Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:13, 24 June 2006

No spamming, please. Spam will be removed, not archived. My definition of "spam" is interpreted liberally.

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

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

Signpost updated for June 5th.

Weekly Delivery

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.

Thank you

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my RfA. I think it's unfortunate that semiprotecting it was necessary. —Cuiviénen on Friday, 9 June 2006 at 21:37 UTC

WP:DATE

Would you add a note to Talk:Switzerland explaining why on 1848 and the other pre-1848 dates were delinked. Thanks. -- User:Docu

BOT for Vandalism

I was looking for blood hound (dog) which redirected to 50 cent's Get Rich or Die trying.

WP:CFD/W

you tagged some that bots cant do, Why cant they? Betacommand 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they can't. Try it. Bots can't (yet) figure out templated category syntax, e.g. {{foobar|Category=U.S. trains}} on the article and ] in the template. --Cyde↔Weys 13:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

HuRay :) I sloved the problem My Bot can fix it it was User error. users were using nation=Argentine instead of nation=Argentinia Betacommand 06:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Procedure?!

Unfortunately, like most things I see in your admin actions, the latest rather alarmed me for procedural reasons. You just closed the AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2; but you had participated in the AfD discussion, so were not a neutral administrator. This is just wrong.

FWIW, I completely agree with the action to delete. I voiced that opinion myself (and also did some work to refactor the AfD to indicate more clearly the large number of brand new editors who were recruited from outside WP to express "keep" votes). It was clearly the strong super majority opinion. And moreover, "delete" is just plain the right action per WP notability guidelines. But someone else should have taken that right action to close as delete. LotLE×talk 18:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell do you mean "someone else"? For Christ's sakes, you're never going to get over it and you're never going to trust me to handle anything, is that it? --Cyde↔Weys 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not when I keep seeing this sort of thing, no I'm not. A closing admin on an AfD should be one uninvolved with the article and the AfD discussion. Period. This is pretty basic Admin 101. There are hundreds of admins who never contributed to that AfD discussion... one of them should have been the closing admin. This is my major problem with your pattern of actions: it's not really that your actions are wrong per se, but that you show such complete contempt for procedural fairness; I believe you have a belief that you are so much smarter or better than all other admins that you have some right to act even when you have a direct conflict of interest.

Likewise with that AfD about the GWB impeachment thing. You were a strong partisan of the issue, and also closed it prematurely. In fact, I believe that after it was reopened, the reasonable "keep" turned into a "delete" largely in reaction to your improper action. I voted the same way as you, so it's not about the outcome, but the procedure.

And also likewise with your vindictive 3RR on me. As you'll recall, I activiely solicited my own block from another admin who had no conflict of interest when I realized I got carried away and, in fact, 3RR'd. So again, the outcome wasn't wrong (well, you also 3RR'd several others without justification simply because they were on "my side"). But given your very recent history of animosity towards me, this also should have been something carried out by any other admin.

And also likewise with your modifying protected template pages to advertise for your own semi-bot tool. If anyone else had done it, it wouldn't be a direct conflict of interest... but it was you.

