potential issue so you can prepare for it. If anyone ever puts up a stink, you might want to disclose this page is here. But then again, it might never come up. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we don't vote on Wikipedia it should not be an issue hopefully. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Other consolidations

Myers-Briggs

• ENFJ: 26
• ENFP: 48
• ENTJ: 30
• ENTP: 46
• ESFJ: 15
• ESFP: 7
• ESTJ: 19
• ESTP: 8
• INFJ: 43
• INFP: 80
• INTJ: 135
• INTJ2: 45
• INTP: 151
• INTP2: 34
• ISFJ: 13
• ISFP: 13
• ISTJ: 69
• ISTP: 42

Rfrisbie...have you thought about getting your Myers-Briggs templates deleted in favor of the combined one that Thadman created? That would be another 18 deleted. I did a survey of how many people were using each...

Some people have more than one of these on their user pages, so some of those are duplicates. I know that some look like a lot of people use them, but once we get people migrating from individual templates to master templates, it will get easier and easier to consolidate them. Hopefully we can keep user templates in Template space if we can show that we can police them. - LA @ 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi LA, of course, we all know they're not “my” templates. I just moved some to userspace as part of the effort to find a userbox compromise most people could live with. I wasn’t kidding when I said I support diversity in userboxes. Although I think Thadman’s userbox {{User:The Thadman/Userbox/MBTI}} is cool, it displays differently than the others – only one color scheme with a set of profile scores – and it doesn’t use categories . I don’t have any problem with it or another template designed to consolidate the existing features of the other boxes for “elegance” reasons, as long as no features are lost. However, I do not see a “need” to do it. On a web site that went from 1 million articles to over 1.25 million in about four months, I really consider the number of userbox pages to be a non-issue. I’m also not aware of any material debates on keeping userboxes in templatespace if someone polices them. Maybe you can show me a link or two on that. In this particular case, it’s even more superfluous because all personality boxes already are in userspace (User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Personality) and the Wikipedia directory page was deleted. [3] Rfrisbie^talk 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on GUS on the WikiProject Userboxes talk page. - LA @ 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. What that shows me is that you are very well-intentioned in your efforts, your rationale for this process as a means to keep userboxes in template space is not supported by consensus, and the specific case of the Myers-Briggs templates does not apply, since they already are ugly in userspace. Sorry, I'm still not convinced of the need or consensus to do this. However, if you're still interested in combining the boxes for "efficiency," without changing the displays or categories, it's fine with me. Rfrisbie^talk 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have only gotten one reply to my initial statement. I wish that more people would comment for I really want to keep user templates in the template space. I will never use a user template in user space. - LA @ 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that LA I have been dealing with other issues, I agree with what your doing it should make things a lot simpler. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

LOTR

I've found a few more that may be worth consolidating: the LOTR userboxes. Luna Santin 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at those, however the merged template would have to have standardized wording. I will give it a good think. - LA @ 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Live master user templates

I have made four of those master templates live. I will not start the TfD process on the ones they are replacing for at least a week. I want to see how well they catch on without a TfD first. However, do you think that I could slip a little note onto the to be TfDd templates noting the new master without too much censure. The message would be in the box appearing on the user pages like a TfD, but not as obtrusive. - LA @ 06:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. What do the others think? Æon ^{Insane Ward} 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the card game user templates have been marked with a message about the master template. The ones which are of different design are not marked as of yet. - LA @ 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion in progress

Here are the TfDs in progress...

August 7

User chess variants

Card game user templates

Idol series user templates

Newspaper types user templates

August 11

Prison Break

Law & Order series

Go take a look and tell the community what you think. - LA @ 07:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Checked them out, went delete on all. Great Job LA! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's userbox consolidation desk

If you find a group of userboxes which you think could be merged, place them on my userbox desk. Please alphabetalize them over the Edit section with NEW in the section name so it stands out a bit. I currently have 6 projects there. - LA @ 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

More user template deletions

To those who are still watching this, please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 25/User templates and give your opinion. - LA @ 08:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hello Cyde,

I'm not sure if your removal of my comments here has been intentional. I hope that my asking your opinion is not considered "spamming," as I see your neutral/admin oversight as both important for this article in general, and for preventing any mistaken controversial edits on my part. The issue that I approach you on at the moment is why there is a "US Aid to Israel" section, whether you believe it is NPOV, and/or whether I missed some relevant discussion on talk. I am raising my objections there as well, and plan to remove most of it and place relevant sections elsewhere. Thank you for your time, Tewfik^Talk 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I removed comments there? I don't recall doing that at all, must have been unintentional. Can you provide a diff so I know what you're talking about? --Cyde↔Weys 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. It was Werdnabot. In any event, keep up the NPOVing. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, since user Tewfik has requested your assistance on the past (assistance which has been useful), you might want to be aware I have raised a mediation request regarding his behaivior towards me at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24_Tewfik_harrassment_of_Cerejota.--Cerejota 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA comment

