User talk:Cyde/Archive012

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

Template:User smartass

Why was this deleted? I'm not trying to be a smartass here (lol). I'm sure there was a reason, but it wasn't obvious in the deletion message. I had it on my userpage and now it's gone, and it seems there was a deletion review that agreed to keep it. Is there further discussion elsewhere I'm missing? --DanielCD 22:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Cyde, but the reason given for deletion was "T1", which means CSD T1: "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." —Mira 00:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Clyde, could we get an answer on this perhaps? I too was surprised to see it go. I agree that the term "smartass" is often "divisive and inflammatory" when applied to a person, but not when applied to oneself! If I and MiraLuka and DanielCD choose to call ourselves smartasses, that's hardly inflammatory. Perhaps I'm missing some aspect of it; if so, please enlighten me (us)! Many thanks! (I looked on their user talk pages too but couldn't find any answer...I did search.) VigilancePrime 08:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate Forum

Thank you for taking part in my RfA (albeit only briefly). I'll send proper messages out later. In the mean time, I was wondering if you could suggest an appropriate (public) forum to discuss video policy issues. Stephen B Streater 11:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are various discussions taking place on issues relating to my RfA. If you are interested, let me know. Stephen B Streater 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

userbox deletions

You should go and revert your deletions of Template:User iso15924 and the subpagges. WP:GUS does not allow this. You misused your admin rights. If you think you did not show the policy that allows deletion these language related boxes. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why it was so complicated though? Why should a single userbox template need eight subpages? Could you rework it in a way that is less complicated? --Cyde Weys 21:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact it is parameterized and can be used instead of 100 different ones on all the scripts in ISO 15924. Some of the sub stuff is only for seeing what's going on. If there is a better way to do the programming it should certainly be done. I did my best. If you could help with the programming it would be nice. In the longer run a similiar template could be used to replace most of the language templates. This could ensure higher quality since all the data only comes from 5 or so files. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Request of re-categorization

Reposted (was removed by someone without an answer) : Could you use your bot to re-categorize the entries in the following categories to entries in the categories Maps of XX (XX being te name of the country):

• Category:Australia maps
• Category:Austria maps
• Category:Bulgaria maps
• Category:Croatia maps
• Category:Greece maps
• Category:Hungary maps
• Category:Lithuania maps
• Category:Moldova maps
• Category:Pakistan maps
• Category:Poland maps
• Category:Romania maps
• Category:Russia maps
• Category:Slovenia maps
• Category:Zimbabwe maps

The purpose is to make the categories identical to the categories in Commons. Electionworld Talk? 11:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Template:User FAU

Cyde, This is not "per GUS" as you claim. The section of GUS that states "no new userboxes in templates" is in between << double brackets >> which according to GUS itself should not be implement until there is consensus. As you can see from the Straw poll, there is not consensus that education userboxes should not be in template, therefore speedy deleting new education userboxes cannot be done "per GUS." I kindly request that you respect GUS, reinstate this template and not SD new userbox templates in categories that do not have at least straw poll consensus. --NThurston 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This also applies to Template:User Bard College, Template:User Postdam and Template:User Crane among possible other education userboxes. Also note that you incorrectly cited G4 in the latter two cases. This should not be done since "This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions." --NThurston 14:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeq block

Hello Cyde. Did you forget to unblock Zeq? He's been blocked since Aug 18 for "one week." Cheers, Clayoquot ^Sound 15:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:TheM62Manchester

For what was this user blocked? --Chris (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

He's a vandal, as confirmed by CheckUser. --Cyde Weys 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I wish I were surprised. WP:ABF seems to be eerily accurate with regard to these vandal-reporting, user-page block-tagging guys. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's rather weird that he made a bunch of socks abusing himself and then reported them to be blocked. Did he think he was going to fool us that way? --Cyde Weys 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Happening a lot lately. I wonder if he/they are vandals from the get-go, or if they just get so entirely addicted to the positive feedback they reap from vandal-hunting that they can't stand it when there's no actual vandalism for them to report, and they need to make up their own? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is also the Sunfazr/Sunholm guy ... so he's been a vandal for a long time. I think he was just trying to establish some postive cred, as well as plausible deniability, on this account. --Cyde Weys 19:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As the old saying goes: "If you lie down with dogs, you're going to get dirty." Sooner or later, even the staunchest "vandal fighters" are going to get blood on their hands from having dealt with so many vandals and their methods. The problem, as with most vandal problems in my opinion, stems from over-dramaticizing and over-glorifying the life of the Wikipedia vandal. If we make our vandals out to be Jesse James-style outlaws, then our counter-vandalism guys are going to be tempted to think of themselves as self-righteous cowboys. That's a recipe for unnecessary drama, and it does not serve Wikipedia's best interests. Witness the existence of such things as the "Counter-Vandalism Unit," a group which clearly cribbed its name from the TV show "24." Do we REALLY need to go around thinking of ourselves as counter-terrorism experts and lawmen? We're just volunteer editors on an Internet project. Let's avoid the temptation to fall victim to the vandal myth we're trying to bust. Dr Chatterjee 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this user recently had an unsuccessful RfA. He seems not to have dealt with it well. Newyorkbrad 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot Bot broken

Warning, the bot is removing templates while placing the {{pagemovevandal}}. Examples [1], [2] --Cat out 20:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's broken [3]. I've pressed the big red button. Cheers, —Ruud 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like a feature to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User info box

I did not realise of the terms of the German userbox solution for new userboxe. I think that I create it in the template space that other use can use it. Pleas undelete Template:User Dyslexia and move it to User:My_Cat_inn/template/dyslexia lease copy the code to here or my talk page.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

About User:2005

I see that you've had trouble with this User:2005 in the past. Lately he has been disrupting me as well. His main behavioral problem is that he is an unscrupulous editor, who does not think about others before editing, reverting, or deleting their work. He is quite inconsiderate, and usually it's "his way or the highway". Plus, he never abides by the "3 revert rule". Should we do something about this? Cloudreaver 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 35	28 August 2006	About the Signpost

A note from the editor
Interviews with Board of Trustees candidates	Wikimedia Foundation CFO resigns
Wikimania recap	Report from the Spanish 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 06:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My username

Hi, and thanks for your vote at my RfA. Just thought I should draw your attention to my reply (well, my reply to User:Ligulem), here. Would my suggested new name - "Daveydweeb" - suit you? I realise it's not ideal, but it is a nickname I'd had for years, and is the only name I'd be comfortable with off the top of my head. Cheers! RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 09:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you should rename yourself Cyde is my God. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.9 (talk • contribs) . 14:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks! Thank you very much for your comments on my recent Request for Adminship. The request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address your concerns before running again. On that note, I've already put in a request for a new username. If you have any feedback for me, please don't hesitate to leave it at my talk page. Thanks! -- RandyWang (chat/patch) 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:TheM62Manchester

Hi; I'm a friend of this user, and I can definitely confirm he's not a vandal, or a WoW sockpuppet (I've blocked WoW on my MediaWiki installation about 10 times now!!). I know him in real life (away from Wikipedia!), and I can confirm this - I just spoke to him today. He's a good friend, and someone I know. Thanks, Claire marsh 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Cyde,

I am so sorry for re-creating the userboxes. I kept thinking that it had to do with the image (Image:Satterlee.jpg) that I was having trouble with and not the German Userbox Solution. It will not happen again. --Jondude11 21:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Category move

A few months back you moved Category:Wikipedia navigation templates per CfD to this somewhat 'wrong name' wrt to meaning and use, albeit correct with respect to category NAMCON. As the project has stablized and 'matured' this name on other sister projects is problematic, and it would be far more appropriate to replace 'Wikipedia' with 'Interwiki' as the title.

As in Category:Interwiki utility templates, and this sister-1, and this sister-2, Interwiki link templates , etc., and et. al.

