| Revision as of 19:24, 16 June 2006 editCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →Procedure?!← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:25, 16 June 2006 edit undoBdj (talk | contribs)19,739 edits →Procedure?!: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 418: | Line 418: | ||
| :::::::Yes, and of those 90% or whatever who voted "delete, nn," all of them were wrong - notability was firmly established by a variety of media attention taht would get any other article that didn't involve a web meme to be kept. We don't vote count, contrary to popular myth. --] <small>]</small> 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | :::::::Yes, and of those 90% or whatever who voted "delete, nn," all of them were wrong - notability was firmly established by a variety of media attention taht would get any other article that didn't involve a web meme to be kept. We don't vote count, contrary to popular myth. --] <small>]</small> 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::Media attention doesn't make something notable. The media reports on lots of stupid, non-notable shit. Every week there's some random cat in a tree that gets national media attention. This is an encyclopedia, not a news compendium - can you honestly say that, down the line, this little theft of a PDA is going to be remembered by ''anyone''? --] 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | ::::::::Media attention doesn't make something notable. The media reports on lots of stupid, non-notable shit. Every week there's some random cat in a tree that gets national media attention. This is an encyclopedia, not a news compendium - can you honestly say that, down the line, this little theft of a PDA is going to be remembered by ''anyone''? --] 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::Undoubtedly yes, I can. Every single possible applicable guideline for notability was met by this article, I have no idea how you come out with saying this isn't notable. If you can explain why either a) the guidelines don't matter in this case, or b) what guideline(s) the article didn't meet, then I'll be glad to drop it, but you have to offer a little something to work with. --] <small>]</small> 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Lulu - here's a problem with your little set of restrictions. Rather than having a comment in that Afd, I could've just closed it then (it had already run long enough). Would that have made me more or less "evil" from your point of view? Getting to close Afds is much, much more power than a simple comment (which is all I had previously made, a simple comment). I wasn't involved in the large argument over that page in any real way. --] 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | Lulu - here's a problem with your little set of restrictions. Rather than having a comment in that Afd, I could've just closed it then (it had already run long enough). Would that have made me more or less "evil" from your point of view? Getting to close Afds is much, much more power than a simple comment (which is all I had previously made, a simple comment). I wasn't involved in the large argument over that page in any real way. --] 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:25, 16 June 2006
No spamming, please. Spam will be removed, not archived. My definition of "spam" is interpreted liberally.
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
New talk page, new sig
I just archived my previous talk page, so ... it's time for a new sig! --This user is Cyde↔Weys. 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Or how about this sig? ↔ 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Does it have to be so freakin' pink? It hurts my eyes! And if a part of it could link to your talk, it'd be a lot better. Misza13 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, pink is dank. Don't be dissin' it.-- The ikiroid 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Pink is the new black.--Anchoress 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
How about this sig? ↔ 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I like the pink myself. Every time I see a pink signature I doin't even need to read it - I know it's you. The only thing that slightly confuses me is the double arrows that appear when I hover over it, but ah well. It's very short and doesn't intrude upon the editing window in any way. Cowman109 18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's not pink, it's light red. --Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- umm... This is light red. This is pink ~Chris (e) 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- You know, I think I'm the only person who likes the sideways cursor.--The ikiroid (talk desk advice) 16:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- umm... This is light red. This is pink ~Chris (e) 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's not pink, it's light red. --Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cyde
Feel free to tell me to buzz off but, I posted this on Tony Sidaway's RfC 3:
- Without disrespect whatsoever, Cyde, I'd appreciate if you'd consider changing your sig. I find the cursor to be disruptive. Thanks