I noticed your comment here [4] which misses the point of a significant number of the oppose votes. As you may not have seen my belated response on the RfA page, or the other posts from opposers, I could correct your misconception here if this would help you. Stephen B Streater 22:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, so far I don't think I've seen anything to change my opinion of the oppose votes. But who knows, you could make me think otherwise. Let me just make one thing: I saw a little bit of validity in some of the oppose comments, but nothing approaching the level of denying him his request for re-adminship. Nobody's perfect ... and quite frankly, it's the perfect ones who do worry me, because they're so committed to remaining bland and uninteresting to maybe go for bureaucrat some day that they are incapable of making difficult and divisive, but entirely necessary, decisions. --Cyde↔Weys 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"incapable of making difficult and divisive, but entirely necessary, decisions." I think that anyone that opposed Sean Black, against the pressure from established wikipedians, is not the sort of person that is seeking to run for bureaucrat some day. It is quite possible to be a hard arse but at the same time explain ones actions with a rationale. It seems that SB often forgot that this is part of the job. Beating the opposition with a stick is unlikley to win them over sooner. Strong arguments based on reasoning will do the job. The latter is harder but it is what i expect from admins. Sure he may not abuse the tools, instead he may abuse those that disagree with him. I'm sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree on the qualities that are important for admins. David D. (Talk) 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to your first comment: yes, the two are not related, I just sort of went off on a rant there. I do think that the RFB process is fatally flawed. In response to the second part: The evidence brought against Sean Black was totally blown out of proportion. So he was a bit rude to two problem users. He's had great interactions with dozens of users who are actually themselves civil and are good contributors. I just didn't see anything there to want to deny giving back Sean the op bit. --Cyde↔Weys 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And I have to say that when i first opposed i was sitting on the fence. If i had seen some constructive rebuttals i think i might have changed to support. Instead, it turned ugly quite fast, and that, if anything made me shift to an even stronger oppose. Anyway it matters not now, since SB has reclaimed his admin status and i do not object to that at all. I think we can all take something from this RfA and use it too imporve wiki in the long term. David D. (Talk) 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think communication and accountability are important qualities for those with power. We all agree that even the best can make mistakes, and these can be most efficiently corrected if they are explained. Danny may make bold decisions, but you notice that he always explains them. You are discussing here. There is no fundamental reason for Sean Black not to do the same. I think that historically this has been his biggest weakness, and there is no reason not to fix it. Stephen B Streater 06:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

This arbitration case is closed, and the final decision has been published at the link above. For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 30	24 July 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Special report, writers wanted
Another country reportedly blocks Wikipedia	School files suit against anonymous user(s)
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Wikipedia featured in The New Yorker
Election officials named to handle vote for board seat	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and Notes: Biographies of living persons, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 03:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox generator

I sat for a few minutes pondering how I could best express my approval and glee, then drank a pint, thought some more, then checkmated myself in three consecutive chess matches, then thought... this simply rocks. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

You deleted Template:User antiracist mx admirer with "T1" as explanation. That's pretty cryptical. What is T1? I know F1 and TT and AT&T and FU2, but how are we to understand T1? ActiveSelective 09:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:GUS for the future of userboxes; T1 is a WP:CSD. --Cyde↔Weys 12:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Erik the Rude

I see an indefinite block for threats, made by you. However I see no explanation of said block on the user's talk page. What's the deal? Don't we always explain ourselves when we block people? I'm not disagreeing with the block, just wondering where it was explained. Friday (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the edit in question. And given the nature of it, I don't really feel like getting involved with him on his talk page. He knows what he did, and this has been thoroughly discussed on ANI. --Cyde↔Weys 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks- per that edit the block seems obviously justfied to me. I'd warned this guy about threats before but I see it made little difference. I still think it's extremely helpful to explain blocks on talk pages- if for no other reason than to save time by preventing random passersby from asking questions. Friday (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleteing of Jew Listbox

Hello. I mean what I'm about to say as respectfully as possible but I find your deleteion and block of the Jew user box to be Racist. Judaism is not just a religion... it is a culture. How come an Irish person can say they're Irish but a Jewish person cannot say they're Jewish.

LOL, you might want to do more a little bit more research before accusing someone of being racist ... are you accusing me of being racist against my own people?! This has everything to do with WP:GUS and nothing to do with racism. --Cyde↔Weys 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I said the action was racist, Why can;t we bring it back as an ethnicity?--Dr who1975 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok... here's another thought... why not a least make it a redirect page to something like User:Disavian/Userboxes/Jewish so we know we have an option when we see an empty spot on our user page. I'm sitting here gettong pissed off over semantics because I wasn;t told any different.--Dr who1975 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just include {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/Jewish}} on your userpage. There's no need to redirect from the one in template space because the one in template space isn't supposed to exist anymore. --Cyde↔Weys 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to make the Template more like the one below which redirects you to an alternate tmeplate. Other wise you;re going to get more whiney, crazy people like me bothering you.--Dr who1975 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC) {{User Doctor Who 5th Doctor}}.

Zereshk

Hi

I see your message in Zereshk's talk page. I send a mail for him and told him to be more patiant. would you please tell me when zereshk can edit again?--Sa.vakilian 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm sorry, but I think I'm gonna have to ask you for some sort of clarification of your intent. As you've posted no reply (that I know of) to my concerns [5], am I to assume that you plan to take no action on this issue? —Gabbe 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User liberal anglican

Cyde, why did you delete the liberal Anglican userbox? There was no deletion discussion and you did not provide a summary, aside from the cryptic and meaningless alphanumeric combination T1. Carolynparrishfan 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:GUS and WP:CSD. --Cyde↔Weys 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Both these issues have been discussed at the DRV talk page. The consensus among regulars there is that blanking logs is fine. Since people have requested it, I do add a summary of the close to my editing comment when I add to the Recently Closed section -- I'd rather not do it twice. I don't understand why it isn't intuitive that one should look in the recently closed section to see what the recent results are; but, I guess enough people are confused such that I will start typing the result twice. As I said when we were discussing things before, DRV really isn't as important as the other forums: it just decides whether a new discussion is needed, and rarely reaches a "final result" on matters... except the trash. DRV is the last place that bad article ideas go to die. Anyway, templates would lend a false sense of importance. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

Thank you to AntiVandalBot

• Thanks goes out to your AntiVandalBot to patrolling recent vandalism on some pages I contribute to. User Blondie0309 has taken to simply deleting all text on articles, without comment, here [6], and here [7]], and actually reverting back to said deletions of text, here [8]. It would be greatly appreciated if you would look into this, as had been done with User Passintheclassin. Thanks, Smeelgova 06:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

Cydebot request

Hi Cyde,
Further to here, a request for your bot to move all the "Aircraft manufacturers of [country]" subcategories of Category:Aircraft manufacturers to Category:Aircraft manufacturers by country (which I've just created). Hope this is straightforward. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done --Cyde↔Weys 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!  David 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:Israeli Soldiers with LB Hezbollah Flags.jpg

Cyde,

I'd appreciate your input on the Fair use of this image.