Can you just rename it since you choose the name back when, or do we have a speedy rename procedure in WP:Cfd that can stabilize this name so I can copy same more apropo name on the other sister project's? re: {{Interwikitmp-grp}} links to sister's... My current nemesis project! Reply here or Here! Thanks // FrankB 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse this move request above, The project on the commons to do a top down naming heirarchy isn't wholely researched, but this part of it is set. I've been working with David Kernow on the project, and we were waiting while we resolved geo-political divisions and subdivision questions. I can tag the one's listed above with category redirect if you like. I'd tagged the parent Category:Historical maps of Europe with category redirect2 as it and those containing maps need worked through for category compatibility on the commons. But if your Bot just changes the image cat and leaves others alone, we can catch up with such on that side if we transfer them up and over. Note the Template:Commonscat1R(edit talk links history) tagging on '... Europe'. You can use the links on that assuming you can parse out 'maps' cats and move any we tag once we get going again. (That's how all this sister tagging got started in the first place! <g>) I'd just asked David whether we should goto Cfd with a blanket request or such. Cheers! // FrankB 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SledDogAC

I made an AN/I post about this user, but has attracted only one response (another user fed up with SDAC). Also SledDogAC's response in a new section undernethe, long, windy, soapboxy and pretty much saying nothing then the same thing he posts in the articles (he even added the same content till an admin snipped it, just to get a POV out there, hopefully into a cache somewhere I suspect). Anway, I'm requesting that someone look into this, his contributions show an extreme narrow focus (3 articles only) and some major POV pushing, long editorials. The other users and I have attempted to reason with him on his talkpage and nothing seems to work. Wondering if you could try a talking-to and a block to see if he can be brought around? -M^ask 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Cydebot?

There appears to be a problem with Cydebot's deletion of templates, as in Fredrick "Freddy P" Watson, see history. Dze27 02:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverts.

Was there a reason for your reverts on the pagemove and pageblank vandal templates? The wording might've been somewhat verbose, but they should agree with the fact that they're used on several hundreds of userpages with absolutely no contributions, moving, blanking or otherwise. 68.39.174.238 03:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Recategorizing vandals"

Hi, could you explain to me how changing hundreds of blocked user's user pages to obscure why they were actually blocked helps build an encyclopedia? Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 05:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess to make vandals less prominent? It doesn't matter whose sockpuppet was a vandal, but these template create an impression of noted vandals being glorious leaders of vandal armies. It tempts some people to join the brave brotherhood on wheels, and others to become as prominent by following the path of heroes and creating their own vandal cult.

Dealing with vandals not as an honorable enemy, but as a nuisance makes becoming a vandal much less tempting.

P.S. Cyde, thanks for actively dealing with that! --CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the intent, just not the execution. Since a lot of these users were blocked before they made a single edit, wouldn't {{Usernameblock}} be more accurate? Anyway, I'm not holding my breath for a reply, as I doubt clarity matters much to someone who renamed the place redirects go to be deleted Redirects for discussion. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal

Hi,

I restored this page. I'm assuming good faith that you failed to notice its MfD ended in a "keep" today, signed off on by our colleague Doc Glasgow. Another debate (on WoW) was just closed as a delete by me. It's clear that WP:DENY is likely to win the day, and that many of these pages will be gone soon... so let's try to act in an orderly fashion and not delete willy-nilly, eh? Someone might have needed that page; it was wrong to speedy it just after a keep MfD, especially since Doc agreed that deleting right now would violate WP:DENY by making a vandal very happy. Best wishes, Xoloz 06:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to block User:TheM62Manchester

Cyde, please unblock TheM62Manchester (talk · contribs). He is NOT Sunholm (talk · contribs); they are two very different individuals. They seem to have been tag-teaming on a computer as far as I know; one uses the computer one day/week, the other the next.

TheM62 makes legitimate contributions, but Sunholm seems to be playing about with Wikipedia. I hope you can accept this fact, and unblock it; I can verify it for you!

--Whitmarewood 09:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No reason to block 195.188.50.200 (talk · contribs) - it is a shared IP, contrary to what people think on here, and blocking it cuts off areas from Southport to Aintree and Maghull. --Whitmarewood 09:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Our "friend" User:Syphonbyte

This should be of interest to you. (→Netscott) 11:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, it looks like that's the last we'll be hearing from him. That is, until one of his socks comes up for RfA relatively shortly. 80.58.205.33 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to GUSP

Cyde, have you notice what has happened to WP:GUSP? -- Donald Albury 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I mistakenly nominated it for SD, since there were no longer any links to it. I have been corrected and it does not have an SD tag anymore. WP:GUSP is fine. --NThurston 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

Haha

I have a question Cyde. Say for example I blanked an entire page and then after I saved the edit I went back and reverted it. Is that still vandalism? 578 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks in advance.

Cydebot request for CFD

Cyde, I've got a huge backlog at WP:CFD/W. Is Cydebot available? There are a slew of wikipedian categories I'm trying to slog through manually (which you can skip), but that means the other non-wikipedian cats are just waiting. Thanks, --Kbdank71 18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sig?

In my comment about your sig, you said something about an ArbCom decision that decided against a guy with a minimalist sig. I looked for it, but couldn't find it anywhere. Could you give me a link or something? Thanks, SoaP 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Before deleting a userbox, can you either substitute it or remove it from users' pages? I think that's what you're supposted to do, am I wrong? See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_smartass&limit=500&from=0 and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_merc&limit=500&from=0, both those userboxes were deleted and many user pages still transclude them. —Mets501 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kitten Vandal

Why did you remove the LTA page on Kitten Vandals? Wow! It's a Kitten! 09:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You may find it interesting to take a glance at the list of personalities so famous in WP that their articles even had shortcuts. I've made just two weeks ago - User:CP\M/User, below. You seem to be not the only one to have your article pwn3d... CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All LTA pages are being pwned, see WP:DENY. SoaP 15:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL, this is proof that WP:DENY is working if the vandals are coming out of the woodwork wondering where their recognition went and if they can get it back, please. --Cyde Weys 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've broken the kittenkiller's heart ;-) CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project|

AN/I thread

It'd be appreciated if you would leave a few comments wherever you feel appropriate at WP:AN/I#WP:DENY-driven deletion spree. ~ PseudoSudo 02:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it was settled without me. As always, people over-reacted by playing the "emergency desysopping" card. I'm surprised these people haven't realized by now that the only thing playing that card does is discredit them. --Cyde Weys 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Peak light

The visible spectrum is not centred on the peak of the Sun's emission. The visible spectrum is a region where water and the atmosphere have very low absorption. See optical window.--Srleffler 06:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki question

There are lot of articles that have For Wikipedia <stuff> See [[WP:<stuff>]]. Is this okay or is this considered cross-wiki? It's reference content related to the internal workings of Wikipedia rather than encyclopedic content. We certainly don't create nanmespace redirect pages but what about links inside of mainspace articles? --Tbeatty 07:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedian categories for discussion"

I saw your note about not helping with CfD until the Wikipedian categories were broken out onto a separate page. That makes a lot of sense to me (the separate-page part, not the not-helping part). Why should people who are only concerned with encyclopedic content have to deal with userpage content? The only caveat is that we're almost done with the nominations as they stand, so we might as well finish them out where they are, but in principle, I definitely support a "WP:WCfD." That would make both processes much cleaner. Thanks for suggesting it. How do you suppose we get that approved?--Mike Selinker 15:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple: just do it. And there's no way in hell we're anywhere close to dealing with all of the user categories. Go make another CFD-type process page and move all of the non-encyclopedic CFDs over there. Put some notices at the top of WP:CFD and move new nonencyclopedic discussions over to the new page. Also give the new process some sort of WP:CFDW analogue. --Cyde Weys 15:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it without seeing if people support it first. That kind of stuff makes me crazy. But I will post the comment at the top of CFD.--Mike Selinker 15:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Throw in your opinion there, please.--Mike Selinker 15:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

People will support it. --Cyde Weys 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I think my zealousness to finish a project is mostly to blame for choking CfD, by the way. A less obsessive editor might not have caused such a logjam. :^) --Mike Selinker 15:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, if you want something to do that doesn't involve a lot of Wikipedian categories, there's always the backlog at cfr-speedy. Not a lot of Wikipedian content there, but boy, does it pile up.--Mike Selinker 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:DENY

I tried to rewrite the intro a bit to be less of an essay and also moved it to proposed in case people want a policy out of it or something. Of course, I have a nagging feeling the last part may get reverted anyway so all due apologies if that offended you. RN 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

CFD vs. DRV - Centralised discussion?

Hi there. I was following a thread at the administrator's noticeboard, (see here), about CFD vs DRV, where you said: "How about starting a discussion in project-space to go for two weeks and link it from 'cent'". I was wondering if anything came of that idea, as I looked around for anywhere that this discussion continued at, and have found nothing. Maybe there is nothing to find! Hope you can help. Thanks. Carcharoth 09:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tough call

But good for you for having the guts to block User:John Reid for spamming. I'm impressed. Stay cool! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh, don't be impressed. I block everyone who I see spamming. I despise spamming. --Cyde Weys 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Figure you'll know

Why is it we don't use 'hard coded' category redirects here. I see some sisterprojects are doing so, so do you know the rationale? Obviously the current system, even with a BOT relocating things takes up manpower hours. The only thing I can figure is someone once figured it loads down the servers. Thanks // FrankB 02:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't use them because they don't work. It's very simple. Try it out yourself with some test categories. It won't work. Create Category:Test1 as a redirect to Category:Test2 and try putting stuff in Test1. It won't redirect to Test2. --Cyde Weys 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin - you lifted protection?