Honestly, the sideways cursor bugs me a bit when I'm moving the mouse down the page. Appreciate if you'd consider changing it. Cheers and hope you're enjoying adminship -- Samir धर्म 15:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Uhhh ... disruptive? Really? What sense of that word are you using? I've never seen any disruption caused by my sig, whereas I can't say the same for a couple of other users ... Cyde↔Weys 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps disruptive was the wrong word. I guess I'm icon dependent and it takes more than a second for me to clue in when the sideways arrows come up. I agree that many other sigs are far more disruptive, but when I e-mailed less responsive editors about their sigs, all I got back was vitriol. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, but I also find it disruptive. Whenever my computer (which happens to not be the best computer in the world) scrolls the cursor over yuour signature, my computer tends to freeze for a few seconds as it searches for the right cursor (I use an alternative cursor set). This is especially disrupting when I scroll down pages. Thanks. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you also experience the same chugging problem when you perform other activities in your interface that require cursor changes, like moving the mouse over a text box, resizing a window, mousing over a weblink, etc.? --Cyde↔Weys 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No, as a matter of fact, I do not. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you see a different cursor when mousing over my signature than you see when you move your mouse over a vertical edge of a resizable window? --Cyde↔Weys 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I do. :-) Netscott 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- What OS? Are you using any custom cursors? --Cyde↔Weys 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Latest version of Firefox on PowerPC version of OS 10.4.6 . The cursor looks like this:
- <-|
- On the latest version of Safari (same system) it looks like this:
- <----
- No custom cursors. Netscott 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Latest version of Firefox on PowerPC version of OS 10.4.6 . The cursor looks like this:
- What OS? Are you using any custom cursors? --Cyde↔Weys 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The point, Cyde, is that it can be dusruptive to many people. Please remove it. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please answer my question. --Cyde↔Weys 15:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, Cyde, I am not using custom cursors. I am using the alternative cursor set from windows (Cursor_inverted_small). Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- (Repeating the question from above) Do you see a different cursor when mousing over my signature than you see when you move your mouse over a vertical edge of a resizable window? --Cyde↔Weys 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I do. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Campaign
Say, I was wondering, Cyde. I recall you promising up and down during your campaign for adminship that you were through with touching userboxes. What's the story on that? Just wondering what your side of that is, since as it is, it looks pretty damning. D. G. 07:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, do I know you? --Cyde Weys 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Er. No you don't; I don't believe we've directly interacted before, if that's what you mean. That's not the point. Do you not wish to disclose an answer to my query? D. G. 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already answered this, read further up on this page. --Cyde Weys 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I already have read through this page, and that isn't true. The closest I can find is a statement to the effect that you will follow through on your word and stop involving yourself with userboxes after all of your goals with respect to them are met. This isn't a question to the answer, it's a restatement of the question. I would not have wasted your and my time posting this question for your consideration if an answer were not already available for my consumption. Thank you, Cyde. D. G. 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this question to you seems to have come right before you did an archive of your talk page, so it was lost there. I've copied it here and my question stands as before. Thank you, Cyde. D. G. 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting rather sick of assumptions of bad faith. Every single time when I've archived my talk page, without fail, someone has accused me of doing it to cover something up. --Cyde↔Weys 21:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Um... The only bad faith assumption I see here is yours. DG just pointed out that the question had been lost in the archival. TheJabberwʘck 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- The tone of his message makes it quite clear what he meant. And please, for the love of God, can you fix your sig?! --Cyde↔Weys 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you're both ABF'ing. By "fix," do you mean shorten? I'm about to transition to a new username, so I'm not gonna change it yet, except to remove the help part from the end. TheJabberwʘck 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I do mean shorten. It's three lines long in my edit window ... it tends to overwhelm comments. Cutting out the various unnecessary font formatting would help reduce its size a bit. Look at my sig: it's just as colorful as yours, but it does it all inside of a single tag. --Cyde↔Weys 21:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- As requested: not as short as yours, but not too bad either. Λυδαcιτγ 04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I do mean shorten. It's three lines long in my edit window ... it tends to overwhelm comments. Cutting out the various unnecessary font formatting would help reduce its size a bit. Look at my sig: it's just as colorful as yours, but it does it all inside of a single tag. --Cyde↔Weys 21:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you're both ABF'ing. By "fix," do you mean shorten? I'm about to transition to a new username, so I'm not gonna change it yet, except to remove the help part from the end. TheJabberwʘck 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- The tone of his message makes it quite clear what he meant. And please, for the love of God, can you fix your sig?! --Cyde↔Weys 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You still don't seem to have answered the original question. CelestialRender 01:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I wasn't implying that the archival had been done intentionally. The sentence would likely have been inverted, I think, were that the case ("You archived right after I made my question to you" rather than "I made my question to you right before you archived"). I'm sorry if this tends to happen to you a lot, but it's to be expected (by both you and me) and you should be used to it, seeing as you are someone with a high-traffic talk page. With so much talk, there is bound to be something going on anytime that you archive. As for "tone," we all know about the effectiveness of reading tone on the Internet. Retroactive pardon for any misunderstanding, then. Anyway, wonderful little thread of conversation here going (I might add that yes, that 3 line signature is obnoxious!), but I am still waiting for an answer to my original query... Thank you again, Cyde. D. G. 