And... ad nauseum. All of this adds up to extremely irresponsible use of admin powers. A good admin should recuse him or herself from issues s/he is directly involved in. With 1.2 million pages to choose from, that leaves plenty of places to use an admin hat... but instead you use it primarily as a form of bullying. LotLE×talk 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Those templates were protected because they were high-visibility vandal targets, not because there was any sort of editing dispute. Administrators can edit permanently protected pages at will. --Cyde↔Weys 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand your closure, and he does have a point, it is suggested that those involved with the debate not close. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article is incredibly non-notable. I do suppose this questioning of motives is inevitable anytime a "hotly contested" Afd is closed. --Cyde↔Weys 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So how did you judge notability in the close? Because by any relevant standard or guideline, this met it. That's where my personal confusion lies, and you didn't expound much in your closing statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I say above, I firmly and absolutely believe that delete was the correct action. I wish, wish, wish, Cyde that you could get it through your head that procedure matters. There were plenty of admins who never voted in the AfD, nor edited the page. You were not one of them. LotLE×talk 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if delete was the correct action. I didn't even realize he was involved in the debate until I saw this comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure about the outcome. If you look at the votes, there were a number of keep votes, but virtually every single one of them was cast by either an IP address or an editor with fewer than 10 edits (usually just one or two total; obviously joining just to vote in the AfD). Of the voters with an established history, well over 90% voted "delete", and many of those "strong delete". Moreover, even if you look at the "established" voters, you might notice that most of the few "keep" votes come from editors with rather brief edit histories: more than 10 prior edits, but mostly in the 20-50 edit range (in other words, definitely not sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but also not editors well steeped in WP's conventions). So the outcome seems pretty clear, and would have been a no-brainer (IMO) for an uninvolved admin. LotLE×talk 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and of those 90% or whatever who voted "delete, nn," all of them were wrong - notability was firmly established by a variety of media attention taht would get any other article that didn't involve a web meme to be kept. We don't vote count, contrary to popular myth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Media attention doesn't make something notable. The media reports on lots of stupid, non-notable shit. Every week there's some random cat in a tree that gets national media attention. This is an encyclopedia, not a news compendium - can you honestly say that, down the line, this little theft of a PDA is going to be remembered by anyone? --Cyde↔Weys 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly yes, I can. Every single possible applicable guideline for notability was met by this article, I have no idea how you come out with saying this isn't notable. If you can explain why either a) the guidelines don't matter in this case, or b) what guideline(s) the article didn't meet, then I'll be glad to drop it, but you have to offer a little something to work with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lulu - here's a problem with your little set of restrictions. Rather than having a comment in that Afd, I could've just closed it then (it had already run long enough). Would that have made me more or less "evil" from your point of view? Getting to close Afds is much, much more power than a simple comment (which is all I had previously made, a simple comment). I wasn't involved in the large argument over that page in any real way. --Cyde↔Weys 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it had quite run long enough when you opined. You also refactored the AfD slightly by changing the titles about "new/established" editors; which is a minimal "involvement". But, yes, if you had waited a day or two, not commented, and then closed it as "delete", I would have been utterly happy with the behavior. The point of recusal isn't that someone with an interest will necessarily reach the wrong result, it's that they cannot be sufficiently neutral... even the appearance of conflict is disruptive (both to more important things like judges on courts, and to less important things like admins at WP). LotLE×talk 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have left a comment on the deletion review regarding this. As a fellow editor, I am thoroughly disappointed that an administrator has behaved in such a manner. I am sure you may be capable and hardworking, but this is surely irresponsible. -- (tag?) 01:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mountains out of a molehill. This thing is done and the correct (but difficult) decision was made. It's now on DRV with an overwhelming support for my actions. At this point, I would say, just move on. --Cyde↔Weys 01:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Haizum

You just deleted my complaint at AN/I. I would like to know what you suggest if a user vandalizes a user page, personally attacks repeatedly, incites others not to assume good faith and refuses to resolve the conflict on his talk page? Añoranza 05:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, the first link goes to an innocent question I was asking this user, the second set of links go to harmless comments that clearly aren't personal attacks, and the third set of links go to my own talk page that has been bombarded with empty NPA and AGF tags with unenforceable blocking threats. I'm sorry and embarassed that your talk page is now home to this clutter. Haizum 05:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