Please take a look at the history Cyde, it needs protection allbeit temporarily - these arent legit edits. Please reconsider - Glen 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Which edits, the ones about how he's dead? It's now even being reported on CNN. Anyway, full protection isn't merited in this case; semi should be fine. --Cyde Weys 05:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um. It was sprotected first. Look here. I went to temporary vprotect because sleeper accounts are editing the page. It was only for 5-10 minutes anyway. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, alright, I didn't see the sleeper accounts. If the full protection is still necessary, go for it. --Cyde Weys 05:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Relicensing images

Er, do you routinely license CC-BY images as GFDL? That's not really kosher. Please see my comment at Image talk:Steve Irwin.jpg. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure it's kosher. You can do whatever you want with CC-by images as long as you give attribution, including relicensing them. It's CC-sa images that require them to be released under the same license. --Cyde Weys 07:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No it's not kosher... Directly from the license: section 4, restrictions: The license granted...is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions: 1. You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License ... You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License [GFDL requirements add restrictions] ...You may not sublicense the Work.

ShareAlike is about derivative works. A plain copy is not a derivative work, it's just the work itself! Only the copyright holder (or someone authorised by them) can grant new works.

I hope this is not a widespread practice...! --pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of the definition of derivative work? --Cyde Weys 07:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a derived work. Compare it to the original and note the differences. Mine is cropped, for one. --Cyde Weys 07:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realise it was cropped. My apologies. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Year delinking

Although most of your year delinking seem to be good to me, some have been a bit agressive. Generally you should keep ones that are used at the beginning of sections.. places where understanding the historical context is important... Keep a user of whatlinks here on a year article in mind. I see that Rebecca has been using admin rollback on your edits, throwing out the good with the bad. I think that it is inapproiate for her to do so, and I've asked her to lay off. It appears that the date linking is a hot subject for her... but even she admits that you make good edits. Good luck, and be careful with your edits. Wikipedia won't be done (or ruined) in one day, which is the same advice I made to her.... --Gmaxwell 08:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Head's up

Just a head's up that "Dr. Julius Chatterjee orthopedic surgeon" fails a Google test. Suss edit hist? Too wild a leap that he's not what he seems?. I'm probably being clueless, in which case apologies in advance. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I've responded to your inquiries as to my identity (or rather, should I call them "suspicions?") on my talk page. I'd also ask that you please discuss concerns like these with me -- or at least attempt to -- before trying to rat me out to administrators. I find it highly offensive, and can't help but wonder if this is part of some smear campaign on the part of angry or vindictive "CVU" members. Dr Chatterjee 03:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What in the hell is going on here and what does any of this have to do with me? --Cyde Weys 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. User:Clappingsimon is a staunch supporter of the Counter-Vandalism Unit (he recently voted "Speedy Keep" in its MfD) who evidently "has it out" for me, and decided (quite inappropriately) to attempt to smear my reputation by going directly to you, an administrator. Why he chose to do this is beyond me, but I find it a clumsy, rude, and misguided attempt to cast doubt upon my character in an attempt to shore up support for his side of the CVU debate. I would recommend ignoring and/or chastizing him on his talk page. I'm staying out of this from here on out. Dr Chatterjee 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr_Chatterjee did turn out to be a Bobby Boulders sock WP:RFCU#Dr_Chatterjee. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 00:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

Why did you rv my edit?I already forgot 08:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right, I don't particularly see that as the name of the documentary anywhere verifiable. --Cyde Weys 08:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT delete without discussion and consensus. You do NOT own Wikipedia. SarahTeach 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone has to keep the talk page on-topic and conformant with the guidelines outlined at WP:TALK. --Cyde Weys 20:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have been a little too confronting with the user here. Remember to keep the general dont bite the newbies thing in mind when trying to discern why people do things. Cheers, Ansell 05:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out that user's other past contribs. There's a bit of fishy stuff in there as well. And I reject the notion that I was too mean or confrontative. I was simply being blunt. --Cyde Weys 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From their other contributions I would say they possibly have strong points of view but nothing more fishy than that in terms of motives for edits. And about the confronting, I stand corrected, blunt is a better description! Ansell 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL

[4] -- I love WP:DENY more and more every day. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest, when I first heard of WP:DENY I was skeptical. Now, it's absolutely proven itself to me. --Cyde Weys 22:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re your Maru evidence

In two threads on ANI today, it was stated that Maru's bot appeared to be only semi-automated and required human input for each edit, thus didn't require approval under the bot policy. I have no idea whether either of these assertions is correct, but you might want to address these issues in your evidence? I will add that I find it very disconcerting that he hasn't seen fit to offer any statement or evidence to ArbCom, either before or after his case was opened. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of those edits were still made rapidly enough that they violated the bot policy, whether or not he claims to have been doing them manually. He should know that he's already in hot water over all bot-related stuff and that he really shouldn't be pushing it. --Cyde Weys 22:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)

The September 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The SS.AVB

Have you considered changing up the image every once in a while? How about

The S.S. AntiVandalBot off the Wikipedia cost

Or maybe a pirate theme?--152.163.100.6 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How about

The HMS AntiVandalBot, fighting wiki pirates

Signpost updated for September 5th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 36	5 September 2006	About the Signpost

Everyking desysopped	Explicit images spark debate
Report from the Italian Wikipedia	The English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 administrators
Voting begins in Board elections	Wikipedia in the news
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International 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. Ralbot 06:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh the irony

I laughed hwen I read the comment on Splash's RFAR saying that you couldn't wait two to three weeks for an RFC to compelte. I mean, it typically takes a week alone for the ArbCom to decide to accept to reject the case, and then even longer for evidence, proposed ecisiona, dnd closure. I now that there's other precedents - the Pedophilia userbox wheel war closed in a record four days - but I was just curious - are you hoping that the ArbCom issues a temporary injunction, or what? Hbdragon88 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. --Cyde Weys 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

FFS

Hi, I haven't run across "FFS" before. What does it stand for? --Richard 18:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"For fuck's sake" --Cyde Weys 18:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikhail Lebedev

This year, I was trolling the page Mikhail Lebedev. I meant it to be a bad joke but it is now ruining the scientist's reputation, as well as the privacy of many other legitimate researchers. Can you please delete the slander on the pages (Afd, talk page, and page itself) for me? You can delete the page if it is necessary. Thanks a lot. --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, help me!

How can I help out Wikipedia? My RfA is a joke. SoaP 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just help write quality articles. In your position that's by far the best thing you can do to help out Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 00:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your userbox generator.

Hmm well an image on it now is changed for your userbox generator. "Image replacement: Image at :Image:Stone-wall-by-eiffel-2004-public-domain.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Stone_wall.jpg.) " Anomo 08:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award

Greetings, Cyde. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to Misza13 for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.

If you'd like to participate in the contest again, check by the contest page in a few days and sign up. See you around. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of sock puppetry on the Ben Best page

As someone who has edited the Ben Best page recently, you may have been aware of the allegations of sock puppetry. As this has continued for six weeks now, I have started the appropriate Wikipedia handling process. If you wish to make a contribution, please go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CRANdieter and add your views to the Comments section. Nunquam Dormio 13:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edits with silly edit summaries

Care to comment on this horrid page? Seems like the Bizarre usernames page wasn't enough. — The Future 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently A Man in Black just deleted it. Oh darn.. — The Future 00:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Found some more interesting pages you may enjoy:

• Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles (WP:DAFT)
• List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create

— The Future 00:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh

This is just tacky. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tacky? I don't quite follow. Can you please expand on your comment a bit more? I tend to think of "tacky" as an adjective used to describe clothing or furniture, and I don't really see how it's applicable in this situation. --Cyde Weys 00:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The opposite of classy. Other people explained essentially why I objected to it (admins vs. everyone else) in the replies, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a key distinction you may be missing. It's not "admins versus everyone else", it's "admins versus trolls". I was only talking about situations involving trolls. Obviously, regular non-troll editors are on the sides of the admins most of the time too. --Cyde Weys 00:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But not always.—Nate Scheffey 01:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:CIVIL