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to assume good faith and patiently repost this request for an answer. Thank you, Cyde. D. G. 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This is really a poor time to start bugging me about this again. Change comes from within, not without. --Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Seems a bit odd to call it bad timing, when you haven't responded in three weeks. Raphael1 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Way to examine the situation before responding. --Cyde↔Weys 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, Cyde, I'm not sure I really understand what that last message from you means. Poor time? I'm not aware of why this is a poor time. Is something going on in your personal life? I can't be expected to read minds... sorry if that comes off as snippy, but, I just plain don't understand what you mean to say. Change comes from within? Good philosophical tidbit, but I don't understand what you mean either. I've just been asking a simple question for what will probably soon be a month, that's all. Do you refuse to respond, and if so why? I hate to assume that that's what you're doing, but that's what it seems like it. Thanks again, Cyde. D. G. 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. DG still hasn't gotten a response, almost a month after the fact? This is a Great conversation. -Silence 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This question is based on a false premise. There's really nothing to respond to. --Cyde↔Weys 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
What false premise? I'm sorry, I've tried hard to assume good faith for the last month (nearly) now, but this has gotten silly. All that's come out of you are vacuous statements, some of which go in circles, some of which go nowhere, and others of which go to the convenience store to get themselves a drink. I can't be expected to read your mind, which is all you seem to have done. Just because you believe that "justly" my question is beneath you or "invalid", whatever that might mean, does not entitle you (does it?) to be cryptic and simply dismiss the question without explaining what you mean. I'm sorry if after a month I finally have to start appearing a bit hostile, but it seems you've just been stringing me and others who would like an answer along all this time yourself. As an admin, you hold a public trust, and I think we're entitled to hear your side of your story. If you disagree, and feel that adminship is more of a privilige than a responsibility, just say so, out and out. But for God's sake, shadowboxing like this just makes you look frightening, and I mean that. D. G. 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, since you say there's nothing to respond to, let me restate what there in fact is to respond to: "Why did you promise you'd stay away from userboxes when convincing people to vote for you for admin, and then shortly break that promise?" I don't understand your reluctance, seeing as your words on this matter can only improve your standing in the community, seeing as it looks very bad as it is, not hearing your story but only that of others. D. G. 04:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let me spell it out for you. The false premise is that I ever promised to stay away from userboxes period. There were conditionals on it that maybe you just didn't see (like the then-policy succeeding). But look, it's been months now ... can you please stop hounding me and get over it? There's much more important stuff to be worried about, like writing the encyclopedia. Hell, even I have largely moved on to more important things. --Cyde↔Weys 04:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 5th.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 23 | 5 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Hey
User_talk:The_ed17#Blocked I happened to see this. I agree with the block, but have lowered to block to two days... 1 week seems a bit BITEish. Hopefully he'll learn from a 2-day block. NSLE (T+C) at 13:36 UTC (2006-06-09)
Next one's indef. This guy has done absolutely nothing useful and a lot that was harmful. --Cyde↔Weys 13:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can you see my talk page quickly? (on the block subject) the_ed17 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Who was the other guy? the_ed17 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. He had nothing to do with you, we just happened to be dealing with two people at once. --Cyde↔Weys 00:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my RfA. I think it's unfortunate that semiprotecting it was necessary. —Cuiviénen on Friday, 9 June 2006 at 21:37 UTC
Your userpage
It would be easier if it were the right side up. Skinnyweed 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Then it wouldn't be cydeweys, now would it? --Cyde↔Weys 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, how long were you saving up that pun for?--205.188.117.5 11:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, the name's been "Cyde Weys" for years now and it's been that pun the whole time ... I wouldn't say I've been saving it up at all. If you didn't notice the pun until now, well then, I guess that's a bonus for you :-P Cyde↔Weys 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. I never noticed the play on words. That's brilliant. :) Cowman109 17:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:DATE