All of you involved, please bring this to WP:RFC or Mediation or something. It doesn't belong on ANI, which is the administrator's noticeboard. We don't work out disputes between users there. --Cyde↔Weys 05:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply look at this user's recent contributions; it's systematic reversion. If anyone dares challenge these actions it becomes an AN/I or RFC. Haizum 05:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with him here, the use of the link text 1982 Lebanon War makes a lot more sense (and is a lot less POV) than the use of the link text Operation Peace for Galilee. Frankly, the latter just smacks of propaganda, and I've never heard of it ... is it a charity? Is it an ironically named war, and if so, where was it and who was involved in it? "1982 Lebanon War", however, tells you everything you need to know, and it does so neutrally. --Cyde↔Weys 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I think that is a separate discussion. Just look at the frequency of these reverts. This user obviously has these pages marked so that reverts can be made periodically without violating 3RR, in other words, "Gaming the System." On top of that, the focus of this user has been on US actions, not the actions of militaries all over the world. If this user is truly acting in good faith, where are universal corrections? I'm not seeing anything that would allow me to AGF...not to mention the TP spamming. Haizum 05:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, look at the contribs now, they are clearly focused on US operations and US military equipment. I refuse to believe this is done in good faith. I mean come on. Haizum 05:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, please, RFCs lead nowhere, they just end up with users throwing mud at each other. I listed very specific violations of Haizum, vandalism, and severe and repeated incivility, justifying a block. This can be done on sight, no RFC needed. Añoranza 06:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just trust me on this one. I've been around for awhile and I've been involved in a fair number of these things myself, so I do believe I know what I'm talking about. RfCs may seemingly end up going nowhere, but in the end, they actually do quite a bit. You'd be surprised. Especially when it comes to arbitration (if it has to come that far), having a previous RfC is a pretty important requirement for getting the RFAR accepted at all. And there are a fair number of admins who will act on RFCs ... it's not uncommon that, if bad actions are conclusively established in an RFC, that admins will pay very close attention to the user and reign him in if he continues. --Cyde↔Weys 06:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to spend half of my wikipedia time answering to innuendo posted on RFCs. Just look at what Zer0faults does since the complaint has filed. Just as before, only a page more to look at where he tries to mislead others. Haizum violated some very specific policies. If a user is blocked for such things, he won't do it again. If he is invited to more spread more mischief, he will spread more mischief. Añoranza 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You can file an RFC, spend a good amount of time on it over the course of a week and then be done with it, or you can continue this squabbling and edit-warring for months to come with out-of-place comments on WP:ANI and such where nobody will actually do anything about it because it is the wrong venue. Please, for the love of God, use the dispute resolution process, including but not limited to RFC, RFAR, MedCab, and Mediation Committee. Anything is better than the status quo, which is causing a lot of strife but is solving nothing. --Cyde↔Weys 06:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess we have to agree to disagree here. I have no week to give away to someone violating policies, the Zer0fault example shows this leads nowhere. His continued incivilities clearly justify a block, if you do not want to enforce it, what can I do? Añoranza 00:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith here. Let me rephrase your argument so you realize how absurd it sounds. He's making corrections to a bunch of pages, but because he's not doing it across the entire encyclopedia, he's doing it in bad faith? Huh? The encyclopedia is huge. He's making some good edits in a field that he's interested in. Remember, this is a volunteer project ... you cannot reasonably expect him to take on this mammoth task. I'm not commenting on any alleged talk page spamming or revert-warring, but I do think these edits to remove propaganda names are reasonable. --Cyde↔Weys 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am deductively assuming bad faith here; just look at what he is reverting. You're telling me that the UK, Frace, Germany, etc don't have military operations with code names that could be considered propagandistic? Haizum 05:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all countries have propaganda military operations names. And all of them do need to be cleaned up. But I don't understand how Anoranza correcting a few of them in a certain subject area immediately qualifies as bad faith. I happen to live in Maryland. Let's say I go around editing on Maryland-related articles and modify the categorization scheme. Are you going to accuse me of being a bad faith editor because I'm only editing Maryland-related articles? Would I only be a good-faith editor if I went around and took on the monumental task in all fifty states? --Cyde↔Weys 05:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't believe the analogy is fair. You really don't see a whole lot of active interstate criticism going on outside of the court system, or situations where one state is singled out for abuse. The United States on the other hand...well, in your analogy is just another "state" of the