You wrote: "I'm sorry, it's just that compared to all of the things that you could say about someone if you really hated them and really wanted to say something mean about them, "ridiculously petulant child" doesn't even crack the top one thousand." This is certainly a new interpretation of the civility policy. Should we judge comments by where they fall on a list of things you could say about someone you really hated and wanted to say something mean about? Isn't any comment that would be on that list uncivil? And despite your characterization of Wikipedia as a "rough-and-tumble world ...[where] those who don't become tough, don't last long," isn't there any extra burden of civility on admins, as representing the most trusted of Wikipedia editors? —Nate Scheffey 01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My point was that incivility isn't black and white, it's a whole spectrum. The kind of incivility that people get blocked over, as someone was suggesting should happen to admins, is way beyond what I saw of the admins in the diffs he posted. As for an extra burden of civility on admins ... admins have lots of extra burdens on them, especially regarding their use of admin tools, but I haven't particularly heard of an extra civility burden. --Cyde Weys 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, as admins, people look to us as examples of how Wikipedians act. If we aren't especially civil, then we're begging for a Wikipedia in which more people fail to be civil. ("Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work. Always setting a good example does work.) If you hadn't heard of this idea before, I'm sorry we never made it clearer to you. We have an extra civility burden; it's true. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but this is also a separate issue than what I think the problem was as exemplified by that ANI post. CBD is still giving the appearance of supporting a problem user by chastising the admin rather than the problem user. Civility concerns can be taken care of in private. --Cyde Weys 02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To an extent that's true, that civility concerns should be addressed in private, but at some point, we should let people see that admins are held accountable for the way they treat others, unless we wish to feed the impression that we let admins get away with being dicks. We really can't let admins get away with being dicks (and I'm speaking entirely generally here, not about the current stituation, which I admit I haven't studied). Otherwise, your argument implies that if an admin bites newbies for making mistakes, then oh well, other admins have to support that biting anyway, lest we show division in the ranks - that's a bad train of thought, isn't it? I mean, what do you consider appropriate, supposing an administrator really is being a flaming asshole to a regular user, and they happen to have policy on their side? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Which one has the policy on their side? --Cyde Weys 02:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The admin - except for the civility policy. I mean that the admin is right, the newbie is wrong, but the admin is being a real cock about it. What should one do in that situation? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the admin know in a very gentle way that you think he's being too mean. And do so discreetly. Nobody likes being embarrassed in front of everyone. Even if you don't care about making someone feel bad ... when you back someone into a corner like that in a public place, the response isn't good. The best way to tackle it harmoniously is to do so privately. Believe it or not, some people have talked to me about issues like this privately, and it always gets a much better response. If you do it on ANI ... it's pretty much guaranteed to turn into a shitstorm, with the usual people coming in from both sides. I speak with experience on this one, trust me. --Cyde Weys 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know you've experienced the odd shitstorm. I wonder whether you've ever headed one off, despite it being on AN/I? It woudn't be that hard, although you say it's a guarantee. I've seen admins criticized on AN/I handle it very gracefully, and no shit was thrown. That aside, thanks for your reply. I still think it's important for users to see that admins accountability exists, but I understand where you're coming from. I expect the ideal path lies somewhere in between. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that it always turned into a shitstorm on ANI, just that that was not the optimal way to go. --Cyde Weys 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice

Thank you for your advice on my talk page. I maight misunderstand "III" of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to use this page.--っ 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your redirect on 4 tildes

Back in June, you reverted an edit which created a redirect from ~~~~ to tilde, and protected that that article. While I don't know the circumstances of your choice, I came across that edit while searching for '~~~~', hoping to get re-directed to Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. I hope you re-consider that re-direct, and point it to sign your posts. Thank You. Autopilots 09:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting to tilde was a result of a WP:RFD debate that determined that it was inappropriate to delete encyclopedic content to non-encyclopedic content (what we call a cross-namespace redirect). For more you may want to read up on WP:CNR and WP:ASR. --Cyde Weys 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you. Autopilots 07:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

TheKohser block & MyWikiBiz

Cyde, I hope that you'll get my private e-mail regarding the block on TheKohser. I notified you of my opinion in private, out of respect. If you do happen to reply to me in the Wikipedia space, please do so on my MyWikiBiz User Talk page, rather than at TheKohser's page, because I don't want to sign into the personal account if it's going to induce an IP block. Ideally, though, let's just correspond by private e-mail as we sort through this. Thanks. --MyWikiBiz 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		An Award
		A barnstar for your level-headedness and sound reasoning in the lamest Wikipedia thread of all time, and more importantly, knowing when to leave it. You know what I'm talking about. Grandmasterka 07:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

well, I'm not sure I do. Post a link? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You need better sources...

Okay, let's get this straight. Read the Wikipedia:List of banned users. I'm blocked, not banned. WP:BAN might also clear things up, and so will this. And you lecture us about policy...

Speaking of policy, WP:DENY sucks. 69.158.58.90 14:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, WP:DENY works, and works well. DENY rocks. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:DENY is great. Here's another example: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Outoftuneviolin. It would take me a few minutes to dig up the diff--and it may well be on a deleted page--but about a month ago this particular vandal promised me she'd stop (hunch it's a she, but that's just a hunch) only after we gave her her own dedicated long-term abuse page. I think that's the moment I really turned on to WP:DENY. I've seen several vandals now actually admit that they want notoriety (this kid [5] is another). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for notice I've blocked this IP and Fredil both for 2 weeks for instigating. Yanksox 16:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User non-gambler

Why was this userbox deleted? I can't find any discussion related to it. Dansiman 02:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Laura Harring

Your recent edit to Laura Harring (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior.

bringing it to your attention. no reason i can think of why my entry wasnt legit.

JustinX 12:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom?

Hello, there. I've got something you might want to look into. My evidence is fairly weak, even for WP:SSP, which is why I didn't post there. First of all, check out this diff. In it, ILovePlankton opposes Hoopydink for being supposedly incivil to Nathanrdotcom on IRC (that's just to clear up who is being referred to in the diff). Then, a User:Enkil tells of Hoopydink sending "harassing" e-mails to Nathanrdotcom. Now, how would he know that unless he really was Nathan, or at least one of his buddies? Then, check out 70.88.158.93, who is the same person as Enkil as discerned from the history on Hoopydink's RfA. Almost everything is something that I can recall Nathan saying at one time or another, especially the anti-you stuff. Again, this isn't exactly damning evidence, which is why I didn't feel I had to launch a full-on sockpuppet investigation, but since you were involved in this incident, I wanted to know what you thought. Thanks, --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning template question

Hello Cyde. An IP that I warned blanked the warning from their talk page. It happened right after my posting, so it is unlikely that it was the "next person to use the address". I made up a warning for the circumstance, but I was wondering if there was a standard template for this that I should be able to find at Category:User warning templates. If there isn't, can I make one and then propose it as a new standard? Thanks. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I found them now, so no need to answer. Not all the levels were in the category, so I cat'ed as necessary. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 09:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous Category Added by a Bot

It seems you added "Princeton Alum" category to William Warren Barbour, and he's not, according to Princeton, an alum. He only attended the university for one semester or so, then left to work in a family-owned business. At the time, Princeton had a policy that only graduates of the university were officially registered as alums. With this in mind, I deleted the Princeton Alum category from the Barbour article. Maybe you need to check the definition the bot's using to determine alumni-ship in different universities/colleges. (?) --Jancarhart 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

AntiVandalBot mistake

Hi, I'd like to inform you that AntiVandalBot incorrectly reverted my edits on List of Japanese rock bands - if you look at the article's history, I legimately added LAST ALLIANCE, a notable rock band, to the list, as seen here in this diff, but for some strange reason, my edits were also reverted for no good reason whatsoever. I was annoyed, to the say the least, at this extremely discomforting behaviour - it can be most certainly a cause for unnecessary misconceptions. Could you please fix this problem with AntiVandalBot so that such errors do not happen in the future and does not damage the edits and reputations of good-intentioned users? Ganryuu (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please help...

Hi. I was wondering how far the rule that users cannot have the name of other users in their name extends... The user Ad2002 (he has no user page) is making me look bad, possibly purposely, because all he does is vandalize. Thanks, aido2002 21:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, thankfully, he was blocked. aido2002 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 37	11 September 2006	About the Signpost

Carnildo resysopped	Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International 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. Ralbot 05:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

AntiVandalBot

Hello Cyde. I'm a not very active user of this wikipedia, although I'm an administrator/sysop of the spanish wikipedia. I've been fighting against vandalism this last few days, mainly to study a little the differences between some wikipedias and the methods used in some wikis. I have seen "in action" your AntiVandalBot and I have to congratulate you on such an fantastic work. In fact, I'm sending you this message because I'd like to know if it's possible to "export" that "toy" to the spanish wikipedia. Er Komandante 12:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IP address blocking

Cyde, about your blockibg of IP addresses 82.42.145.158 and 195.188.50.200, 195.188.152.14 and any other Telewest IP; please be careful when you block them, as these IPs are not static, they're dynamic. I know a fair proportion of them are used by local area networks and other places.