Would you add a note to Talk:Switzerland explaining why on 1848 and the other pre-1848 dates were delinked. Thanks. -- User:Docu
My Apologies
I'm sorry for failing to alert you about opening an RfD on your user page image; I explained elsewhere that I suddenly had to leave the computer briefly. I hope you understand as this is the best explanation I can give. I would also like to point out that you removed a deletion alert from the image page, which is against policy (although I understand why you did so). —Cuiviénen 01:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to apologize, just apologize and leave it at that. Don't equivocate and try to Wikilawyer with me. You don't get the privilege of breaking my userpage for seven days while the process runs its course, because the initial nomination was filed for invalid reasons. --Cyde↔Weys 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not Wikilawyering, though now that I have withdrawn the nomination, it does not matter. Please, I know we've had disagreements in the past, and I know that this may have seemed like a hostile action, but it was not intended to be. I would like to make amends rather than the hostile truce that seems to exist. —Cuiviénen 01:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 12th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 24 | 12 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 01:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Cydebot category duplication
Hi there. I just noticed Cydebot duplicated a category at Self-declared art movement. Anyway, rather a cosmetic issue. --Nikai 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's just what pyWikipediaBot does. Oh well. At least that doesn't break anything. --Cyde↔Weys 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
My signature
Hello! Is my signature short enough? (( Anonymous_Anonymous )) Anonymous anonymous 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
(Note: You can remove my signature after you have replied to this message. Thanks and take care)
You might have a problem with that font face "Croobie". A good number of systems simply aren't going to have that. --Cyde↔Weys 14:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks. I'm changing my sig's font to "Arial". Anonymous_Anonymous 17:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Arial the default font on here? Changing it to arial doesn't seem to make any difference to the display on my screen. See as follows:
Why don't you just use the second signature? It's shorter. --Cyde↔Weys 17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. The font style looked different at that time because I wasn't wearing my glasses. I am now using the second one. Anonymous__Anonymous 14:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Evidence
True, I've just gotten back from a 3 day weekend where I had intermittent access.. I'll be adding my 2 bits later on this evening. Netscott 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what your comments about vacation were about... ? Netscott 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see they were directed at User:Vegaswikian.. no further need for explanation. Netscott 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Your userpage
Cyde your userpage is scaring me :o . I don't know which way is up anymore. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Would you mind changing your userpage to render up and down? Thank you very much, Chuck 05:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was bold and changed it myself (please don't take offense). In the past, user's with confusing userpages have been asked to change them. Later, Chuck 07:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- And someone else was bold and changed it back. So my original request to change it stands. Later, Chuck 07:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- you can always opt to change it and "show preview" -- you reap the benefit of a cyde's userpage being rendered the way you like without inflicting your change on cyde or anyone else. frymaster 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Userpages are supposed to be readable, not sideways. Chuck 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- i concur. which is why i keep my userpage in an uppy-downy fashion. however, cyde likes his sideways for whatever reason and who am i to give him grief over it? -- frymaster 15:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Userpages are supposed to be readable, not sideways. Chuck 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- you can always opt to change it and "show preview" -- you reap the benefit of a cyde's userpage being rendered the way you like without inflicting your change on cyde or anyone else. frymaster 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- And someone else was bold and changed it back. So my original request to change it stands. Later, Chuck 07:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was bold and changed it myself (please don't take offense). In the past, user's with confusing userpages have been asked to change them. Later, Chuck 07:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
RfD
You left a comment on several cross-namespace RFDs as "Per nom". Could you please clarify what that means in those sections as some of the cross-namespace redirects have an alternate within-namespace disambig/abbreviation pages, and "Per nom" isn't exactly clear. Thanks. Cowman109 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, thanks. I think? :D Cowman109 00:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and I love your adminship criteria. Cowman109 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
m:Cite.php favour?