Thanks,

AdamKesher 15:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Specifics on what? Karmafist 17:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Errr

By your own standards, isn't this an attack? Telling a user you have no confidence whatsoever in their ability to do something isn't very nice, is it? (I'm not actually suggesting such statements should be seen as attacks, just trying to point out the difference between criticism and an attack.) Friday (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do have no confidence whatsoever in Everyking; it is absolutely appalling to me that he would argue for the side of the user that has made death threats merely because he has had some disagreements with Kelly Martin in the past. I too have had disagreements with other users, but I would never side against them with psycopaths who are making threats against their life. There are no parallels with this to Karmafist's situation because Karmafist is on a civility probation from ArbCom and has been repeatedly blocked for weeks for all manners of unconstructive behavior. --Cyde↔Weys 18:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Cydebot

I don't know if this is too urgent but your bot, for lack of a better word, messed up my user page (link). I don't know if there is something wrong or malfunctioning with the bot. Possibly a script error. Not sure. Thanks for your time. --WillMak050389 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, people need to stop bringing Wikipedian user categories through WP:CFD and just delete them instead. The pyWikipediaBot framework works on standard assumptions about how articles are categorized, something which apparently doesn't transfer very well to userboxes. --Cyde↔Weys 18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just thought I'd notify you. I believe I have fixed it though. --WillMak050389 19:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not venting at you, so you have no need to apologize. I'm just venting at the people who somehow thought these user categories were going to be a good idea without considering how worthless and headache-inducing they actually are. CFD wastes a lot more time than necessary trying to figure out what the "optimal" name for any particular user category should be, when my personal viewpoint is that they shouldn't exist at all because WP:ENC tells us Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, so categories should be used to categorize articles, not users. --Cyde↔Weys 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you because we all know this encyclopedia would be better if people didn't spend so much time working on those user categories and other useless info. --WillMak050389 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Zachariah Blanton

Yeah, you're right, thanks. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

T1 userboxes

There are some userboxes requiring your talents. ;) Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 26 - Template:User free palestine and Template:User palestinian cause. BigDT 02:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! BigDT 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, nice tip. --Cyde↔Weys 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Erik the Rude

I noticed you blocked this user -- he did note in a comment on his talk page that he thought his account had been hacked. Perhaps blocking is the best thing if it has been hacked (and I won't speculate as to the veracity of his comment), but I just thought you should be aware of it. Catamorphism 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way - whether the account has just been hacked or that comment is legit - the block is deserved. --Cyde↔Weys 04:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe a block is deserved based just on that. Why not ask for a simple retraction of it? It definitely appeared intended as a vague threat, but it's no good to reflexively react. What are the user's other contributions like, in general? Everyking 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Everyking, I just can't take you seriously when you don't think a block is deserved for someone who has made personal threats against another user's life. The user's other contributions are irrelevant - this was unacceptable. --Cyde↔Weys 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be deserved; I was only saying it would be better not to be reflexive, to give the guy a chance to be reasonable and apologize for that comment before taking drastic action. Everyking 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why sould I bother to give someone a chance to offer an apology over something I would never accept an apology for anyway? --Cyde↔Weys 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't Kelly be the one who would be accepting the apology? I have to agree that a ban is appropriate for what was said on her talk page. Indefinite ban, I'm not so sure.

Cyde, i do agree with Friday (mentioned below) that leaving a message on rudes talk page would seem appropriate. You just open yourself up for criticism when deciding to ignore standard procedure (at least i assume it is standard to inform people of blocks). David D. (Talk) 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing I'm opening myself up for criticism on this one, because it lets me ferret out the people who discredit themselves by saying they do not think death threats deserve indefinite bans. --Cyde↔Weys 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if it's a real death threat for sure its a definite ban. But i don't know this user well enough to know the real intent of that message. Looked more like bluster to me, although, it was not funny at all. Regardless by leaving the message due process is done. By not leaving a message you just open the gates for whinning and wikilawyering. David D. (Talk) 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, let me be very blunt. I don't want to get involved, at all, with someone who has made a death threat against another admin, because I do not want to place myself in any unnecessary danger. Ideally these kinds of blocks could be made anonymously, but that isn't possible, so my next best option is to not have any communication with him whatsoever outside of blocking his account. --Cyde↔Weys 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious, you really consider rude that much of a threat? If that was your rationale why didn't you get someone else to block? It's not like your block is anonymous and not informing Rude of the block seems to be more antagonistic than a block with a message on the user page. If you're worried about reprisals the latter block, following standard procedure, would seem to be the way to go. Just my 2cents. David D. (Talk) 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm discrediting myself? Maybe i just don't see things in a black and white way. David D. (Talk) 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Count me as Officially No Longer Having Any Clue What's Up With This Guy, anyway. No idea who's controlling either account, but Brian G. Crawford is also up and running again. Catamorphism 06:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(indents getting excessive) I gotta agree with David D. here- not explaining the block doesn't seem to address the privacy concern in any way at all. Really, the simplest best thing is just to remember to leave users a message explaining why you've blocked them. This will save time all around, and might even head off "I was blocked with no explanation!" complaints. Friday (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say an apology would not be acceptable in case of a threat like this. Truly indefinite bans—not just indefinite by technical length, but also due to the idea that there is no possible redemption for what a user has done—should be used only in the rarest of cases, when a level of clear danger exists far above this comment that was probably only meant in jest, or perhaps as a means of expressing annoyance or frustration in an inappropriate way. To just lock out a human being from contributing here for the rest of his life on the basis of one stupid comment that he probably regrets is the height of overreaction. What I say is this: ask him what he meant, and if he stands by the threat, fine, leave the indef block, but otherwise shorten it to some reasonable length of time. Everyking 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear Everyking, I have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to determine appropriate blocks. Even before the threatening letter this was pretty much the worst thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I cannot believe that you'd try to stick up for this guy saying the block length was inappropriate. --Cyde↔Weys 18:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The letter gives me further doubts about the user, but nevertheless I think you took the wrong approach. Everyking 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He's a reincarnation of a banned troll who's harrassed other people, it turns out. I have no doubts that I took the right approach. --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Aminz

