User talk:Cyde/Archive014

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

Your breach of the assumption of good faith policy

Comment and reply from my talk page.

ref templates

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

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

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

Self-references

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

I use profanity when I get pissed off, though I don't recall calling anyone stupid. But by all means, continue thinking the worst of me is that is your liking ... Cyde↔Weys 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

And the reason it's really annoying to have to patiently explain this is because there are hundreds of cross-namespace redirects that need to be fixed, and I simply don't have the time to deal with the various dissidents that seem to pop up on each one. I guess I wish people would just get it, but on a site with 900+ admins, it looks like I'm always doomed to run into resistance. So if I seem exasperated ... it's because I am. Because it's really annoying to keep on running into the same arguments of "oh but it's been there for awhile" or "oh but it's convenient" with people who are just entering the fray and don't know anything about the issues. --Cyde↔Weys 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As nicely as possible, if you're "having" to do things sort-of alone, might it be that you're going the wrong way? We work by consensus here, and "dissidents" actually have just as much right to their opinion as you do. Why is it, exactly, that these cross-namespace redirects suddenly "need to be fixed," for example? - brenneman 15:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly alone on this issue. But, sure, maybe it is time for centralized discussion, to get all of the arguments in one place. --Cyde↔Weys 15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. That way, at least, whatever the outcome is (and I think that at least some of these redirects would be removed by it), there is a place to point to when encountering resistance subsequently. Do be prepared for it not to flow entirely your way, though, and not to simply regard that as "dissident"s getting in the way; perhaps not all of them need to be removed. An obvious starting point might be that something should be done whenever a legitimate encyclopedia topic might sit on that name. This approximates what you're doing already: original research would have to go, but votes for deletion probably not. -Splash - tk 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, the problem is that under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects, you can not speedy delete a redirect for the reasons you are giving. As a result, the deletion must go through Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. I can totally understand your desire to simply fix what you see as wrong at Wikipedia but when other editors disagree with your actions then dialogue and consensus are the next steps. Anyway, I suggest you read up on criteria for speedy delete. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

After checking your deletion records, I see that you've deleted tons of these redirects. You definately need to bring up such a major change in some central place. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a lot of those were absolute crap and fell under the general CSDs. --Cyde↔Weys 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, many of those are obvious accidents or outright bad 'article' creations. -Splash - tk 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree than many, if not most, of them should have been deleted. The problem is, though, that Cyde needs to follow the proper procedure for deleting them. In addition, after checking the deletion log I saw that there are a number of dead links left by the deletions. When we delete an article we're supposed to correct anything that linked there.--Alabamaboy 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Go look at Gurch though - he got yelled for fixing these links because it was "unnecessary" :-( And taking them all through RFD would take a long time (there's over a thousand links to deal with on the cnr page alone) and would be something like 20X the effort involved, once you add up having to file the RFD stuff, other people commenting on it, then having to close the RFD, etc. Can we at least compromise and say that cross-namespace redirects to non-Wikipedia-policy pages can be speedily deleted? It'll be a huge timesaver, and there's really no point whatsoever in having redirects from main space to templates, categories, RFA subpages, AFD subpages, all the stuff that I've been deleting recently. --Cyde↔Weys 17:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to agree to that. I personally don't have an issue with you deleting the redirects as long as 1) If someone objects to a particular deletion you then discuss it with them, and 2) If a redirect has hundreds of pages linking to it, you bring it up for a discussion or RfD. Do realize, though. that some editors are sticklers for the delete rules so don't be surprised if someone else calls you on speedy deleting those redirects. Still, I'm not going to raise any more fuss on this and I totally understand that you're just trying to improve Wikipedia. Best,--Alabamaboy 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd second Alabamaboy's comments about what to do when people object. It appears to me as though the problem is not so much what you are doing as the way tht you are going about it. So perhaps a little bit more patience, a lot more civil discussion, and an MFT less bot-assisted edits and controversial deletions/closes while this is a hot issue? There is no emergancy here, so why the histrionics? - brenneman ^{L} 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian charities

No Canadians participated in the debate, so I don't recognize the outcome of that disucssion. Ardenn 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I do believe that's not a criteria whatsoever for overturning a CFD decision. You're trying to play WP:OWN with an entire nationality. --Cyde↔Weys 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Ardenn 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I really should thank you. By protecting my talk page, I don't have to respond to comments, since no one can leave them! You're doing me a great sevice, so thank you! By the way, I don't reply to comments left on someone else's talk page, just my own. You really should have read the box at the top. Ardenn 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde, I only recently became aware of the CFD, by seeing the resulting changes on some of the articles in this category. I don't really care about the change one way or the other, but out of curiousity I wanted to read the discussion. Unfortunately, I cannot find the log entry. It's apparently supposed to be in the log for June 22, but I can't find it. Is there a missing link, or am I just needing some more coffee? Agent 86 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Needless to say, I found it after posting this message. You can disregard my request! Agent 86 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello there, I was wondering if you would please modify your signature to conform to the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. The general guidelines are that signatures shouldn't contain images, they shouldn't contain unnecessary internal links or any external links, and they shouldn't be unnecessarily long in Wiki source. The reasoning for this final bit is that overly long signatures tend to overwhelm the actual comments in edit mode, making it hard to track down and respond to specific comments. You can fix your signature by removing any images and external links, any unnecessary links (like links to Wikipedian organizations, articles, or subpages in userspace), and removing excessive color, font, and formatting code. Thank you. --Cyde↔Weys 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Hope it's better. Regards. Orane ^(t) 19:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Cyde↔Weys 19:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I felt 'naked' after I trimmed my signature, so I 'reclothed' it somewhat. Have I again gone overboard? Orane (talk • cont.) 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup

Thanks for protecting the 2006 FIFA World Cup page from anonymous editors. It is difficult to maintain a page with complex code involved, when it frequently changed by those with good intentions, but do not fully understand how to read the code. Flibirigit 21:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Tawkerbots.

Hi, Cyde. I have some questions about Tawkerbots. I was very interested that Tawkerbot4 is also another vandalbot. I know that Your bot is AntiValdalBot and Cydebot. Is Tawkerbot3 also existed? I'm just curious. *~Daniel~* 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, there's no Tawkerbot3, just 2 and 4. They're both run by Tawker, just on different computers. And of course I run AntiVandalBot on my own computer. --Cyde↔Weys 23:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

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

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

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Think tank (mecha) Creator deity Daisuke Aramaki Ishikawa (Ghost in the Shell) Togusa Polystrate fossil No Answers in Genesis Boma (Ghost in the Shell) Luke Covell White hole National Center for Science Education Nokia N91 Atsuko Tanaka Ashbury College Closed Shell Syndrome Random access memory Pazu Hermeneutics Creation (theology)

Cleanup Super Famicom Wars Military science GISM Merge Mezzo DSA Teleology Rise of the Empire Add Sources CreationWiki Cum shot Workplace Shell Wikify Fuze for ammunition The Calumet Theatre Cooper's Falls, Ontario Expand Ghost in the Shell (manga) Analysis of flows Kublai Khan

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Block

It appears that you blocked me. My name is Barry Popik, and I'm a consultant for the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm a word historian, and I use large, commercial digital databases. I also frequent the New York Public Library. I am aware that not everyone has these resources, but it yields magnificent results. I'm known for solving "the Big Apple" (someone else did that page with my work, or I'd surely have been blocked) and "the Windy City," a Wikipedia entry that I was going to correct just now.

It (perhaps) is true that I've included "original research" on Wikipedia, but most of my word origin work has already been vetted by scholars at the American Dialect Society and the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, Historical Dictionary of American Slang, and the Dictionary of American Regional English. If I cannot contribute to the Wikipedia, your entries will not be very good.

I'd like to continue to correct the Wikipedia. Barry Popik 04:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No one has ever blocked you. --Cyde↔Weys 04:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He might have been collateral damage in an IP block. Netscott 19:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Must've been. Nothing to do now, obviously. --Cyde↔Weys 02:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Namespace redirect

Hello Cyde, Maybe you could have your bot fix all of the links that point to [[Geographic_references]]? Thanks. Netscott 19:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks

wierd stuff

I thought that pornography was prohibited on Wikipedia. Why is you subpage allowed? False Prophet 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, Wikipedia is not censored. Wherever did you get the idea that it was? By the way, you seen our lovely articles on vulva, penis, anus, and ejaculation? --Cyde↔Weys 03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: fake barnstar

Hi Cyde.

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

NFT / WC templates

Do you know why this bot has been replacing [[national football team|]] and templates? I try to always use the [[{{{1}}} national football team|{{{1}}}]] template because it's way more efficient than writing out "United States men's national soccer team"

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

Re: sense of humor

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

You told him he could remove it? Link please? --Cyde↔Weys 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't tell him to remove it; he asked if he could remove it and I said okay. This happened on IRC. Cheers! -- Where 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well tell him that he should pick a better edit summary to reflect that than "rv. troll". It's kind of hypocritical to do something under the guise of WP:RPA while simultaneously ... making a personal attack. --Cyde↔Weys 19:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I shall tell him that. -- Where 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:ESP/UPA

From your archive:

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

Once you have scored the 5 pages, email Petros471 using the specified format. As soon as all the scores have been tallied, a winner will be announced. Thanks. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 08:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Signpost updated for July 3rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Angela Beesley resigns as Wikimedia Foundation trustee	Requiring confirmed email suggested for uploads
Wikipedia cited by the England and Wales High Court	Unblock requests directed to new mailing list
News and Notes: Wiktionary milestone, privacy policy update	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
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.

Have a barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar For reverting so much vandalism here is the RickK anti-vandalism barnstar! Gang staEB• ice slides) 15:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Running an end game around The German Solution

Cyde,

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

My signature

That's a guideline not a policy, i like my signature so ill keep it! Thanks! Mike _{(T C)} 21:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)