Hi. Do you know who is doing the automation-assisted footnote conversion? I need to reorganise Stregheria, and it would be a real pain to redo the referencing by hand. Jkelly 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You can do it on your own, just check out User:Cyde/Ref converter. It's very simple. --Cyde↔Weys 01:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- That was very simple. Thank you very much. Jkelly 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
RfA questions for Gwernol
Thanks for the thought-provoking questions on my RfA. I've added my attempt at answers. Best, Gwernol 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Please consider.
Regarding our past dealings, there are still some lingering negative feelings regarding everything that was said. It will take some time for the healing process to end. I don't think a request not properly worded as a request would really help at this point and it would make matters worse not to mention causing tensions between us to rise. I do assume good faith that you mean well but I would appreciate it if you would be a little more delicate with your words.
I don't know why you're watching my page anyway when you've ignored any and all attempts for a truce. I would appreciate being left alone. Thank you very much. — Nathan 04:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
A request
Hello Cyde,
I have a request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed
The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.
Thanks,--Aminz 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, Just wondering if there were no dispute, then why did I ask you to help resolving the dispute? --Aminz 18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)interesting expression!!!(I mean "see no evil,...") I just understood its meaning --Aminz 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Where is your AOL now?"
oh for the love of... can you stop giving punative range blocks to AOL users? please.../: ? You're just feeding the trolls denial of service vandals--205.188.117.5 18:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made no such rangeblock. --Cyde↔Weys 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I for one would support a change in handling the AOL ips. AOL is simply a vandals paradise due to the way the IPs change so frequently. There is simply no effective method of handling AOL vandals. KillerChihuahua 10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Crab Nebula
I just noticed you semi protected that article, and one thing has been bugging me for a while. Why is it not standard policy to semi protect featured articles on the day they're featured? I've read the semi protection page, and I realise that it's not supposed to be used as a pre-emptive measure against possible vandalism, but surely an exception could be made with featured articles where high levels of vandalism are almost guaranteed? Sorry for asking such a newbish question, but it's baffling why Misplaced Pages allows this vandalism to happen when it can be prevented. -- Steel 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hrmm, I didn't even realize it was the featured article today, if I had, I wouldn't have sprotected in the first place. --Cyde↔Weys 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Typo in your new category
Hello, your robot created Category:Organisations based in Hugary but it has a typo: there is an "n" missing in "Hungary", so it should be Category:Organisations based in Hungary. Please move the category to the latter name with its contents. Thank you! Adam78 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: I think it would be highly appreciated if you could insert a country-related sorting key into the new members of "Organisations by country", like "|Hungary" into ] in the Category:Organisations based in Hungary. Look at the categories listed under the letter "O" in Category:Organizations by country and you'll see what I mean. Adam78 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
AntiVandalBot
Just curious, is AntiVandalBot still in testing mode? Or is it fully operational now? --Ixfd64 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a clone of Tawkerbot2, so it's just as ready as TB2 is ... is TB2 fully operational? Not my call to make :-| Cyde↔Weys 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
A few things
Neat userpage! Oh yes, I apologize for my comments during your RfA, still hasn't left me. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for the subst and sig notices. I've read them and modified the signature appropriately and hopefully my signature is now better, too. :) -- Shadikka 15 June 2006, 12:58 (UTC) 12:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sig
