Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:26, 3 January 2007

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

Question

Have you seen this?--CJ King 19:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Is there any reason you thought I should know? --Cyde Weys 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a history with him, and I wanted you to know that it was over.--CJ King 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really consider it a "history" though. All things considered, my interactions with him were minor compared to my interactions with some other people. He just made some poor decisions regarding starting a club whose stated goal was to oppose me and a few other people. And then there was the issue of him impersonating me on my talk page to make a point. But largely, I didn't have much to do with him, and I don't particularly feel anything one way or the other over his departure. --Cyde Weys 05:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about IAR

Hello Cyde, I hope I'm not bugging you and please don't take this as votestacking, it's really not meant to be, but I'm trying to determine whether or not IAR applies in this MFD. If I am correct, in the Esperanza MFD you denied the argument of IAR to protect it, or maybe that was in the coffee lounge games, or maybe it wasn't you at all, but in any case maybe you can explain if it applies. Thank you! DoomsDay349 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I interpret WP:IAR, it means that actions should be taken for the good of the project, even when a large number of people exist who are arguing against such actions. In this instance, it is clear that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not an online games host. Even if a substantial number of people do not understand this and show up to "vote" Keep in the MFD, it shouldn't matter; it should be deleted anyway because it is against the goals of Misplaced Pages. That is how IAR should work. --Cyde Weys 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Cyde! I think someone else has clarified this on the MFD, but if neccessary I'll quote you. Thanks again. DoomsDay349 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done

Well Cyde, you started all this . I think you were quite right to bring all that has been going on out into the open. I hope you have achieved your goal. Giano 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy with the overall outcome. --Cyde Weys 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's good, I rather thought you would be. Giano 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you wouldn't think I'd be happy, but then again, I know something that you do not. --Cyde Weys 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be in order to ask what that means? asks a curious Newyorkbrad 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking generally only of course: When someone alludes to information that's private without obvious necesity it's often posturing. Even asking only serves to feed the ego, the sense of "specialness." The self-sealing mental trick here is that if either it's an empty claim or a genuine one, it's still lacking in falsifiability: They won't tell you what they won't tell you. Short story: Whenever someoen says something like that, just ignore it. - brenneman 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, do you know something you shouldn't? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not something I shouldn't know. Just something Giano shouldn't know. --Cyde Weys 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you probably shouldn't tell me. If it's important, I expect it will become public knowledge in its own time. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's inconsequential, really. I was just needling Giano back. --Cyde Weys 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD backups

Not so much a time back-up, but one of the nominations just closed has no less than 93(!) categories in it. Timrollpickering 13:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, no kidding, this is taking even Cydebot awhile. --Cyde Weys 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got to hand it to the Military History guys!

Now it's the turn of the new Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals - another nomination just closed does the nice small matter of bringing a consistent naming scheme for all the national categories for awards! Timrollpickering 15:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For your invaluable technical work. Timrollpickering 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I was looking for one of these administrator types to get one of them to delete a page for me. I came across you because in the list of administrators, it says that you get things done fast. also you have an image which looks very much like the Falkirk Wheel so you felt kind of close to home in this crazy mass of Wikipedians (I'm from East Renfrewshire, Glasgow).

but anyway, the point.

i was relinking a page due to issues with its current location. Ray LaMontagne's EP "Live From Bonnaroo" did not have "Live from Bonnaroo 2005" in its title page, yet it stated this on the cover of the cd itself as the cd title so i felt it should have been relinked to "Live From Bonnaroo 2005". this page was already taken for something else, so i thought i should relink it to "Live From Bonnaroo 2005 (Ray LaMontagne EP)".

Unfortunately in the process of doing that i made the mistake of typing "Live From Bonnaroo 2005 (Ray LaMontagme EP)". (ie with an "m" instead of an "n" in "LaMontagne"). so now there is this completely pointless page sitting here called "Live From Bonnaroo 2005 (Ray LaMontagme EP)" with nothing but a redirect to the correctly-spelled actual page. I mean, if something classed as "in need of a speedy deletion", i would have thought that this page was it.

can you somehow have this page deleted? as i have NO idea how. --SteelersFan UK06 03:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've deleted it. In the future, if you need something to be deleted, you can use one of the Speedy Deletion templates, such as {{speedy}}. That will bring it to the attention of all admins, and it should be dealt with fairly shortly. --Cyde Weys 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

???