Hi, Cyde, you seem to be around. Could you reply to blocked user Aminz, please? He's asking on his talkpage what his personal attacks are, and asking for examples and diffs. He appears convinced he hasn't attacked or harassed anybody. I don't know him personally, but regard him as a good-faith editor, and have often seen him defusing rather than instigating conflicts. Although I'm having trouble finding my way around his edits recently, as he's been very active the last few days. I notice his e-mail isn't enabled, and if I understand how that works, that means he can't e-mail you either. Please respond to him. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

Aminz and Zereshk have been on a harrassing and annoying campaign against InShanee for awhile now because InShanee dared to step into some silly cultural conflict and Zereshk basically responded with, "You have no right to tell us anything about this, it's not your cultur, you won't understand." This has been going on for quite some time with disruptive threads on ANI and veiled insults all over the wiki. And now that Aminz is being blocked I just see him repeatedly Wikilawyering. All of this harrassment and campaigning against admins needs to stop; he can't weasel his way out of it. --Cyde↔Weys 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just wish you'd respond to him, with that same explanation or some diffs to the veiled insults or something. I'm not asking you to withdraw the block. But leaving him with just the formula given in the block log does look unspecific, especially when he asks about it. Cyde, please don't give the guy a reason to feel at the mercy of admins. I really don't see Aminz — at least normally, usually — as a malcontent. I appreciate that something may have happened recently to turn him into one. But this isn't a bad user. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

Aminz' mistake was in defending Zereshk, who does engage in the behavior described. Aminz doesn't.Timothy Usher 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, those who read what Aminz has posted on his talk page since his block will realize what those who edit articles with him routinely have to go through. Pecher ^Talk 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for the diffs please. --Aminz 04:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to re-read the block message I left on your userpage, particularly the part where I said "I strongly urge that you do not continue this pattern of editing once your block expires." It's done with, get over it, move on; don't fixate on me now as a target and excessively bicker and wikilawyer about. --Cyde↔Weys 04:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is it that asking why I was blocked is excessively bicker? I just want to know why I was blocked. Please ask Shane and he will witness to you that our conversation didn't have any "cultural conflict" element. I have never edited Iran related articles. I don't know even when or where the quote you mentioned has been posted. I wasn't there for sure. I met Shane a couple of days ago. I even haven't had much encounter with Zereshk before this (well my main encounter was when I wanted to nominate Zora for adminship and Zereshk opposed but that's pretty much of it) Zereshk only edits Iranian/Shia related articles and I edit Islam related articles. --Aminz 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, do you agree that the connection you made above between the "cultural conflict" point and my block case were irrelevant to each other? Now, can you please let me know the diffs for my other alledged deeds. Also, could you please why didn't you reply me back on my talk page, or to my email, during my block? Thanks --Aminz 06:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I find your last comment hurting. Please revise it. --Aminz 06:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of cooling down, looking back into what happened, I do admit that I lost my temper block of Zereshk. Even having a point can never justify my voluminous criticisms of InShaneee's administrative decision. I ignored the fact that one's admin actions does not necessarily depend on what a person has immediately done. I do admit that I lost my temper again after I got blocked myself and have done what I shouldn't have done; and by doing so, I have poisoned the well. So did I after Zereshk's block.--Aminz 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

T1 userboxes

There are some userboxes requiring your talents. ;) Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 26 - Template:User free palestine and Template:User palestinian cause. BigDT 02:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! BigDT 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, nice tip. --Cyde↔Weys 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Empty userbox page

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Colours is empty (all boxes have been moved to user space), should you care to delete it. —Mira 07:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken care of it, and good work. --Cyde↔Weys 13:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects with funky quotation

In regards to your generally exasperated throwing-up-of-hands in WP:RFD - I don't know what causes people to make redirects like that (or what caused them to make two more just since I bulk-nominated them for deletion!), but I'm working on tracking down most of the oddly punctuated ones via Special:Allpages. In the case of multiple single quotes, at least, I should catch any new ones. Thanks, btw, for not killing the messenger. Gavia immer 14:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Block explanations

I'm trying to understand here- do you actually disagree that blocked editors should be left a message explaining the block? I can't think of any circumstance where not explaining is actually helpful. Would you consider making it a habit to provide explanations? Friday (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do provide explanations most of the time. The only time I can think of in recent memory was that repeatedly-banned death threats troll. --Cyde↔Weys 16:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Pahonia

Hi! Can you please explain the reason for deletion of the template in subj? Thanks --Czalex 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:GUS for more information. --Cyde↔Weys 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:GUS Fun

This is where I'm going to post all of the boxes I've eliminated transclusions for. Some still have links, but I'm not going to screw with those (do you think I should?). Thanks Cyde. αChimp ^laudare 02:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:User_humanism

Kindly restore deleted sections

Dear Cyde, deleted log shows your name:

22:09, 26 July 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Binaca Geetmala 1979" (I have no idea what this is but it doesn't appear to be encyclopedic.)