You don't think changing the user's cursor is kind of obnoxious? Stevage 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- don't go there. trust me. frymaster 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
My Sig
Used to be:
Now is:
I shrunk about half. Please vist my signature shop and its talk for details on the issue. (I am a little bit of a deranged schizo myself so don't push it further please!) :-) :NikoSilver: 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Kent Hovind article
Hello Cyde. Love your name. You reverted a number of edits I made to the above-referenced article, with the edit summary "Why were all of Hovind's political views removed from the article?!" I explain my reasons for removal on the talk page. In short, I did not think they were relevant, as Hovind is known for advocating creationism, not for his other views. If you do not agree, please discuss this on the talk page. Most of my edits were aimed more at making the article better organized and deleting material that was repeated. I also added a section on the Hovind and the Big Bang. Please review these changes and explain why you think they should be deleted. --JChap 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Have you been to a Kent Hovind performance in person? I have. Or, hell, you can just download one online (he releases all of his stuff into the public domain). Half of Kent Hovind's shtick is on topics other than evolution. He rants, at length, about exactly the kind of stuff you excised from the article. Kent Hovind is notable for being a lunatic, not just a specifically anti-evolution lunatic. It's relevant. --Cyde↔Weys 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I watched some of his stuff while researching the changes for the article and I agree that he talks about politics a lot (mostly in relation to evolution). However, my non-original research was unable to establish that anybody pays much attention to his views on these topics, other than on the websites dedicated to him. I discuss this on the article's talk page. Most of my edits did not even involve the discussion of his political views, though. I was trying to make the existing article read better by organizing it and deleting repetitious material. I also added a discussion of his "refutation" of the Big Bang theory. I don't understand why you found it necessary to revert these edits as well. Best. --JChap 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply to your comment on ANI 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I was going to reply there but realise that isn't the place for this (especially after the edit conflict comment that appeared by JDoorjam in between), but I still feel it should be said so:
Well if you feel that why don't you delete the LGBT one? After all in your delete summary you said you were not biased... (disclaimer: I am not really suggesting you go and delete that one out of process, it just seems like you're being inconstant, which could lead to accusations of bias, which is why we have 'proper processes'.). It does not seem to be an 'outrageous violation', at least not to everyone. Violation possibly, but people are disputing the point, and the debate should be allowed to happen. The proper place for that debate is MFD. Petros471 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
BOT for Vandalism
I was looking for blood hound (dog) which redirected to 50 cent's Get Rich or Die trying.
WP:CFD/W
you tagged some that bots cant do, Why cant they? Betacommand 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Because they can't. Try it. Bots can't (yet) figure out templated category syntax, e.g. {{foobar|Category=U.S. trains}} on the article and ] in the template. --Cyde↔Weys 13:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
substing {{deleted page}}
What's the deal? Do we do it? Do we not? It's on low traffic pages, and template talk says not to subst to save diskspace - so I started adding long comment tags to prevent appearance on Special:Shortpages. Any particular reason why you are substing it? Thanks for clarification. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Disk space? Don't be silly. The full text of the template is less than 3KB. I could substitute that template 100 million times and it'd fit on a single hard drive. In general, don't worry about hard drive space or CPU utilization or whatever; the dev team worries about that (since they actually know what's going on), and if they actually see a problem, they will let us know. But it isn't worth worrying on their behalf over such trivial things as a few kilobytes. Hell, everytime you save a revision to WP:ANI you're using up an amount of space equivalent to one hundred substitutions of {{Deletedpage}}. So instead of coming after me, go after the people posting nonsense or trivial contents on there.