Why in the world are you on my case since I made that comment? I've tried everything to get rid of it, yet each time I failed. Now, I know how Wile E Coyote feels when he fails to catch the Road Runner. If you have any more comments to make to me, then please email me. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "on your case" because you made a comment, I'm "on your case" because you deleted dozens of other people's comments. Please look at that diff link. --Cyde Weys 05:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Click here. I already said that was a mistake, and I already apologized for the problem. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh okay, nevermind then. You can understand why I didn't see this comment until now though; you fragmented the discussion by posting it on someone else's talk page rather than responding on your own talk page where the issue was addressed. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Child Wikipedians

Hey. Sorry to bother you, but I noticed you have speedily deleted Category:Child Wikipedians. This category survived Cfd twice, as you probably are aware of since you took part in the second one, so I'm wondering how can it be deleted per WP:CSD? Your reasoning, Could cause much more trouble than it's worth., does not say much. Thanks, Prolog 10:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would image Cyde deleted per WP:CHILD --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much it. I think having a list of children on Misplaced Pages is a much too convenient target, and the risks clearly outweigh the benefits. --Cyde Weys 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:CHILD is still a proposal, and the category being a target was discussed in the Cfd's. I have requested a deletion review. Thanks, Prolog 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing multiple pages with the same name

I wanted to add a sentence to the top of the Hadouken page saying that if people wanted to go to the page on the band Hadouken! then they could use a redirect (The Hadouken! page i haven't actually got round to making yet but that's not important). Basically i wanted to use a sentence like this one:

I wanted to edit it so that it said something along the lines of "This article is about the Street Fighter move. For the band, see Hadouken!"

Is there like a pre-written piece of code for this? I mean obviously you could just use italics and stuff to get it the way it is in the example sentence, but that piece of code starts off with "otheruses4", i was wondering if there was more example sentences like this? (otheruses1,otheruses2...etc)--SteelersFan UK06 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the template you're interested in. It explains how to do all of this stuff. I think you want to use the {{otheruses4|USE1|USE2|PAGE2}} syntax, particularly:

--Cyde Weys 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thought I'd thank you and let you know that I ripped your page design for my new userpage :) I basically copied your code and altered colors, changed text. I credited you, just so you know. So thanks for having a good userpage for me to stealborrow from. DoomsDay349 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be located at Grizzly bear? I see no reason that "bear" needs to be capitalized. If I forget to effect this move within three days, bug me on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are being bugged. :) Vranak 23:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Upmerge request

User:Pilotguy has mentioned that you have a bot which might implement the upmerging agreed in upmerge - which would be greatly appreciated. roundhouse 23:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox - Why is this article semiprotected?

After protection has been lifted I saw only three vandalizing edits, from the same IP (actually, another IP even corrected vandalism, see recent history of the article, right before your protection). So, according to Semi-protection policy it should not be semi-protected in this case. This situation could be considered "as response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others" (specifically, it restricts me; I am not vandal but contributor to the article). Happy New Year! 193.219.28.146 00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remove your semi-protection of Mozilla Firefox as the edits preceeding the block do not constitute considerable vandalism. Semi-protection is supposed to be a last-ditch thing to do and as such, blocking of the IP's would have been more appropriate. As it stands this block prevents the above user from editing the article entirely. (PS. I will post this on WP:RFPP tomorrow if I haven't heard back from you by then - just in case you are too busy with other things). Thanks, Localzuk 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have just noticed that the above user has already done the RFPP request, so I will just add my support for the protection to be lifted there now. Thanks, Localzuk 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Minerals