The 82.42.145.158 IP address has been reassigned to a new person now, so vandalism shouldn't happen again... this happened when we were fixing the entire network here @ Telewest, all customers will get new IPs.

Note that no Blueyonder IP is static, they are dynamic IPs in the long-term anyway; and I can confirm they are used by a few public terminals in North-West England (the 195.188.** examples mentioned above) and the 82.42.145.158 one (which has gone to some new people now)

If you do block them, be very careful with your block wording.... they do cover a large geographic area and people may not.

I am very aware Wikipedia is popular with our customers, and we've managed to eradicate the problem.

I hope you take note of my points above, and be very careful if/when you do block our IP address ranges.

Any problems, feel free to email me. --Blueyonder employee1 14:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, due to our network maintenance, the IPs will rotate between customers, so the problem should be solved.

Read here for an example of why such IPs are dynamic... they're not static, and never will be. I work for them, and know why. --Blueyonder employee1 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm awaiting email verification that this person is, in fact, who he claims to be. --Cyde Weys 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Userbox deleting

Just wondering if you want to delete all these userboxes in the template space?[6], they've already been moved. Just asking you as you've asked the user already about them already.--Andeh 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

CFD/W

Just wanted to let you know I've re-added your bot to WP:CFD/W. The user cats have been offloaded to WP:CFD/WU. Hope you don't mind. --Kbdank71 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Userbox needs to be germanified.

Template:User creation should probably be moved to Arturo's space.I'll leave the details to you since I'm likely to screw it up if I attempt to do it. JoshuaZ 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot issue

Hi, this page User:Armon/Quick Reference Tags was flagged as a blocked user account. User_talk:Gadfium#What_tha.....3F has suggested it's because of vandal tags on the page. Is this right? Armon 04:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother your bot again

First thanks for the last request that your bot did, it was great to see. After slogging through fixing the disambiguations I am noticing that there are a couple of fixes that cydebot could do without mix up. Would it be possible to program it to do the following?

[[athletics|track]] changed to [[Athletics (track and field)|track]]

as well as [[athletics|track and field]] changed to [[Athletics (track and field)|track and field]]

If so, many thanks. Also, i have noticed your vandalbot recently. That is a really good utility, it will save hundreds of man hours in the long run, good job on writing these programs. David D. (Talk) 02:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've had a very, very, very minor role in the programming of Vandalbot. You can thank Joshbuddy for that. I just run it. --Cyde Weys 20:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Did the applications committee for Cydebot approve the above request? If not, I'll carry on with the manual. Thanks David D. (Talk) 19:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm running your changes now, there don't seem to be a lot of things that need updating though. As for bot approval ... if the bot applications committee really did approve every little different regex that bot operators run they would exhaust themselves in a day. Somewhere along the line you must've gotten some very restrictive notion of the bot approval process into your head when in reality it's not at all like that. --Cyde Weys 22:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, STOP, Many thanks but the worker ants got there first. Unbelieveably, it all got done by the disambig crew, while I was lazily waiting for cydebot. Thanks a lot anyway! David D. (Talk) 04:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong

I have unprotected Persecution of Falun Gong to ascertain the current status of disputes as they have filed a request for arbitration. Fred Bauder 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Have a look at this - Hope it helps, bad revert by your bot! HawkerTyphoon 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Blargh

Blargh, I are dead! Does this mean I should unblock that? >_> Luna Santin 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. What use would I have for an account that contained some variation on my email address? "User:Cyde" is just fine, thanks :-D (Damn vandals sure are getting persistent though). --Cyde Weys 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Which particular piece of trolling?

Which particular piece of trolling is Karwynn currently blocked for, with talk page protected? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

All of his recent edits, basically. The whole middle finger and "sit and spin" thing was what really did it. If this isn't classic trolling I don't know what is. There's no excuse for him not to be blocked over that. --Cyde Weys 12:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Twice though? Maybe I had the chronology wrong. I thought Tony blocked him for that, and then he removed the offending picture from his talk page, and then JoshuaZ unblocked him per discussion, and then you reblocked him... for the same thing again? I've just double checked [7], and that's what it looks like. The block summary wasn't very descriptive: just "trolling". -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone has done something particularly bad and is mistakenly unblocked, I see no problem with reblocking them. --Cyde Weys 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

updating dates on AI history

I don't see how you have `updated' the date links on the history of artificial intelligence page. It looks like you have just deleted them all! The page you point to, WP:Dates does not say to do this, in fact, it says they were right as they were before.

Is there a reason I shouldn't revert your changes? --Jaibe 17:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:DATE carefully. It says that dates that allow the date preferences formatting to work are fine (such as 2006-09-14), but standalone linked years don't do anything for date preferences formatting, and since they add very little value, on the balance of things, it is better to not have them linked to reduce visual clutter and to emphasize the importance of links that actually make sense in the context of the article. In an article on the history of AI the link Neats vs. scruffies makes sense and adds to the quality of the article, whereas a link to 1954 doesn't really do anything ... "oooh look, here's a bunch of other unrelated things that happened in 1954 that have nothing to do with what I was reading about!" --Cyde Weys 17:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Splash's Unsemiprotects"

I saw that you withdrew your RfAr, which was probably sensible at this time. However, if there is further discussion of this issue, I'd appreciate your letting me know (or maybe posting a mention of it on one of the notice boards) as I am interested in following the discussion. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Consult others

I'd appreciate it if you contacted me before changing my block length here. I felt it was appropriate given the severity of the vandalism. Alphachimp 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think you should've contacted me first. That's an IP I identified as a serious source of vandalism and blocked for a whole fortnight, and then you come along after that expires and only block it for 3 hours? Block lengths go up over time as the vandalism continues, not way down. Four fortnights is appropriate; it's obvious the IP address is still in the hands of the same vandals. --Cyde Weys 04:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, this is sort of silly. I don't need a lesson on block lengths. How was I supposed to know that you were online? It would seem logical to block the IP before looking for you. Do you commonly consult others before blocking? Alphachimp 04:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, this is very silly. Why did you feel it necessary to come here attempting to chastise me for increasing the block length on a vandal you didn't fully investigate before choosing a block length for? --Cyde Weys 04:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, need I remind you to assume good faith? I'm not here to chastise you. I'm just asking that you consult me or any other admin in the future. I did investigate, and I did see previous vandalism. It was my judgment that this instance only merited a 3 hour block. I'll repeat my questions from before:

• "Do you commonly consult others before blocking?"

• "How was I supposed to know that you were online?" Alphachimp 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:AAGF. It's a really bad habit to be shoving your "good faith" in other people's faces all the time. If you're really acting in good faith, it should be patently obvious. --Cyde Weys 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you answered the two questions. Alphachimp 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been tracking this vandal for awhile now, ever since I first blocked it. I see that it started vandalizing again after the last stern block, so I go to take care of it, only to see that you've already blocked it, but with a really short duration. So I increased the duration. I don't see why you are making such a big deal out of this. --Cyde Weys 05:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The questions? Out of interest, why is it necessary for your bot to refactor my signature? Alphachimp 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There was getting to be too much formatting, it made the edit window hard to read. As for your questions: do I commonly consult others before blocking? Not necessarily. But I don't raise a big stink if someone who has more information than I do comes along and revises my block. As for how you were supposed to know I was online ... try IRC. --Cyde Weys 05:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, when I used IRC, you were always on. Anyway, I don't have access to it anymore. I shouldn't have to log onto an IRC chat to determine whether or not to block a user. You and I both know that. As for the questions: I've never seen an admin consult before blocking for vandalism, but I almost always see admins consulting before reverting others' actions. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert your actions. Is the IP address unblocked now? Sure as hell not! I strengthened your actions! If I was going to go and unblock it, I would have talked with you. But I didn't do that. --Cyde Weys 05:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically you did revert my block, although only for a second. Such a large change in block length could be significant. If you'd just left a simple message on my talk page, we could have discussed it within those 3 hours. I'm open to that, and would appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you before such a change. I really don't see how that would have been a problem. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, leave the wikilawyering out of it. Nobody's going to buy the, "Oh, but technically you did reverse my block, because the software requires that the old block be temporarily lifted before a new one can be asigned." --Cyde Weys 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You chose to question my definition of terms, specifically "reversion", and I responded. I'd appreciate if you avoided personal attacks both here and directly below. Just avoid the ad hominem fallacy entirely. I'm not attacking your character, and I'd appreciate if you did not characterize mine. alphaChimp^(talk) 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn to stop citing policies when they don't apply. It's just annoying trying to talk to someone when they're constantly spouting off, "Oh, assume good faith! Stop being incivil!" Talk about the issues. And I would really like to know what you construed as a personal attack above. --Cyde Weys 15:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