world. But let me even counter that analogy. With regards to states, my personal interest on Misplaced Pages is to see that gun laws in various states are accurate; that covers states like my own, VA, which has very lax regulations; it also covers states like MD, which has some of the strictest regulations in the country. However, you won't see me making edits in only the restrictive states, and you won't see me making edits in only the lax states. Haizum 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So what if his edits are focused on US operations and US military equipment? I mainly edit evolution-related biology pages and steer clear from pages on other scientific disciplines ... does that make me a bad-faith editor? No, it just means I'm editing the stuff that I'm interested in and that I have know-how in. It's entirely reasonable to think that this guy has know-how on US military operations but not on the operations of other countries. Hell, that describes my knowledge, and if I was interested in editing military articles my editing pattern might well be similar to his. --Cyde↔Weys 05:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely reasonable until you actually get a taste of the rhetoric. If it were possible to prove it, I'd bet $1000 these edits are not done in good faith; mainly because I can only afford to bet $1000. Haizum 05:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree here. I just want you to know that I'm very set on my position regarding this user. Haizum 05:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but you are coming off as unreasonable here. You seem intent on assuming bad faith without providing any actual evidence of this other than "you would bet a bunch of money on it". And you're being stubborn about this user. We cannot possibly hope to determine the intent of a user's edits; we can only judge the user on the merits of his edits alone. And in this case I do believe all of the edits were quality edits that helped improve the quality of the encyclopedia, because "1982 Lebanon War" is a much better, unbiased term to use in articles than "Operation Peace for Galilee". P.S., I find it very ironic that the name of a military operation has the word "peace" in it. That is classic propaganda. --Cyde↔Weys 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There are, of course, reasons to question whether the motivation for these edits might not be somewhat misguided. (Sorry to see that you've been dragged into this, incidentally.) Kirill Lokshin 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading that comment. I don't think he's actually sympathizing with Nazis, he's simply (rightfully) pointing out that hardly anyone feels sorry that the Nazis have vanished. --Cyde↔Weys 06:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant the fact that he seems to be basing his decision of which names to replace on how people feel about the conflict in question, and the fact that he seems to think that using any term invented by one side is a priori unacceptably biased. Kirill Lokshin 06:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because only the US (its military operations, its equipment, and its supporters) are being targeted for edits and criticism, I'm going to assume bad faith. I know there is little I can do to prove it, and nothing I can do to change it, but nevertheless, I'm assuming bad faith. Haizum 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe how brazenly you are admitting to violating one of Misplaced Pages's policies. And frankly I really don't understand how editing in only one topic area is a bad thing. Correcting the usage of propaganda terms is a good thing. So what if he's only correcting certain propganda terms; this is an all-volunteer project, so we accept the help we get. We cannot reasonably tell this guy, "Hey, I see you're correcting propaganda terms, but you're only focusing on the United States, so I'm ordering you to take on all propaganda terms used by the more than 200 nations on the face of the Earth." --Cyde↔Weys 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm admitting to violating it in my mind, and I have no problem saying so on talk pages. AGF was created so reverts wouldn't happen based upon assumptions, not so people wouldn't have an opinion. Haizum 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly urge one of you to file a general subject RFC on the usage of propaganda names for military operations. This needs to be solved with wider community input, something you aren't getting with the current "style" of argumentation. --Cyde↔Weys 06:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I somehow doubt your suggestion will be accepted; guess how far mine (admittedly somewhat more limited; to discuss it at WP:MILHIST) got? Kirill Lokshin 06:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in playing guessing games. Please link to exactly what you are talking about. --Cyde↔Weys 06:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the initial suggestion (repeated here by another user)? Or the shortcut (which point to the Military history WikiProject)? (It was, in any case, a rhetorical question on my part; sorry for not making that clear.) Kirill Lokshin 06:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, now I know what you're talking about. It might be a good idea to talk to the military WikiProject organization to get some ideas, but you can't really make a decision with just them, as WikiProjects are entirely informal. RFC, however, is part of the formal dispute mediation process, so that's why it'd be a better idea to go through there. Of course, there's no reason you wouldn't post a naming conventions RFC on this topic and then post a notice to the MILHIST guys, who may be interested. Actually, that's probably the best route to go through. I strongly recommend it. --Cyde↔Weys 17:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:1500e