Can you fill me in on whats going on with the Minerals/Minerals in Your World images categories? I can't seem to find any rationale behind the move anywhere. -Ravedave 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Amplifying what Ravedave says: can you please stop moving? It doesn't make any sense: for example, Shocked Quartz is a mineral, but has nothing to do with "Minerals in Your World" (which I've never heard of). Thanks. hike395 01:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; there appears to have been an error at WP:CFDW. I've rolled back all of the changes and will now go investigate as to how this happened. --Cyde Weys 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've figured it out. The correct source category was Category:"Minerals in Your World" images; it was supposed to be moved to Category:Minerals in Your World images. However, it looks like Cydebot choked on the quotation marks. I'll go fix it so that it escapes quotation marks automatically. --Cyde Weys 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza deletions

Cyde, why are you taking such an interest in deleting all these Esperanza pages? You're popping up A LOT on Recent Changes.--CJ King 04:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything special — just helping to clear the huge backlog of stuff to be deleted that was just created by the Esperanza MFD. As for showing up on recent changes a lot, I guess that shows I'm doing work, eh? --Cyde Weys 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, two of the pages you deleted were salted. Were you aware that the pages had been salted? This is being discussed here. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not much point in salting these. Salting already removes the edit history (as deleting does). And I really don't see anyone trying to sneakily re-create Esperanza under our noses, so salting is most likely unnecessary.--Cyde Weys 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on Cyde! This makes it look like you didn't even read the closing admin's decision and the talk page discussions. OK, let's make it simple: Why are you over-riding the closing admin's decision and the talk page discussions? Carcharoth 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you also stop deleting the Calendar pages? People have put a lot of work into them and they will probably be gradually moved under Misplaced Pages:Birthday Committee. If you question the idea of a calendar as a whole, you can nominate it for MfD (damn, I feel like violating WP:BEANS now...) Миша13 12:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the calendar pages had better be moved elsewhere then (i.e. not in Esperanza space). --Cyde Weys 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They probably will, but deleting a totally random bunch of them (like you did) will not make this process faster. Миша13 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize these were the same things being considered for subsumation by the Birthday Committee. I won't be deleting any more of them, but still, they had better be moved, and quickly. --Cyde Weys 15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why quickly? Is there a really good reason to rush? Carcharoth 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The sooner it's done the less problem there's going to be with other people accidentally deleting them. I'm far from the only administrator who wanted Esperanza gone. Anything still in Esperanza subspace has a bit of a target painted on it right now; might want to move it out ASAP. --Cyde Weys 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never gone near Esperanza (apart from a few edits on the talk page of the Admin Coaching program, I believe), and I'm not going to do any dirty moving work. I'm just someone who wants to be able to pick over the bones afterwards, ahem, I mean review the history. Seriously, I am absolutely serious about preserving history, and I would like to be able to look back on this a year later without the feeling that half the stuff was hurriedly shoved under a rug and a big cupboard moved over it, if you see what I mean. Anyway, see below for something else, more relevant than this. Carcharoth 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Just a Minute panellists

I wanted to ask about this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Just_a_Minute_panellists . You deleted it with this note: "Removing category Just a Minute panellists per CFD at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 24". On that December the 24th page there is no mention of this category. Please explain. Flutefluteflute 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He got the date wrong. Use "what links here" on the redlink to find out where the deletion debate took place. For example: what links here for Category:Just a Minute panellists shows that there were two deletion debates: here and here. As for correcting the misleading delete log summary, I would suggest undeleting and then redeleting with a link to the correct location. Carcharoth 13:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like whoever filled in WP:CFDW had a date off-by-one error. Ah well. No real action mistakes were actually made, just some bad edit summaries. --Cyde Weys 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Not your error then. :-) Sorry about that. Carcharoth 17:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering so quickly. :) Flutefluteflute 18:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I would like to know every time Cydebot makes any mistakes. --Cyde Weys 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