As noted by you, it may not appear encyclopedic, but nonetheless, it provides an excellent benchmark of top songs of Indian Hindi Cinema. Please restore the deleted sections of Binaca Geetmala listings, since it is an excellent resource for music fans interested in Hindi Music and Binaca Geetmala, which has consistently played in our homes during our childhood and lists the top songs of that particular year. Kindly restore the sections ASAP. Thanks, EyeMD 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, nothing more and nothing less. If you actually think this content is encyclopedic and can justify it, then bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, otherwise, just let it go. --Cyde↔Weys 17:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cyde: Millions of Indians have enjoyed the Binaca Geetmala, (which is akin to Billboard top listings) since its inception. The listings are the only way I could reach back in time to savour the very songs which have driven my childhood. These listings are, in fact, encyclopedic in nature. They deserve their rightful place. I have put up the article for undeletion at your suggested page too. If you want proof of Binaca Geetmala, here is the excerpt from http://www.ameensayani.com/reviews/review_1.htm :

Binaca Geetmala, for that is how it began, was so popular it ran for 39 years on Radio Ceylon after it was started in 1952. "In fact, during its peak from the '50s through the '70s, listenership was estimated to be anywhere from 9-20 crores," says Mr Sayani. "Nobody bought radio sets that did not receive Radio Ceylon! I received feedback from all over Asia and even the east coast of Africa." Geetmala subsequently shifted to AIR's Vividh Bharati station. EyeMD 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in on your chat. Eye, your best bet is not going to be to try to convince Cyde. You really need to go through the deletion review process and try to convince wikipedians there. You can't just argue your way to undeletion. αChimp ^laudare 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Subpages of my talkpage

Please return User talk:Ssbohio/B & User talk:Ssbohio/BB to their condition before being deleted & moved. I hadn't finished my work on B, and BB doesn't belong in its place. Since this entirely concerns my talk page, please direct further discussion there. Thanks. --Ssbohio 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I was unclear, but I'm asking you to undo both your move and your deletion of subpages of my talk page. You've undone the move, which I appreciate, but I'd really like the pages back the way I had them before your work on them. Also, I'd ask you to be careful with edit summaries. The move wasn't made because I wanted a different name for the page, but because I wanted you to revert your actions taken with regard to both affected pages. Thanks again. --Ssbohio 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'm done here. I don't like your attitude at all. You ask me to fix one of your pages while simultaneously writing something negative about me on that page? What is wrong with you? --Cyde↔Weys 02:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. You delete one of the subpages of my talkpage for no reason that I can determine, fial to explain yourself when questioned about it, and fail to revert your deletion when asked to. Yet, perversely, the problem is my attitude? You're the one with the administrator's tools that you're using to make deletions not supported by deletion policy on pages that relate to a controversy in which you are involved. I didn't come into your userpages and start deleting things. You came into mine. Of the two of us, the onus is on you, both by virtue of your position in this community & by virtue of you being the one who made the deletion. I shouldn't have to curry your favor to get you to restore these pages to the condition they were in before you intervened. I'm not asking you for a favor, Cyde. --Ssbohio 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'll tell you what's amazing, that you act like a jerk and then think I owe it to you to help you out. --Cyde↔Weys 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the misunderstanding. I don't expect you to help me out. I only expect you to undo what you've done. I'm here doing what I'm supposed to do when an administrator takes an action. I'm addressing it with that administrator. I don't think ill of you for taking the original action. I've seen enough of your work here to know that you're motivated by good intentions. That doesn't mean that the deletion you made should stay deleted. You may think I'm acting like a jerk, but all I want is a return to the status quo ante, not any favor or extraordinary treatment. --Ssbohio 03:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still hoping we can resolve this. --Ssbohio 02:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A one-on-one resolution is becoming less likely as the silence passes. I'm sorry we apparently couldn't. --Ssbohio 03:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Template:User Gambler a T1 violation?

It seems to me like it just describes a hobby, and I don't know how it could be divisive or inflammatory. If possible, I'd like to see the code so I can Germanize it. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sir Crazyswordsman 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain this to me???

Why have religious userboxes been deleted? I'd like a clear explanation. I sense some hostility towards religious people by the Wikipedia staff. --Rambone (Talk) 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out WP:GUS. They are getting moved to userspace and then deleted. The consensus was that they were not appropriate for an encyclopedia. αChimp ^laudare 04:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

T1 deletes

Hi. WP:GUS is new to me but at first read I see that the userboxes are to be transferred not outright deleted! Could you please supply me with the code for these boxes please: Template:User Alternattiva Demokratika and Template:User Partit Nazzjonalista. My humble suggestion is that you create a user subpage and throw in all the templates you delete -- users can then, on own initiative, copy the userbox to their own /Userboxes/ directory and delete it from your subpage; and you may also make a sort of automatic removal after say 1 or 2 months. Thanks. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nasdijj - what's going on?