It didn't show up on my page. Can you help me, or give me the code? GangstaEB EA (comments welcome!) 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? --Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem on Gülen article

I've run into an odd problem here. As you probably remember, User:Rgulerdem was blocked from editing after an RFCU I initiated a propos his sockpupetteering on the Fethullah Gülen article. He has subsequently returned as User:TheLightning and with 2 ip addresses, editing the same article, and tried to edit-war over it on the talk page. I had his new puppets blocked too. Still he managed to file on WP:AN/I against me and got the attention of admin User:Nandesuka, who then wanted me to work together with Rgulerdem's new puppets and compromise with them.. I managed to convince Nandesuka that this not an acceptable option for me, but Nandesuka continued to claim that I have no right to mark the article with a NPOV tag. I repeatedly and in great detail presented my objections to the article as it stands now, and said that in order to substatially improve it with proper sources instead of just my recollection of things, I'd have to consult a bunch of books and articles on the subject, which will take some time that I don't have right now. Nandesuka then alerted (with very uncivil wording) User:Aaron Brenneman, who now threatens to block me for disruption should I reintroduce the NPOV tag that Nandesuka removed, because "he hates it".. I'm not only not disrupting anybody with the template (except Rgulerdems sockpuppets, nobody else it editing the article at the moment), but I also feel I'm in conformance with Misplaced Pages:POV_Cleanup. Now what? Thanks, Azate 14:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than keep the NPOV tag indefinitely, please fix the article on your own. It looks like all of Rgulerdem's latest round of socks have been dealt with. --Cyde↔Weys 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad bots break pages by doing more than they should.

This bot (Cydebot) - when unleashed for a specific task (i.e. removing a deleted category) SHOULD NOT do general cleanup. It breaks pages. It should stick to the task at hand and do nothing else. - Davodd 19:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A policy question

You recently stated on the RFD for BJAODN that ...unless someone can give me an actual reason why our policy against cross-namespace redirects should be ignored in this instance, I'm going to go ahead and delete it. Just because a redirect is "well known" does not make it any less of a violation. I fully agree with you on deleting the redirect, mainly per WP:IAR as the redirect does not really benefit Misplaced Pages in any way (just a link to a list of Misplaced Pages-related jokes, and a cross-namespace redirect). However, my question is about policy for deleting cross-namespace redirects. I cannot find any policy that states all cross-namespace redirects should be deleted, as WP:ASR is a guideline and WP:RFD states that you "might" want to delete a redirect if it's a cross-namespace redirects, followed by a list of possible exceptions. For the purpose of clarifying the issue, do you know if there is any policy that specifically says cross-namespace redirects should not be used? Thanks. Cowman109 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy is simply a codification of common practice. Maybe this one just hasn't been written up yet; regardless, it's been common practice for quite some time now. There needs to be a very clear delineation between the actual encyclopedic content and the other stuff that is part of the process of writing the encyclopedia. One of the worst examples I've seen was when I saw a cross-namespace redirect occupying an article name that could legitimately have an article written on its own merits. Now that's simply absurd. --Cyde↔Weys 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of N'zoth

I noticed that your bot (or I think it was) filed the Battle of N'zoth article under a list of Star Wars fanfic. Just to be clear, I had a typo on the page... "fictional battle in the Star Wars universe". It has been promptly changed to its correct state: "battle in the fictional Star Wars universe". Just clearing it up. Nice bot, by the way! I could 'never make that myself!