DRV concerns

I see you have been raising the same concerns as Doc g at that DRV. You might be interested in the note I left at Doc g's talk page (surely people are aware of this sort of thing?). The veiled and not so veiled references you and Doc g made to already having had problems over this issue do raise concerns. If this really is a problem, what can be done? Wikipedians can't monitor every single talk page. Am I right that we are limited to suppressing age-related information, or the gathering together of age-related information, plus making clear that WP:NOT censored? The trouble is that many parents probably think we are just a reading resource, not an active editing community. I feel concerned now that I, and others, aggregated age-related information during the ArbCom election. Well, I wasn't concerned until I realised that two were self-identified as younger than the others. I note that the Signpost still identified the youngest age. Of course, those who didn't reveal their ages could have been even younger for all we knew. Agh! This whole issue makes my head spin. Can't the WMF sort out a policy, rather than leave the community to squabble over it? Sorry to bring this to your talk page, but I know how random Misplaced Pages processes can be, and important things like this shouldn't be left to a self-regulating mechanism that doesn't always regulate itself, if you know what I mean. Carcharoth 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, and I've tried bugging Jimbo and the Foundation to make some sort of a statement, but no luck yet. It always seems like it has to boil over first before they say anything about it. In the mean time, I think you underestimate how much trust the individual communities are given to sort these kinds of things out on their own. I believe this is something that we can handle on our own, and in the absence of the Foundation stepping in to do anything, it is something that we should do on our own. We don't really have to do all that much to at least get this problem somewhat under control. It's not even the teenagers I'm really worried about, just the children. It's a bad, bad idea to have a category putting all of these children together in one place, making them easy targets. Just remember, there is MySpace out there after all, and other social networking stuff like it. They're much more unsafe than we are, so long as we keep out these silly categories that allow you to, effectively, find people by age. MySpace doesn't really have an equivalent. --Cyde Weys 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that this is happening in the wrong order: One (or two) people make a decision that something is a "bad idea" and steam ahead without discussion. A stampede of sheep-ish "Yeah mans" takes the place or reasoned discourse, and we're all left a more poorly positioned for whetever big thing comes next.

Decisions, big decisions, can happen two ways here: From the mountain top, or from broad consensus. When people "knight up" to fix things, particularly using administrative tools, it neither creates lasting solutions nor short-term peace. There are very rarely such overwhelming emergancies that it's required to squash something as a "bad idea" rather than talking about it first.

Taking the "child wikipedians" category as an example:

1. Step one is it an emergancy? Is there immediate harm going to come to the encyclopedia? If it is, fine, plug the dyke and worry about the fallout later.
2. Step two is it a "Foundation-level issue?" If it is, then words needs to come from on high, as opposed to it being guessed at. Until it does, no good appealing to authority.
3. Step three is determining if consensus exists or is forming. The second one is the most important, actually. If there is a good chance that things are going to go a certain direction it's often better to wait until it is rather than chomping at the bit and muddying the waters. Mixing metaphors is usually a bad idea as well.

Since the answers were no, no, and no, deleting this did little to further the stated goals of protecting children.

If we don't get a bit better at fostering and respecting an atmosphere of community consent, at working out difficult decisions rationally as opposed to via moral panic, we're creating weakness in the encyclopedia. A robust and transparent forum would might have come to the conclusion you clearly support, but without the acrimony. This "whack-a-mole" style of decision making way just pushes something down in one spot without solving underlying issues. Note how carefully WP:ARB (CHILD) fails to make any sweeping statements?

brenneman 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages. People can spend months talking about an issue, and sometimes, at the end, nothing is even done about it. I considered this issue of sufficient importance to warrant doing something now, which then precipitated real action that had so far failed to materialize from any of the discussion. I guess you're a discusser and I'm a doer. There's room for both on Misplaced Pages. --Cyde Weys 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes don't know in what tone my text is going to be read, so below have me speaking in an intense, furrowed brow, long syllables way. Leaning towards you, making small hand motions. Like I'm trying really hard to make a point, but without any nastyness. Oh, and make me sound like James Earl Jones, too. That would be cool.

That's a sort of back-handed compliment, suggesting that those who talk don't do anything! ^_^ The point is not that there's nothing wrong with doing something bold per se. But that when there's already existing discussion that belies that action you're about to take it not bold, it's something else. Here is a serious question, no agenda: When it to comes to making that decision, do you reckon that you're:

1. The smartest, most wordly, best placed admin on all of Misplaced Pages, or even
2. The absolute only admin who was aware of the issue?