When you characterize the person instead of the action, it becomes a personal attack. alphaChimp^(talk) 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice evasion. I mean quote me what you think was a personal attack above. My guess is that you think "wikilawyering is a personal attack", but it isn't, and it's clear that you were engaged in it by making the statement, "Technically you did revert my block, although only for a second." --Cyde Weys 17:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume you're trying to make some sort of issue out of this because you had an issue with me in the past. Knock it off. If it was anyone else who had revised one of your block durations you wouldn't have given it a second look. Expecting that people consult you every time before revising any of your actions is a bit egocentric and unwiki. --Cyde Weys 05:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I really don't appreciate that comment. Please treat me respectfully. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely offended to be characterized as "egocentric and unwiki". I put a lot of effort into this project, and none of it is related to my ego. I came to this page with a simple request in regard to an administrative action. The only responses I've gotten on this page are denials (e.g. you don't understand wikipedia, you don't understand blocking) and personal attacks. Please apologize for your comment directly above and the characterization that I am "wikilawyering". alphaChimp^(talk) 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Point to me another instance in which you got so peeved off when one of your block lengths was adjusted and I'll retract my statement. In all my months of adminning this is rather unheard of. Nobody's ever jumped at me for adjusting the length of a vandalism block like you have. --Cyde Weys 15:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So you stand by your comments that I am:

• "egocentric and unwiki"
• "shoving [my] 'good faith' in other people's faces all the time"
• "wikilawyering"
• "trying to make some sort of issue out of this because you had an issue with me in the past"
• "jump[ing] at [you]"?

When others adjust my block lengths, to the best of my knowledge, I have always been contacted, if only just as a courtesy. I do the same when changing another admin decision. This entire thing could be over if you had just said "OK, fine I'll do that next time." alphaChimp^(talk) 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So you want me to lie to you now too? --Cyde Weys 17:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I should create a signature like "Buttinsky (The Uninvited Informal Mediator)". I know neither of you asked for a WP:3O but here it is whether you asked for it or not.

I can't believe you guys have wasted so much time on this useless thread. This has gotten blown all out of proportion. I think Cyde Weys could have left a note for AlphaChimp explaining why he lengthened the block. Cyde, just say you'll try to do so next time and be done with it.

I also think AlphaChimp should take a breather and say "Fine, Cyde didn't consult beforehand. Is the current fortnight block appropriate or inappropriate? If it is inappropriate, please make the case that it should be shortened. If it is appropriate, then you're arguing about style not substance. Don't you guys have anything better to do? Like fighting other vandals or something? --Richard 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Cyde Weys 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Hotrodhrs

Hope thats ok - Glen 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much hope for this :-/ Cyde Weys 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

September Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors! What's New? September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves! Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there! The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself! The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it! TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly! Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Your user page

Technically it breaches copyright, because you've disabled the link to the image description page (how do you do that?!) and don't give the author credit (GFDL and CC-BY-SA require attribution). Anyrode, please just link to it cos I can't be the first person to think "what the hell's that?!" :)

Answer: Falkirk Wheel --kingboyk 21:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it has an image credit link now. --Cyde Weys 02:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis

Cyde, I agree with your statement on WP:AN about Jarlaxle. Everything you said is true. I don't think he will have a chance of reforming, no doubt he'll come back with sockpuppets.

Also, I like your userpage too.... I've actually been the falkirk Wheel!! --LiverpoolCommander 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Anyhow, a barnstar for you:

		The Original Barnstar
		For being an excellent Wikipedia admin, and telling it like it is, warts and all. Here's to you, Cyde! LiverpoolCommander 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 38	18 September 2006	About the Signpost

"Citizendium" project aims to rival Wikipedia	Report from the Simple English Wikipedia
News and notes	In the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and International 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. Ralbot 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Artist Categories

I thought Artist albums / songs Categories were always valid, even if there is only one entry. Has that changed? (pls respond on my talk page. Fantailfan 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of a category with only one entry? Especially when we're talking about bands that have already broken up, and thus the possibility of having anything more to populate the category with is nil? Regardless, the bot isn't even deleting any categories right now, he's simply emptying out red-linked categories that either have already been deleted or were never created. --Cyde Weys 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your bot

Your bot keeps destroying my user page. I highly suggest you rewrite that bot before you deploy it any further. Whatever "unwanted" code it was supposed to take out also took some much needed code with it. Mreh. --CJ Marsicano

Can you please link me to the edit in question? --Cyde Weys 04:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cjmarsicano&oldid=76716181. I had to go through the entire page afterward and fix things manually to get things back to their pre-bot condition. --CJ Marsicano 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The bot's going through and finishing out emptying red-linked categories that were previously deleted. It's mainly working on encyclopedic categories, but I guess there's a few user categories in the mix that it's getting tripped up on. Unfortunately, my only suggestion is to keep your userpage categories in nice trim shape, because all pyWikipediaBots (which is the majority of all bots) have this same behavior when parsing out categories. --Cyde Weys 04:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the bot is not only removing deleted categories. It is also removing categories that have never existed (which is fine, though it would be helpful if it didn't then claim that the category had ever existed), and -- more problematically -- it is removing mistyped categories, where the user who added the category made a mistake in capitalisation. In these cases, it removes a category that is supposed to be there, and adds an edit summary making the false and alarming claim that a category has been deleted when in fact it still exists.

Perhaps you could adjust the code so that it checks for alternative capitalisations and fixes broken category links, instead of deleting them with a misleading edit summary? — Haeleth Talk 09:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm seeing Cydebot deletion of Category:French bloggers and Category:American real estate magnates, but I don't see that these had CFD discussions ever. The former seems like an obvious nationality subcat, and the latter I'm almost certain that I found in fine shape, not redlinked, when I used it not that many days ago. What's up? --Dhartung | Talk 09:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these two categories you mentioned ever even existed, thus of course they never had CFD discussions. Also, I might suggest that you are too process-bound. Many categories are deleted, renamed, etc., without the use of CFD. CFD is just one available tool (in addition to WP:BOLD), and if you look at CFD, it even has a built in exemption for speedies that bypass the CFD process. --Cyde Weys 14:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just surprised, is all. At least the one I had thought actually existed. Life goes on ... --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have any further questions please direct them to Betacommand (of the bot approvals group). This is actually his task I'm doing (he came up with the list of dead categories). I'm simply running the bot to do it, because I'm more familiar with the en masse category metabot (seeing as how I wrote it and all). --Cyde Weys 15:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

ps - its unblocked, though I figure you have W t:B watched at this point so you saw my note. AFAIK I got the autoblocks too, lemme know if I missed any. Syrthiss 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I got the autoblock on AVB (AVB and Cydebot run on the same server, so, unfortunately, blocking Cydebot while it is running also turns off vandalism protection). --Cyde Weys 18:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so that means you're set for now? I can parse that "I got the autoblock on AVB" either as "I'm still autoblocked" or "I was autoblocked on AVB, but I released it myself". ;) Syrthiss 18:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was autoblocked on AVB, but I released it myself. Sorry for the vaguity. --Cyde Weys 18:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a minor edit on a link on the radio station list on Emmis Communications and I didn't log in, but your bot considered it vandalism. Please reply back on my username, Grejlen. Thanks.

SUS Template

Please undelete the SUS Template. T1 does not apply in this case (else you would have to delete the GUS template, which I am sure you will not do), and I think it's deceptive to claim that it is a failed proposal when you and Tony are the only ones that decided that. In reality, there is nothing wrong with supporting a continuation of that discussion, even if it's not a particular "hot item" at this point. At a minimum, you should have a) Gusified it, b) provided us with the code, and c) dealt with all the red links it created. I REALLY wish you would be more civil in your approach to this, because all you end up doing is ticking people off instead of promoting discussion and community. --NThurston 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, certainly it's not just me and Tony. How deceptive. --Cyde Weys 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please undelete/paste the code somewhere like on mine or the other one's user talk page thanks if and only if you do it --WikiSlasher 14:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Xoloz already got around to it. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed - but just one quick question: Do you think it's OK for userboxes to be used in user space? --WikiSlasher 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Some things are unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry

Per your comments on my RfA, I didn't realize that you were holding such a grudge. Just so you know, I was asked by several members (Most of whom thought I was a sysop) to create that arbitration case, and I'm sure you realize that it was also a precautionary measure.