Hiya, don't really understand what's happening on the Nasdijj article - is a bot malfunctioning or something? Can't see any instructions from Jimbo Wales. Vizjim 09:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous IP that blanked the page and placed the {{sprotect}} notice was actually Jimbo Wales, he was just in a remote location on a flaky satellite connection with some proxy issues that wouldn't let him log in. --Cyde↔Weys 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Cheers, I've restated the question on the article's talk page (and Jimbo's talk page): still not sure what's wrong with that well-sourced and scrupulously fair article! Vizjim 13:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, how do you know? Rich Farmbrough 21:58 28 July 2006 (GMT).

What, how do I know it was Jimbo? He told me off-wiki. --Cyde↔Weys 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've asked for confirmation from Jimbo (or Danny). Meanwhile I've left the history deleted and unprotected the article, since there are no issues with IP users. If confirmation of the problem isn't forthcoming soon, I'll undelete the history, as it can easily be deleted again if required. Rich Farmbrough 22:25 29 July 2006 (GMT).

Incidentally Jimbo was logged on this morning, and yesterday morning. Rich Farmbrough 22:26 29 July 2006 (GMT).

SO basically you're not taking Cyde's word for it when he told you Jimbo asked him to do it and he's convinced it was Jimbo. That's just not a good approach in my view. Admins should hang together, should trust each other, man... I think you should leave it the way it was. ++Lar: t/c 00:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

More than just "convinced" ... Jimbo came into the private administrators' channel on IRC with his cloak and everything and told us he was editing from a remote location and it wasn't letting him stay logged in long enough to edit. He explicitly asked us to watch over the page and semi-protect it. Deleting the history was my own idea because someone had just pasted back the old revision over Jimbo and I. But he most definitely wanted it sprotected. --Cyde↔Weys 00:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Antivandalbot wrongfully waned me

Antivandalbot warned me for reversing rightful vandalism by Simple Thomas. Could you please remove the warning tag?--Gdo01 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's a wrongful warning you can just remove it yourself. --Cyde↔Weys 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 31	31 July 2006	About the Signpost

Onion riff prompts some to cry for change	Professors criticize, praise Wikipedia in listserv discussions
Wikimania last-minute information	Report from the Polish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert et al

Would it kill you to not revert pages and then protect them unless it is actual vandalism? The section on wikiality or the Idaho's Portugal thing isn't really vandalism. Do it all you want with the three times more on the elephant pages. Kotepho 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the "Oregon is Idaho's Portugal" was vandalism of the purest form, done at the behest of some of Stephen Colbert's comments from The Colbert Report. --Cyde↔Weys 04:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I would consider something more along the lines of replacing an article with "PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS..." being the purest form of vandalism, but this edit I'll give you as vandalism. The other edits were in good faith and it isn't a good idea to call it vandalism. I find it especially funny that you reverted and then protected a vandalized version anyways (official site was changed to http://www.articleonramp.com). Kotepho 05:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please go find something better to do than chewing out an admin who did his best to deal with a hard and heavy vandalism spree and possibly made a few mistakes like protecting before reverting vandalism rather than reverting vandalism before protecting. --Cyde↔Weys 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a difference between reverting vandalism and then protecting or protecting and then reverting vandalism; both are fine. Protecting things at something other than the Wrong Version is not OK though when you are not dealing with vandalism, as with The Colbert Report. Kotepho 06:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between editing an article protected due to vandalism and editing an article protected due to a content dispute. --Cyde↔Weys 06:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Loxodonta is not really semi-protected, contrary to what the boilerplate claims. The other species are. Carson 07:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 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) 11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm an astroturfer?