Because that's what it comes down to. The telling point here is that you considered it to be so, knowing that there was reasonable opinon otherwise. What is it that makes your opinion worth more than theirs? Do you see what I'm getting at at all here? Oh, and it's stupidly easy to find teen meat on MySpace, so that's a bit of a straw man argument.

brenneman 02:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself neither. There's lots of stuff to do on Misplaced Pages, and people frequently get distracted. I'm conferring with some other people and a few of them would have done exactly what I had done — if they had been aware of it. Since I did become aware of it, I acted on it. Doubtless there's lots of "rouge" stuff I'd do on Misplaced Pages right now, if I only I knew of them! So I don't consider myself the smartest admin, or the only one aware of it — just the only one aware of it who decided to do something. --Cyde Weys 03:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tone change: Now leaning back in my easy chair, I'm more Matt Lauer now, and we've just come back from a commercial break.

Ok, so it was the khutzpah that was the tipping factor, not anything else. But this ignores the fact that there were admins (myself included) who were aware of it but choose not to delete it. User:Mike Selinker springs to mind, him having closed one of the CfDs as "no consensus" and all. Again, actual question, no agenda: How would you have felt had I restored this cat the second I saw it had been deleted? - brenneman 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I think Jimbo would have gotten involved already, had that happened. --Cyde Weys 03:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The appeal to authority isn't going to serve to dodge the question: Would it have been ok for me to have restored this category as soon as I saw it deleted? Had my ire outweighed my distaste for overturning actions without discussion, of course. - brenneman 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You carry on the discussion, in a more widely-visited venue than CfD or DRV, and try and use the ArbCom ruling and guidance (was it "carry on discussing"?) to achieve some longer-lasting consensus. Until consensus emerges, play it safe. That's my view. Things can always be undone later if need be. Carcharoth 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, seeing as you found this discussion, this one should also go on the record. Carcharoth 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaron, please stop assuming the worst. It wasn't an appeal to authority, it was a simple fact. If there had been a wheel war over this, he would have stepped in already. As it is, he's staying out of it, for now, because it looks like we've been handling it on our own. --Cyde Weys 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how that's "assuming the worst" at all. I am using the phrase only in the most literal sense; It's a logical fallacy. I apologise for any unintended offense. Trying to be brief:

• A single revert is not a wheel war, and
• You don't actually know that the whale king would have stepped in.

It is a simple enough question: Had I noticed that you deleted the category, would it have been inappropiate in your opinion for me to restore it. Can I please just get an answer from you on that?

brenneman 04:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would have been inappropriate for you to restore it just as much as you think it was inappropriate for me to delete it in the first place. --Cyde Weys 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the formatting abuse there, I just realised I used fourteen apostrophes in four sentences. All right, here's the bit where I totally go off the rails. I don't understand: How it can be ok in your view (presuming you thought it was ok when you did it) to ignore other views and delete while at the same time it not be ok for me to ignore your view and restore? The only logical basis I can see is if your opinion "counts" more than mine, somehow. I'm happy to hear arguments based on policy, or previous arbcom decisions, or even *shudder* a post to the mailing list. But all I see so far is "Because I was right." What am I missing?
brenneman 04:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't ignoring other views. I took them into consideration. If you look at the DRV, you will see that the majority of the people there agree with me and agree that deleting the category is warranted per child protection issues. You're trying to paint me as taking a unilateral action that no one agrees with when it is simply more opposite the truth than it is the truth. --Cyde Weys 04:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "paint" you as anything here, I'm trying to highlight to you the problem with proceeding in the manner that you did: You would think it inappropiate if I treated you in exactly the same way you've treated others.

There are several things rolled up here. To address the disparate themes:

• There's another logical fallacy above: You've gotten support on a mostly discussion-free forum after the fact, but that can't be used to support your actions at the time.
• You have explicitly said on the deletion review that you deleted the category because there was no consensus.