RelentlessRouge 20:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template issue

You deleted Template:User 1500e, which is fine by me, but you wrote in the summary "Redirect into userspace." Where is it in the userspace?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Zappa.jake/templates/1500 edits --Cyde↔Weys 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cyde.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks! (Might be spam, but still...)

Glad you didn't let our "userbox differences" get in the way :) --Pilot|<b&amp;gt;guy 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RfD

Hi Cyde. Whilst I see you are dealing somewhat forthrightly with cross-namespace redirects, I think that where one is being discussed, in a divided debate, on RfD one should allow that to conclude naturally. There is no harm in this, and no hurry. There is also no outright prohibition against cross-namespace redirects, although they are discouraged out of article space in particular, and no policy that actually backs a blanket move to dispose of them. Gently does it. (All of which is to say that I've reverted your early closure of the Protologism RfD; please do join the debate, though.) -Splash - tk 13:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How NOT to Steal a Sidekick 2 on Deletion review

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. (Just trying to make sure that admins are made aware of DRVs for *fDs that they've closed) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunholm a bot?

You are joking right? Assuming you are please re-phrase your block reason to something more in line with the actual block reason. Whilst removing WOW from banned users list was undoubtedly a very strange thing to do, I'm not sure that justifies an indef block on its own. Obviously if your block reason is more than that it would be good for you to say so. Petros471 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bots are routinely indefinitely blocked until they are fixed such that they have stopped malfunctioning. I have posted an explanation of Sunholm's botness to the thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard. --Cyde↔Weys 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted the above message before I saw the AN post (it had only just been made). I'll follow up there. Petros471 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:WillMak050389#Please_cease_internal_spamming

Please see my message here. NSLE 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

modelling category removals

Dear Bot,

I think you missed a couple -- Sports Illustrated (swimsuit) models and Playboy models. Why not remove those as well as the fashion model categories?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.9 (talk • contribs)

Take this to WP:CFD: it seems like a slightly different situation. --Cyde↔Weys 22:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Atheism?

Hi Cool Cat. I was reading your user page and I saw that you're a Computer Engineering major... cool! I am too. Furthur down I saw that you put an exclamation point after Atheism. I'm not sure what that means. Did you intend to emphasize that atheism is not a religion, or something else? I'm just curious. ~MDD4696 21:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it is just that being acused of being an atheist and a muslim was kinda funny since the two religions arent compatible. I do not reveal the faith I believe in or weather I believe in one. ;)

Atheisms claisfication (weather its a religion or not) is a contraversial issue which I'd rather not get indulged in

--Cat out 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll get into it though ... of course atheism isn't a religion. In addition to the simple meaning of the word, it shares nothing in common with religions ... there's no organized hierarchy of atheists, there's no irrational beliefs, no faith, etc. --Cyde↔Weys 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, some argue the absense of religion itself is a religion...

Many wars are fought over religion even in this century. The idea of dieing in the name of a religion is a very dangerous ideology. It basicaly allows one to shut off moral center.

My view is that religion is a topic best kept alone. Everybody is free to believe in what they believe in and no one should impose their beliefs on others. If only we followed a Prime Directive, life would be much better on the planet.

--Cat out 22:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone argues something doesn't mean it's a valid point of view. Saying the absence of something is itself that same thing is nonsense. And religion is a topic that is only ignored at extreme peril. See this series by Richard Dawkins for an in-depth explanation. --Cyde↔Weys 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN

Considering the enormous number of pages listed in special:whatlinkshere/BJAODN, I think you should make an exception and leave it as a redirect. -- RHaworth 08:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rory can take care of fixing the redirects in less than an hour with his bot. Don't be worried about that. Be worried about upholding policy. --Cyde↔Weys 12:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Which policy? Kusma (討論) 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy against cross-namespace redirects. --Cyde↔Weys 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The one that isn't written down anywhere? Kusma (討論) 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That same one that's been followed very closely for months now. --Cyde↔Weys 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There's only about 200 links - some redirects have had several thousand links. Also, the redirect to BJAODN doesn't necessarily build an encyclopedia (it's just a list of humorous things), so another reason to remove it would be WP:IAR. Cowman109 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is still significant opposition to this, and it has never been written down as a policy. You were even reverted by me when you tried to add it as a WP:CSD). Also, I find the reasons to keep WP:BJ while deleting BJAODN rather unconvincing. Both are rather weird acronyms with no real-world significance (i.e. no possibility of confusion with encyclopedic content), and both were cross-namespace redirects. I think this would be worth discussing, and I ask you to please stop referring to it as a policy when it is not. Kusma (討論) 16:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:, WT:, and CAT: with a very, very low possibility of collision with any encyclopedic topics. All of the other cross-namespace redirects are strewn about, mixed in with the articles, and a significant number of them did have collisions with possible real encyclopedic topics. Your reversion of CSD was unwise, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am all for deletion of cross-space redirects with a potential for confusion. I just don't see the potential for confusion with encyclopedic topics at BJAODN, and I am not sure whether other useful shortcuts like MoS:DP wouldn't have been deleted by your new speedy criterion. Also, I don't see what is unwise about "be bold, revert, discuss" on policy pages. You were bold, I reverted and stated my reasons on the talk page, and now there is a discussion. That might be a bit slower, but I hope we get a better end result. Kusma (討論) 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many of the remaining cross-space redirects are to category pages. They are not really self-references, but I actually agree with you that they should go anyway. If they aren't speedied, we can discuss whether the best course of action is to write a stub with a link to the category page instead and what to do with the incoming links. All I'm saying is that there's no reason to be hasty about cross-space redirects. Kusma (討論) 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sig

Hi, in response to your comments on my talk about my sig, I think you may be refering to my older one which streched out for over 5 lines, as it had borders around the images. I like to keep in the images, they're tiny both in the layout and the Wikisource (even though the name of the Australian one is rather long, but that's for clarity's sake, not my fault). They're easily identifiable and distinguishable from my actual comments, even in wikisource. I went through several sigs in the last fortnight, so if you could just enlighten me as to the one you're refering to. +Hexagon1 11:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, images are depreciated, not banned. I have stopped using images for the reason of unnecessary server load (due to me welcoming new users a lot, which caused the pix to be included in quite of lot of user talks), using ASCII characters instead. But you claim that my sig owerwhelms code, which isn't true in my case, it does not overwhelm any code, it's blatantly distinguashable from my comments. But if it will make you happier I'll stop signing my posts all-together, perhaps that will stop overwhelming them. +Hexagon1 |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 13:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed bug in monobook tool

I have fixed a small but significant bug in User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. Feel free to update your version. You are doing great work. Keep it up! Regards bobblewik 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Doug Ellis

Copy of note put on Anti-Vandal Bot page:

Hi Anti-Vandal Bot. As a Villa fan, I can tell you that the above page is going to get repeatedly trashed unless you put some sort of 'George W Bush' type protection over it. He's hated with a passion by a lot of Villa fans - me included - and whilst it pains me to say so, and why part of me wishes all the graffiti could remain, to keep Wiki's integrity I think you're going to have to do something proactive about it. You'll be firefighting vandalism until the day Eliis goes/dies otherwise.

I'll put a note on there to try and effect something if that's OK with you. Please edit it as you see fit. Cheers Martyn Smith 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC) FORZA VILLA!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AntiVandalBot" Martyn Smith 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird shit

I remember that you had a "weird shit" page. I can't seem to find it right now, but here is another addition (if you don't already have it).

Image:Female-ejaculation-98754985778634194873295879587436034.jpg

I can't help but think that image is fake, though... it looks like water...