If you still have such feelings that you decide to debate them at my RfA instead of letting me know personally (on my talk page), then that is your perogative. However, I want you to know that I do not hold a grudge againt you or the foul commnets you have left me in the past.

I had hoped that this was over and done...I suppose I was wrong. I am very sorry if I "impugned your integrity", that was not my intention at all...I was simply trying to find out the truth.

I hold no quarrel against you. If you hold one against me, then that is your choice.~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 16:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I only held a "grudge" because you had not (until just now) apologized. I'm not the kind of person to go out demanding an apology over something; I will accept it if it is offered, however. Consider the "grudge" over. --Cyde Weys 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you cannot possibly know how much that means to me. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok

I can undertsand your reasoning for deleting my userpage but could you be as kind as to restore everything else? ILovePlankton 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot

I'm not sure if this request is reasonable (perhaps it's me who's doing the wrong thing), but is there any way to make the bot distinguish between deleted categories and categories which have not yet been created? Sometimes I put a page into a category which I'm reasonably sure will be created some time in the future (because there are other similar categories for example), which results in a red-linked category. -Esn 02:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Robotic deletions

Eh? Does this edit summary indicate that this is sysop work being done by a bot? If so, can you link to where the approval to do this is, please.
CygnetSalad 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's standard CFD work. Once you move all of the pages into the category's new name the old one is deleted. --Cyde Weys 12:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restored this thread. If you'd like to propose that that portion of the policy be changed to indicate that people cannot use alternate accounts in this manner, feel free to do so. Barring that, it's a fairly straightforward question: Do you have a bot running that is doing these deletions? Your response above doesn't appear to answer that question. - CygnetSaIad 00:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason for him to not be deleting unused categories is what I'd like to ask - if he's using a program that assists him in deleting such categories, by all means he should per IAR. I think what Cyde wants to know is whether this is a question concerning a mistake he may have made or what he may interpret as trolling to see if he did something wrong, which is why he questioned the legitimacy of the question. I'm not saying you're trolling, but I honestly don't see the point of asking such a question myself, unless something was deleted that shouldn't have been - it is similar to how people may use AWB, for example, to aid oneself in dealing with tedious processes - I see nothing wrong with simply clearing out left overs from CFD debates. Cowman109^Talk 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's becoming rather obvious that the sole purpose of this "alternate account" is merely to annoy me, and that is unacceptable per the sockpuppet policy. --Cyde Weys 01:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How is that "obvious?"

• I've spelled out the purpose of this account clearly on its talk page. The fact that the first few edits by this account relate to you no more means that its sole purpose than your first edits meant that the purpose of your account was to edit evolution.
• It's really an easy question, one that you seem to be going to some length to avoid answering: Do you have a bot doing deletions?

CygnetSaIad 01:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I am stupid? Do you honestly expect me to put up with someone who is using an alternate account to be obnoxious because he's too afraid to let his real account be associated with his obnoxious behavior? Identify yourself and stop trolling, and then you'll get an answer. --Cyde Weys 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, as gently as possible, what exactly is "obnoxious" about anything I've done? You've got a history of personalising debate, and respond with startling acrimony to the simplest of questions. I had hoped that a neutral question seperate from any history might elicit a straightforward response from you. This was apparently a mistake, but to resond with "stop trolling" is inappropiate.

I'll take it as read then, that you are applying sysop rights through an usupervised bot. That's really not a good idea. Can I suggest instead that you use something similar to AWB to aid you in repetative tasks?

CygnetSaIad 01:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would respond perfectly normally if you didn't feel the need for deception. And what are you now, some sort of evangelical AWBist? Lemme guess, you're feeling jealous at how much more efficiently I can do category work with pyWikipediaBot? --Cyde Weys 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• (From a Bot Approvals Group member):It would be inapproriate to actually flag this admin account as a bot, and the low speed processing of deleted categories through the use of a framework for the processing of WP:CFD is OK here, in so long as all of the categories being dleeted have been manually verified against the deletion discussion prior to feeding them to the framework. In a realted note, Cyde if you can support it I'd LOVE to see your CFD bot processing include a wikilinked reference to the deeltion log page you have verified on each deletion/article edit during an "empty" process if possible. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The edit summaries when it's removing the categories to be deleted already do include a link to the relevant subpage. I'm not sure what else you are asking for? --Cyde Weys 02:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'll leave aside the issue of why it's so hard to get an answer to a simple question from Cyde, save the lecture about how responsible use of adminstrative powers includes polite replies to examination, and simply say: Thank you Xaosflux for your response.

  With respect to the issue at hand, do we not delete things with bots for lots of good reasons? Reflecting on the sometimes contentious nature of (for example) the Curps-bot blocking for page moves and user names, shouldn't something like this which is not a heart-stoppingly vital thing to do have more community input? In my first post here I asked for links to discussions on sysop-rights-bots, I'd now repeat that request.

  I think that XF is refering to things like 19:37, 21 September 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Suburbs" (Robot: Category was disbanded) perhaps?

  CygnetSaIad 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm seriously wondering why you felt it was necessary to use a sockpuppet. The thing is, when you are using a sockpuppet with no history of prior contributions, a lot of people aren't going to take you seriously. You think you can start some sort of a wide-ranging discussion on bots when you haven't even proven that you aren't a sockpuppet of some banned troll? Hah! We'll get serious when you get serious and stop using throw-away accounts to try and evade responsibility and accountability. It's like sending a secretary to go meet with another nation's head of state. It just isn't done. When you feel honest enough to come to the table as who you really are, then we can talk. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I used this account for exactly the reason stated all of fifteen centimeteres up there the first time you asked: Because you're volatile, abrasive, and personalise issues. As evidenced by your last post, where you say I'm trying to "evade responsibility and accountability" when I tagged my user page as an alterante account, responding politely to questions about its nature.

• I'd also suggest that you review the "assumptions of good faith" thing, as your suggestion that I am a "sockpuppet of some banned troll" flies pretty strongly in the face of it.
• I know that this has been said to you countless times, and you're unlikely to listen any more now than ever before, but have a look at the behavior of Xaosflux here. He's being nice. You could take a leaf out of his book.
• Again, with respect to the matter at hand (which I must admit I feel like you're still avoiding) it's hardly a "wide-ranging" discussion. This doesn't mention you, for example.

CygnetSaIad 02:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Because you're volatile, abrasive, and personalise issues." Cease your trolling and personal attacks at once or your sockpuppet account will be blocked. This kind of abuse is not an acceptable use under the alternate accounts policy. --Cyde Weys 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To everyone else reading this: this is why alternate accounts are a bad idea. They allow someone to think they're getting away with trolling and abuse because it doesn't impugn the "good name" of their main account. --Cyde Weys 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I set up an alternate account at your suggestion, solely for making AWB edits. Have you changed your mind then? --Guinnog 02:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What? What does having a separate bot account have anything to do with using a second account for harrassment? Nevermind that when you use a secondary bot account you identify which person owns it, whereas this person is using his alternate account anonymously. I don't see anything at all in common between these two situations. --Cyde Weys 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the distinction you are making. Thanks for explaining. --Guinnog 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should have been more clear. I meant that anonymous alternate accounts were a bad idea, which I thought was implied given the context of what we're dealing with here. I don't have nearly the same kind of problem with identified alternate accounts, and actively encourage the use of alternate bot accounts. --Cyde Weys 03:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde - Please look back at this discussion.

I asked a very simple question. You deleted it. I restored it, and asked it again with some explanation. You didn't answer, but for to impugn my motives. I explained my (clearly wrong-headed) hope that a "neutral" account would get you to respond with greater alacrity than I'd seen from you before. You responded incivily with "Do you think I am stupid?" while still not answering the questions.

You did personalise the issue with talk of a "banned troll", you were abrasive. Again, I implore you to compare your escalating series of responses (with threats of blocking, now!) to the calm and civil manner in which XF replied.

You've also failed utterly to engage in substantative any discussion of your use of adminstrator privledges through a bot.