Reguarding Wikipedia:Categories_for_Deletion#Category:Gangster_Wikipedians, I found your closing statement to be totally out of line. It's a blatant personal attack on myself and other users, and you closed the vote barely a day after it opened. There wasn't really consensus in the vote; Mareino had made an excellent point that I'd wanted to expand on and suggest a solution. Instead, you closed the vote and made a sweeping accusation about everybody who had voted to keep. I'm assuming good faith here, and it's not a big deal if the category is deleted, but I'm a little worried about the repercussions in other CfDs because of this, and the close (to me) seemed premature. syphonbyte _(t|c) 01:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Gangster Wikipedians"? Get serious. We're writing an encyclopedia here, we don't have time for infantile nonsense. --Cyde↔Weys 01:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am actually the 3rd result on Google for Mad Gangster, so to some degree there is a reason for my place in such a category. At any rate, my point was that you closed the CfD barely a day after it was started, which makes no sense. Discussion was still going on, and as I said before, Mareino made a good point about the German Userbox Solution, and I wanted to point out that this could probably apply to categories as well. That category was entirely within user space, so whether it was unencyclopaedic or not is somewhat irrelevant. All userboxes are unencyclopaedic by nature, since they aren't included in the encylcopaedia, hence the German Userbox Solution to keep them in userspace. This was the point I intended to make, however I didn't expect the CfD to suddenly be closed. Whether it is infantile nonsense or not isn't the point, the point is the precendent that can be set here. Anyhow, I can still have the category on my page and show up on it, it's just a redlink now - the category still lists Raven and I in it thanks to MediaWiki. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "userspace categories". --Cyde↔Weys 05:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for picking a term in my message out of context. What I meant was that the category is not referenced outside of userspace so it does no harm to article space. My point, once again, is that it may be a good idea to investigate something similar to the German Userbox Solution for these types of categories, and I would hope that you would actually respond to this, as well as my point that you closed the CfD barely a day after it was opened, thus totally destroying the chances of a good discussion of the point I just mentioned. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The German userbox solution won't work for categories because there is no such thing as a userspace category. --Cyde↔Weys 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A category that is not referenced outside of userspace does not exist as far as article space is concerned and is as good as a userspace category. If the opposite is true, though, then we might as well delete every category describing Wikipedians. I still don't really get why you closed the CfD after a single day, though. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Browse is linked directly from the main page and it doesn't make any distinction over pages that don't have any namespace zero inclusions. There is no such thing as a userspace category; all categories are the same. --Cyde↔Weys 05:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I'll give you that then, however the category was still within Category:Wikipedians by condition and clearly was a category of users. As I said before, the solution for this would be similar to the German userbox solution, but not exactly the same because it deals with categories. There is obviously a way for these types of categories to exist, because they've been around for a while and nobody seems to have a big problem with them. I wouldn't mind if the Gangster category was deleted as much if it weren't for the fact that the CfD was closed so early - other CfDs on that page are still active, and some of them appear to be far more clear cut than this case. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, people have had a "problem" with these categories for a long while, you just haven't been aware of it. And I've been deleting spurious user categories for awhile now, so don't just say this is coming out of the blue. --Cyde↔Weys 05:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but the fact still remains that you closed the CfD after a single day and mad a blatant attack on the users who voted to keep the Category. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but the fact still remains that Fram figured out your bloc and called you out on it, and CfD is a discussion, not a vote. --Cyde↔Weys 13:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a discussion, that does not mean that people who have an interest in the category can't come to discuss it. That's why the issue of a bloc isn't that big of a deal. There was nothing insidious intended there, and it should have been very apparent that we all know each other. Anyhow, Fram has as history with me and the other users and has made all sorts of accusations in the past, but that was the past. I figured that he had moved on from that as well, but perhaps he didn't. Anyhow, I have never met the user with (what I thought was) the best point, Mareino, so he is not part of any sort of bloc. syphonbyte _(t|c) 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mareino really doesn't have much import with me because I've consistently seen him make some very questionable decisions (the latest being defending the "Gangster Wikipedians" category). There's only so many bad decisions you can make before you risk discrediting yourself. This whole treating discussions as a vote is really not helping things because people think they can make spurious "votes" and then they don't realize that administrators notice consistently poor judgement and discount it. I would highly suggest finding something other than "Gangster Wikipedians" to expend your effort on. --Cyde↔Weys 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give one "accusation" I made that wasn't the truth? Apart from that, your argument that you came on third (now even second) on Google when looking for "mad ganster", and that therefor it is a relevant user category, is extremely circular, as it is the link to Wikipedia (your user page) that comes third, and that is only because of the popularity of Wikipedia. This does not indicate that "mad gangster" is a valid, useful, interesting concept, or that you are well known as a mad gangster. You have given no indication that presenting you or any user as a "mad gangster", and the creation of a category for it, is anything but an inside joke. Anyway, discussions of deletions are best done at WP:DRV. Fram 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde Weys: Not to worry, I spend time working on many other things. This simply caught my attention last night. I agree that treating these discussions as votes is a bad thing, which is why I see no problem with notifying others of discussions so that they can voice their opinions. If this caused trouble, then forgive me, that wasNot to worry, I spend time working on many other things. This simply caught my attention last night. I agree that treating these discussions as votes is a bad thing, which is why I see no problem with notifying others of discussions so that they can voice their opinions. If this caused trouble, then forgive me, that was not my intention at all. syphonbyte _(t|c) 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC) not my intention at all. syphonbyte _(t|c) 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fram: I'll respond on your talk page, no need to clutter Cyde's any more than it already is. syphonbyte _(t|c) 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center

Your bot has twice reverted my reverts to this article. I won't try to fix the article a third time, but I thought I'd let you know. -Merope 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Updating sigs

Because I'd rather my previous username be unknown, as I intend it to be deleted when I've finished. Most of the "New Message" alerts shouldn't effect users as the messages are quite old and are archived.--Andeh 15:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want it to be unknown then you are going at it exactly the wrong way, because running around updating every occurrence of your old username to your new username is about the most visible and conspicuous thing you can do. --Cyde↔Weys 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused you, I have now finished.--Andeh 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, of course you have, I asked you to stop, you didn't, and now that you've finished, you're done. --Cyde↔Weys 16:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No NYT account

You mentioned on the Israel-Lebanon war (should be called that, anyhow) "talk" page that you don't have a NYT account. You need Bugmenot. Self-explanatory once you browse it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do know about (and use BugMeNot), but the vast majority of our readers don't, and it's doing a disservice to them to link to content that they can't even view without going through the rigamarole of giving up all of their personal information to a large corporation. --Cyde↔Weys 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Gangster Wikipedians on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Gangster Wikipedians. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. syphonbyte _(t|c) 18:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mindrot, AfD

Hello! I have done some cleanup on the above article and provided reasons it should stay on the corresponding AfD. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

This user, Hectorhector, vandalized your page. Do you think it's vandalism? Take a look at this: [17] If you think it is vandalism or not, please contact me. Thanks! --Bigtop 19:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if Cyde was an Elephant I wouldn't have been so harsh. ELEPHANTS DO NOT WIKI. It is a defence mechanism. Hectorhector 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

On the population of Elephants and other such matters that should be taken seriously

Cyde you have recently accused me of vandalising the elephant page on the popular resource website Wikipedia. Ho! This is not true! I have muct interest in [Elephants] and I would do nothing to skew the publics perception of these fine beasts. In fact, my interest in Elephants is what led me to study their population in the first place! I went to Mexico to observe them in their natural habitat. this is a picture I took six (6) months ago and here is a picture I took recently in the same location. As you can see the population rose by 2 1/4!!!! I apologize for not explaining myself before hand but as you can see, the evidence clearly supports that the population has roughly tripled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorhector (talk • contribs)

Whatever, just don't you dare insert this joke into the encyclopedic content. --Cyde↔Weys 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

good idea Hectorhector 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:DICK