Anyways... -- infinity0 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, you already have it, I just saw the "pages which link this page" at the bottom. -- infinity0 23:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your bot

Please tell it to not fix redirects on Misplaced Pages:Redirects for deletion; piping them on that page is a bit weird. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 00:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fringe physics

It appears that Cydebot misinterpreted the CfD result here. The decision was to keep, and only to merge a few articles. As the articles with these talk are subject to continual edit disputes, with the Fringe Science vs. Pseudoscience categorization being a major issue, if you could quickly revert these changes, it would be greatly appreciated. --Philosophus 00:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot just does whatever people ask of it on WP:CFD/W. Looks like someone moved over the results from CFD to that page incorrectly? --Cyde↔Weys 00:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, someone listed it as an "easy" merge. --Philosophus 00:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Early closure of review of be bold deletion

Cyde, I am somewhat puzzled by your comment in closing the discussion of "Be bold". You said "Close listing. Nothing was deleted here; this is DELETION review. If you want to bring this up again, do so at WP:RFD. This is the wrong place."

However, Misplaced Pages:Deletion review says under "purpose", "Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion ... ." My understanding is that DRV is the appropriate forum once xFD has been used, even if the content has not actually been deleted. Is this an incorrect understanding?

The original RFD debate was closed as a change target despite no consensus to do so. Thus, that decision became reviewable on WP:DRV. BigDT 02:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's a valid interpretation ... Cyde↔Weys 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Without referencing this actual discussion, DrV contributors have generally referred back to article talk any debate which would not require adminstrator intervention at its conclusion. Just as an XfD decision about where to redirect isn't "binding" neither would be a DRv decision. So, normally, not a DRv issue.
• With reference to this particular issue, when someone as experianced as Rossami opens a debate in the "wrong" place it's usually good to have a long think before doing anything else. And once discussion starts, it's almost always a good idea to wait for discussion to finish before doing anything else.

brenneman 05:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Shoe on head

Hi. Just thought I'd take this to my favorite rouge admin, would you mind speedy deleting this nonsense and saving everyone an unessesary headache?--205.188.117.5 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected Template:Sockpuppet

I am a contributor to the English Misplaced Pages. I just want to ask you a question. Why did you call this template a "High-profile vandal-prone template" when you protected it? Anyway, I request an edit to the protected template on Template talk:Sockpuppet#Avoiding redirect / replacing URL block log link. Please see there. -- ADNghiem501 06:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Oh really it is? Does it mean you're referring to vandals who tagged the page with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, that I've been checking the page history. Regarding the last part of my message I first left here, User:The wub already edited protected page that I requested on the talk page, if you disregarded this. -- ADNghiem501 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The template is used on lots of pages of indefinitely banned accounts. It's a natural target for vandalism. --Cyde↔Weys 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

re: your comment on Rory096's Talk page

You said "Game set and match." Not hardly. That barely wins a point in this debate. You are interpreting the policy far more literally than is supported by the page, by the nuanced discussion on Talk or by our long tradition with these redirects. Rossami (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Opinion

I need someone like you to express your opinion on my RFA Criteria. Thanks and have a lovely day. Anonymous__Anonymous 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone already did. :-) Anonymous__Anonymous 09:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My Sig

It has been reduced since then. I took off the comments welcome. GangstaEB EA 17:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• how do you get it to be so short? and still have so many colors?--Bee(y) 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

is my signature good yet? someone told me it was too long--Bee(y) 19:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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

{{note_label}}

Since when has this been deprecated? Not everyone likes footnotes, and in-line harvard style citations are perfectly acceptable by wiki standards. The {{note_label}} and {{harvard_reference}} tags make an excellent pair for those of us who cannot stand cluttering up the main space with citation references but use the {{cite #####}} style templates. Where was a policy decision made? -- Avi 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Deprecation is a simple fact ... you don't need an official policy decision to determine that. The usage of the old ref/note system has been decreasing steadily while the usage of Cite.php has been increasing very quickly. There are many significant problems with old template ref/notes that have been well documented. This debate was over two months ago. --Cyde↔Weys 22:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hurry up and do an svn up already

.... I'm waiting.... joshbuddy, talk 14:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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