CygnetSaIad 03:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahah, it just clicked in my mind. I figured out who you are now. Seeya. --Cyde Weys 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:ILovePlankton

Hey, could you possibly explain to me why you just moved ILovePlankton's userpage to User:Cyde/Bad and then to User:Cyde/dev/null, and then back to User talk:ILovePlankton? I've checked the diffs and could not find any personal info. alphaChimp^(talk) 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very sensitive issue not to be discussed on-wiki. Please talk to me on IRC. Other than that, I would just say that you really, really don't want to be involved in this mess. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry I can't use IRC for technical reasons. Can you convey the message to me on this page? alphaChimp^(talk) 02:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No I can't, but you can email me and I will explain. --Cyde Weys 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

In response to his request, I've unprotected his userpage. If this presents an issue, please contact me. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finger Lakes Christian School

Please don't superimpose your personal opinion on an AFD, and delete without a consensus. This is a clear abuse of power. Your reasoning demonstrated that you ignored the discussion. It's true wikipedia is not a democracy. A democracy can be a tyranny of the majority, which is bad. Tyranny of a minority, however, is generally, not much better. Wikipedia doesn't replace deomocracy with dictatorship. It replaces it with consensus building, which you ignored. Wikipedia is an enormous community. If you have a good reason for wanting something (such as deletion), you can always convince of enough people, to garner a rough consensus. Of course, when your arguements are week and flimsy, it's hard to obtain a consensus. I find it truly said to sad, decisions of what is deleted, is based solely on who has a technical power. Giving a janitor keys to the garbage room, doesn't mean they have permission to throw in the garbage anything they don't like, regardless of what the community wishes. --Rob 02:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins are expected to exercise judgement in closing debates. That's exactly what I did. --Cyde Weys 02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Replacing a message left by AntiVandalBot

Hello, Cyde. I have, on a few rare occasions, seen the bot warn an IP address with a warning level lower than that which I would want to use. In such an instance, would it bother you if I were to replace the bot's message on the talk page with one of my own (with my signature of course). One example of a situation would be User talk:216.114.175.195. As far as I can see, this IP has only made vandalism edits and I had previously used a level 2 warning. The bot warned with level 1, but I would like to replace it with a level 3 warning. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Warning levels mean nothing. This isn't some little game we're playing here, with the "Ohh, he's vandalizing, but he hasn't collected all of the warning tags yet, so we can't block him yet." If he's vandalizing, have him blocked. Please understand how "I had previously used a level 2 warning. The bot warned with level 1, but I would like to replace it with a level 3 warning." sounds overly legalistic. It's just a vandal and process is not nearly so rigid. --Cyde Weys 03:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I blocked him, so thanks for bringing him to my attention, and don't worry about those warning levels in the future. Most admins don't even bother with all that crap. If it's clearly a vandal (and not just someone making test edits), block 'em. Period. --Cyde Weys 03:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your perspective. I have gotten so used to other admins telling me that they couldn't block in these types of situations that I thought that I needed to be more thorough working though the levels. It hadn't occurred to me that I just hadn't asked the right admin. I think that there are too many admins who will not block an IP that does nothing but vandalize, but does it only once a week or so, with an explanation that the vandalism has stopped or the last warning was not recent enough. Thanks for your support. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

CFD Processing

(starting new section to avoid drama above)
In a realted note, Cyde if you can support it I'd LOVE to see your CFD bot processing include a wikilinked reference to the deeltion log page you have verified on each deletion/article edit during an "empty" process if possible. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit summaries when it's removing the categories to be deleted already do include a link to the relevant subpage. I'm not sure what else you are asking for? --Cyde Weys 02:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't very clear, and this is not a complaint, just a feature request =)

Your current deletion seem to be using a deletion summary of "Robot: Category was disbanded"

e.g. 2006-09-22T00:59:22 Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Internet video series" (Robot: Category was disbanded)

What I was referring to would be if "(Robot: Category was disbanded)" was instead something like "(Robot: Category was disbanded per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 13)

Kind of along the way Cydebot usually flags the article when removing it. Again though, this is a feature request, and should not be taken as a bot approvals type request. Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a pyWikipediaBot thing. I'll look into changing it. --Cyde Weys 04:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Getwiki

There were keep and seven delete votes on the deletion page. This means NO CONSENSUS . You are being hhigh handed in decinding on your own that powering wikiinfo does not establish notability. Your decision isn't fair , if it seems I am attacking you then sobeit. The deletion vote has been closed unfairly and the evidence is there. It doesn't even warrant deletion review. Unitedroad 06:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote. For Gods' sakes, if I get whined at each time I close an AFD, maybe that's why I don't do it so often. --Cyde Weys 14:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

It's just a mild advice to reread the policy. Your "I am an admin, you are nothing" manner of discourse is not very appropriate in the present situation. Please consider contributing a couple of new articles to the project over the following week-end; mainspace editing is a pleasant experience and the only reason why we are still here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just being passive-aggressive again. Knock it off. Your established pattern seems to be making an attack or saying something incivil, baiting people into responding in kind, and then leaving them some bogus civility warning. It's utterly transparent and it's certainly not going to work on me. I've seen much, much worse. And your condescending statement about doing something useful would be offensive if it wasn't so hysterically false; I don't even need to defend what I do for Wikipedia against you, because everyone knows just how much I do do. --Cyde Weys 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain what is "passive-agressive"? My dictionary does not have such a word. Also, please demonstrate that I have a "pattern" of leaving "bogus civility warnings" before throwing casual accusations of the sort. Your assurance that "everyone knows just how much you do do" is surely modest, but I'm entitled to disagree with your manners of expressing this superiority. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, if I may humbly interject, it was relatively obvious to everybody what your intentions were when you made your original post and they have become quite clear upon your response. You are flimsily using your brand of rhetoric to start some silly fight with Cyde, and he obviously sees right through it. I propose just deleting this whole section, as your intentions are not genuine hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My "intentions are not genuine"? It was "relatively obvious to everybody what your intentions were"? And what about WP:AGF? The policy says to me: "Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold". Since you instantly determined that my intentions are not genuine, may I ask - which of my comments should I delete? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп-

Now, you even strengthened your assertion by calling my statement "hysterically false". Do you think that this edit may help clear the air? Let me assure you that I'm not subject to hysteria. I just don't approve admins who seem to think that WP will collapse unless they go berserk and sink their teeth into some of the most prolific editors around on a random basis. Admins should encourage such editors, not intimidate them. To create a good climate for those who edit - that's the sole meaning of adminship for me. If I rejected several offers to run for adminship and never considered writing a bot (I believe all bots active in Wikipedia quite annoying), I'm not entitled to be subjected to the condescending manner of discourse, normally reserved for vandals and IRC. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, I'm really not interested in playing your little games. I know you are so fond of telling people to go be more productive by writing some articles, so let me turn it around on you. Stop this and go write some articles. I'll be continuing my work with pyWikipediaBot. That way we both get encyclopedic work done rather than flailing blindly at each other. Sound good? --Cyde Weys 15:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you just caught me in an edit conflict. I already decided that I can't be right in arguing with an admin, because I'm not one, and offered my good-natured apologies there. I really think that I should keep away from talkspace and return to mainspace editing. Conflicts between article-writers and bot-writers are no good. We should not forget that our common aim is to improve Wikipedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Finger Lakes Christian School

I have requested a review of your closure of that discussion. Kappa 17:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this [8] to be considered spamming in reference to the DRV? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Halo's RfA

Hi!

Comment moved from your user page. -- Gogo Dodo 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Diane Vera 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ILP's block

You've been blocked for 24 hours for continued reinsertion of private material. If you do this again you will most likely be banned, as the community has really had enough of you. You haven't contributed anything recently and your edits have pretty much solely consisted of attacks on administrators, posting of private information, and agitating for the unblock of a particularly troublesome editor, which I assure you will never happen. --Cyde Weys 01:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've had quite enough of you. I'm sure I don't need to ask why.
Secondly, his "attacks" were hardly unprovoked.
Third, I assure you that he (or me, for that matter) will never be silenced.

I'm rather busy at the moment, but I'll be contacting you later. And give whoever blocked me my thanks; it gave me some time to think things over. Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 18:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Where do I go to get one of those welcome things? And what is Esperanza? I have seen you around so I thought you might know. I'm new.--Dragonfly ⁽⁶⁰⁾ 05:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-European sentiment in various countries

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 39	25 September 2006	About the Signpost

Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election	Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns	Report from the Dutch 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 07:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your bot made a mistake

Hello, Cyde. I would just like to tell you that your bot AntiVandalBot made a mistake. It reverted my votes in the Esperanza elections. Every one of those edits were legitimate. Members are able to vote for however many people they want. I am asking that you please make an effort to fix this. Thank you.--Chili14 22:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image size

It's a beautiful image, could you possibly reduce the size a bit though [on your user page, not the original image of course] as it's breaking the layout on a (still very common) 1024x768 resolution. I found shrinking it from 800px to 700px should be fine. --Pizzahut2 12:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)