As for substituting {{deletedpage}}, I do it because userspace templates should be substituted unless there is a compelling reason not to. Templates change over time ... and old deletedpage templates that weren't substituted are now pointing to Afd rather than Vfd, which isn't correct, because the article's deletion discussion was held on a Vfd subpage, and those subpages weren't moved over. Substitution preserves the exact look of that page which won't change over time ... for stuff like user page templates, this is a wise idea. --Cyde↔Weys 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sidekick
Cyde, what was your rationale on the deletion of the Sidekick AfD? Could you expand it, since I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
this edit
I think your bot missed. --Bachrach44 18:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Procedure?!
Unfortunately, like most things I see in your admin actions, the latest rather alarmed me for procedural reasons. You just closed the AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2; but you had participated in the AfD discussion, so were not a neutral administrator. This is just wrong.
FWIW, I completely agree with the action to delete. I voiced that opinion myself (and also did some work to refactor the AfD to indicate more clearly the large number of brand new editors who were recruited from outside WP to express "keep" votes). It was clearly the strong super majority opinion. And moreover, "delete" is just plain the right action per WP notability guidelines. But someone else should have taken that right action to close as delete. LotLE×talk 18:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What the hell do you mean "someone else"? For Christ's sakes, you're never going to get over it and you're never going to trust me to handle anything, is that it? --Cyde↔Weys 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not when I keep seeing this sort of thing, no I'm not. A closing admin on an AfD should be one uninvolved with the article and the AfD discussion. Period. This is pretty basic Admin 101. There are hundreds of admins who never contributed to that AfD discussion... one of them should have been the closing admin. This is my major problem with your pattern of actions: it's not really that your actions are wrong per se, but that you show such complete contempt for procedural fairness; I believe you have a belief that you are so much smarter or better than all other admins that you have some right to act even when you have a direct conflict of interest.
- Likewise with that AfD about the GWB impeachment thing. You were a strong partisan of the issue, and also closed it prematurely. In fact, I believe that after it was reopened, the reasonable "keep" turned into a "delete" largely in reaction to your improper action. I voted the same way as you, so it's not about the outcome, but the procedure.
- And also likewise with your vindictive 3RR on me. As you'll recall, I activiely solicited my own block from another admin who had no conflict of interest when I realized I got carried away and, in fact, 3RR'd. So again, the outcome wasn't wrong (well, you also 3RR'd several others without justification simply because they were on "my side"). But given your very recent history of animosity towards me, this also should have been something carried out by any other admin.
- And also likewise with your modifying protected template pages to advertise for your own semi-bot tool. If anyone else had done it, it wouldn't be a direct conflict of interest... but it was you.
- And... ad nauseum. All of this adds up to extremely irresponsible use of admin powers. A good admin should recuse him or herself from issues s/he is directly involved in. With 1.2 million pages to choose from, that leaves plenty of places to use an admin hat... but instead you use it primarily as a form of bullying. LotLE×talk 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Those templates were protected because they were high-visibility vandal targets, not because there was any sort of editing dispute. Administrators can edit permanently protected pages at will. --Cyde↔Weys 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- And... ad nauseum. All of this adds up to extremely irresponsible use of admin powers. A good admin should recuse him or herself from issues s/he is directly involved in. With 1.2 million pages to choose from, that leaves plenty of places to use an admin hat... but instead you use it primarily as a form of bullying. LotLE×talk 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't understand your closure, and he does have a point, it is suggested that those involved with the debate not close. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The subject of the article is incredibly non-notable. I do suppose this questioning of motives is inevitable anytime a "hotly contested" Afd is closed. --Cyde↔Weys 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- So how did you judge notability in the close? Because by any relevant standard or guideline, this met it. That's where my personal confusion lies, and you didn't expound much in your closing statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- As I say above, I firmly and absolutely believe that delete was the correct action. I wish, wish, wish, Cyde that you could get it through your head that procedure matters. There were plenty of admins who never voted in the AfD, nor edited the page. You were not one of them. LotLE×talk 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure if delete was the correct action. I didn't even realize he was involved in the debate until I saw this comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- As I say above, I firmly and absolutely