Just a short note to register my wholehearted support for your sentiments regarding WP:DICK, even if I personally wouldn't use such strong language in response. --David Mestel^(Talk) 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A heads up on The Colbert Report

I'm reducing The Colbert Report down to a sprotect; keeping it locked over what is essentially a content dispute is ultimately an untenable situation, and in the long run isn't the best thing for the project. As you were involved in cleaning up this mess throughout the day, I thought you would like to know. JDoorjam Talk 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, but judging by a strict interpretation of WP:3RR it looks like I've run out reverts ... which is really an untenable situation, because there's only a few of us but dozens of people trying to add in the navel-gazing to the article. --Cyde↔Weys 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pygmy Elephant

I believe you were the one who full-protected this article. I'm not sure why you full-protected this one instead of semi-protecting it like the other elephant articles. AgentPeppermint 02:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of the elephant articles were fully-protected at first and then downgraded to semi-protection later in the night. Looks like we missed this one; I've taken care of it. --Cyde↔Weys 02:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Elephant/development

It appears that article/whatever should not be used in the main namespace because the softwear no longer distinquises then from normal articles (this is the reason why template:copyvio was modified. It might be a good idea to find an alturnative location.Geni 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll need to talk with Greg and figure something out. In the mean time, I figured this was a good idea because, given the Colbert Report, it seemed likely that Elephant was going to have to remain protected for awhile anyway, so we might as well give everyone a chance to edit the developmental version. The choices are no editing at all or editing a dev version ... the latter seems more wiki to me. --Cyde↔Weys 02:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For copyvios we switched over to useing sub pages of talk pages. it is something of a problem though.Geni 02:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is wrong. Cyde, please put the old page back in place! You have removed the entire edit history of the page, which destroys one of the primary research tools that makes Wikipedia useful to other editors. I'll replicate this comment to your talk page for reference, but if you respond, please do so publically at Talk:Elephant so that the community can have a chance to understand your reasoning here. -Harmil 02:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit history hasn't been removed, it is simply now located at Elephant/development. The edit history on the stable version will just show when the stable version is updated. --Cyde↔Weys 02:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I am 100% on board that Elephant has had some serious Colbert related issues, but have seemed to miss any proposals or approvals to using stable versions, can you direct me to their discussion? Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NM, found it. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, this was kind of rushed through as a trial run on an article experiencing heavy trauma, so the discussion wasn't done on-wiki. Normally the full process should be followed, but in this case, that'd mean waiting a week before any non-admin would even have any version to edit. So I did what I thought was best and just picked the latest non-vandalized version to go on. This way we're still showing the exact same thing to our readers (a protected page), but now they at least have something to edit. --Cyde↔Weys 03:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Calvinist

Please can you offer some kind of explanation or allow debate as to your reasons for repeatedly deleting this userbox template and now protecting it? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See T1 under WP:CSD and WP:GUS. It's not like I'm singling out Calvinists or anything; all religious template userboxes have been deleted. --Cyde↔Weys 13:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

7 day theory

I recently did a major rewrite of 7 Day Theory but your bot reverted it back to the original text. Can you please disable this feature for at least this particular article so I can make changes to it? Thanks --Chad Hennings 09:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Desysop

• I assume your comment on my talk page was directed to Michael, not to me? Just in case there is any confusion, I have not called for nor supported desysopping over this. I firmly believe Ed was in the wrong and that Freak was wrong to lower the block less than 3 days. Ed violated 3RR on 3 seperate articles. 3RR can only be violated in the case of blatant vandalism, which this was not. Desysopping is certainly not warranted, however. Johntex\^talk 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was directed at Michael, not you; as you have just stated, it was he who made the call for desysopping, not you, and the signatures involved weren't so elaborate that I couldn't discern who they matched up with :-P Cyde↔Weys 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought so, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't be associated with such an extreme position. I appreciate you taking the time to reassure me. Johntex\^talk 23:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have mentioned you in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. You qualify as someone who can make the second endorsement. Jkelly 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

elephant

sorry for that... but it is true... He did say that... though it inst "perfectly" in context

See the edit history, over twenty other people have already tried to add the same nonsense. It's not funny or original anymore, it's just stupid. --Cyde↔Weys 14:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia

Do you by any chance know how many terabytes of space the whole Wikipedia system takes up? --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire English Wikipedia database takes about 600GB of database space. The database dump itself, compressed using 7zip, comes to around 6GB. All of the images on en-wiki come to a total of 200GB, and those don't really compress at all. As for all content on all language Wikipedias, including images, we are probably talking of around 3 TB or so. Add in Wikimedia Commons (which technically isn't Wikipedia) and that probably gets a bit higher. --Cyde↔Weys 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are You Afraid Of Bears?

Just curious since you keep on trying to remove my gift. It might just be your usual nerd power trip, but I figured i'd check.

P.S- My Sockpuppet is doing well, it's nearing rfa status. Karmafist 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the edit history of the page and you'll see why we're keeping it simple, with no superfluous comments or barnstars. As for a sockpuppet account - LOL. --Cyde↔Weys 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

New sig

Time for a new, simpler sig. --Cyde Weys 21:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

p-prot

OK, guess we don't need template creep., changed back the one on Elephant as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. It just becomes self-defeating if we bascially start giving props to people for causing these sorts of vandalism problems. --Cyde Weys 04:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism category

Your bot recently went through and renamed Category:WikiProject Catholicism 101 articles to Category:WikiProject Catholicism articles per a CFD nomination. But Category:WikiProject Catholicism 101 articles is still there. I was hoping you could stop by and delete it. Thanks. —Mira 05:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)