believe that delete was the correct action. I wish, wish, wish, Cyde that you could get it through your head that procedure matters. There were plenty of admins who never voted in the AfD, nor edited the page. You were not one of them. LotLE×talk 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- So how did you judge notability in the close? Because by any relevant standard or guideline, this met it. That's where my personal confusion lies, and you didn't expound much in your closing statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The subject of the article is incredibly non-notable. I do suppose this questioning of motives is inevitable anytime a "hotly contested" Afd is closed. --Cyde↔Weys 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sure about the outcome. If you look at the votes, there were a number of keep votes, but virtually every single one of them was cast by either an IP address or an editor with fewer than 10 edits (usually just one or two total; obviously joining just to vote in the AfD). Of the voters with an established history, well over 90% voted "delete", and many of those "strong delete". Moreover, even if you look at the "established" voters, you might notice that most of the few "keep" votes come from editors with rather brief edit histories: more than 10 prior edits, but mostly in the 20-50 edit range (in other words, definitely not sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but also not editors well steeped in WP's conventions). So the outcome seems pretty clear, and would have been a no-brainer (IMO) for an uninvolved admin. LotLE×talk 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and of those 90% or whatever who voted "delete, nn," all of them were wrong - notability was firmly established by a variety of media attention taht would get any other article that didn't involve a web meme to be kept. We don't vote count, contrary to popular myth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Media attention doesn't make something notable. The media reports on lots of stupid, non-notable shit. Every week there's some random cat in a tree that gets national media attention. This is an encyclopedia, not a news compendium - can you honestly say that, down the line, this little theft of a PDA is going to be remembered by anyone? --Cyde↔Weys 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undoubtedly yes, I can. Every single possible applicable guideline for notability was met by this article, I have no idea how you come out with saying this isn't notable. If you can explain why either a) the guidelines don't matter in this case, or b) what guideline(s) the article didn't meet, then I'll be glad to drop it, but you have to offer a little something to work with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Media attention doesn't make something notable. The media reports on lots of stupid, non-notable shit. Every week there's some random cat in a tree that gets national media attention. This is an encyclopedia, not a news compendium - can you honestly say that, down the line, this little theft of a PDA is going to be remembered by anyone? --Cyde↔Weys 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and of those 90% or whatever who voted "delete, nn," all of them were wrong - notability was firmly established by a variety of media attention taht would get any other article that didn't involve a web meme to be kept. We don't vote count, contrary to popular myth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sure about the outcome. If you look at the votes, there were a number of keep votes, but virtually every single one of them was cast by either an IP address or an editor with fewer than 10 edits (usually just one or two total; obviously joining just to vote in the AfD). Of the voters with an established history, well over 90% voted "delete", and many of those "strong delete". Moreover, even if you look at the "established" voters, you might notice that most of the few "keep" votes come from editors with rather brief edit histories: more than 10 prior edits, but mostly in the 20-50 edit range (in other words, definitely not sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but also not editors well steeped in WP's conventions). So the outcome seems pretty clear, and would have been a no-brainer (IMO) for an uninvolved admin. LotLE×talk 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Lulu - here's a problem with your little set of restrictions. Rather than having a comment in that Afd, I could've just closed it then (it had already run long enough). Would that have made me more or less "evil" from your point of view? Getting to close Afds is much, much more power than a simple comment (which is all I had previously made, a simple comment). I wasn't involved in the large argument over that page in any real way. --Cyde↔Weys 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it had quite run long enough when you opined. You also refactored the AfD slightly by changing the titles about "new/established" editors; which is a minimal "involvement". But, yes, if you had waited a day or two, not commented, and then closed it as "delete", I would have been utterly happy with the behavior. The point of recusal isn't that someone with an interest will necessarily reach the wrong result, it's that they cannot be sufficiently neutral... even the appearance of conflict is disruptive (both to more important things like judges on courts, and to less important things like admins at WP).
- Btw. my "little set of restrictions" are known as "policy for administrators". LotLE×talk 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- s/are/is/ for great grammar --Cyde↔Weys 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)