Can you not see the dynamic tension between these two things? If the issue had been so clear cut that you knew how the debate was going to go, why wasn't it already worked out in CfD? Put another way, why is it that the only compelling argument for deleting this category seems to have been the actual deletion? Do you understand that I'm not only talking about the deletion, but about the mental model you used prior to the actual deletion?

brenneman 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a very compelling argument, and it has already been made, by many people, in the relevant DRV discussion. That argument is very simple: to protect children from child predators. The risk of the Child Wikipedians category far outweighs any possible benefits (which are none). Even ignoring the dangers, a children category is a bad idea for another reason; how are other editors supposed to make use of it? If someone wants to be treated like an adult, they shouldn't proclaim that they're a child. If someone wants to proclaim that they're a child ... how can they really get involved in all of the complex stuff that we deal with at Misplaced Pages? --Cyde Weys 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I probably should keep quiet here but i would like to point out that Aaron is right here Cyde. This is not a one man show and you are heading down the same path that Kelly Martin took as she matured in wikipedia. Ignoring other peoples opinons, dare i say thumbing your nose at them, is not the right way to go about business. You need to convince the others of WHY you are right. If you can't do that, whether you are right or not, then it will not be peacefully resolved and will waste more of your (and others) time than you save by not trying to win over your critics. David D. (Talk) 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I already have done quite a bit of trying to convince others why this category is a bad idea; just see the DRV discussion for more. I think it's a bit naive, though, to think that discussion will solve everything, and that if you just try hard enough, danggit, you will get everyone to agree with you. It just doesn't work like that. There are differences of opinion, and these differences will not narrow considerably. I've "lost" a fair amount of arguments myself, and I just lived with the fact that the majority of the people didn't agree with me. That's just the way it goes some times. I've really tried to "win over my critics" here, but if you honestly cannot see how dangerous a category of children is ... well, what else can I do? You're trying to say it's some fault of my actions that people disagree with me, but I'm afraid that can't be pegged on me. There will always be disagreements. --Cyde Weys 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is your fault they disagree. I am just saying that if they can't be convinced then the arguments do not go away. Is there really no way for them to be persuaded? I have to admit i have not followed this closely. In general, I find myself siding with your opinion, so I am not trying to take sides here. But these dramas just wear everyone down. David D. (Talk) 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, in what way differently would you have had me act in this matter? I engaged in significant discussion regarding this deletion, not just here, but also over at the DRV discussion. Have you read it? I'm getting some contradictory indications here. On the one hand I'm supposedly being encouraged to discuss. On the other hand, all of my (and a dozen other people's) arguments are being dismissed as irrational. It almost leads me to believe that discussion simply can't work in this instance. The opinions on both sides are too hard held. What to do now? Wait for a message from on-high? Or just count up the votes, which is how DRV is traditionally run? --Cyde Weys 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And of course i have not read it. Which is why i should have kept quiet. I just find it amazing that on an issue like this there is no way to present a convincing argument. Against my better judgement, I'll go and read the discussion in more detail. David D. (Talk) 06:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaron, I have a candid question to ask of you. Are you primarily objecting to this because you don't like that process was not followed, or do you truly think that a category listing children on Misplaced Pages is a good idea? --Cyde Weys 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to skip over (for now) the apparent inability to seperate the ex post facto quasi-consensus and your claim that it was required somehow to short-circut consensus. I'll address the later post though, as it is a very fair question. I'll answer it first in a "skip to the pudding" short version, then in a "real answer no one will read" version.

Short version - nine words.

No I am not and no I do not.

Long version - first a short jeremiad about process.

We Wikipedians (with a nod to the section below) commit the sin of jargon incessantly. We apparently have so much to do and feel as though we have so little time that we often use cryptic shorthand in place of fuller, more forthright communication. For example, the ability to link an argument rather than to restate it has a seductive appeal in making us clever "by proxy." See any school-related deletion debate from last December to understand why this is suboptimal.

More insidious though is the tendency to use single words in conversation; a mental compression algorithm that often appears to speed discussion but that actually impedes it. One person says "he's a troll" and thinks that others will understand and agree implicitly. But since definitions of troll may vary wildly, they end up arguing about the definition rather than the problematic behaviour that predicated the conversation. Second only to "troll" in suffering this fate is the term of art "process."

My interpretation of process is that is grows from the dynamic tension between what we actually do and the deliberate statement of what we should do. This has an apotheosis in the current deletion review page: Process-heavy, with templates, conventions, and instructions enough to stun a Mandarin. Almost all of these grew organically from trying to make sure that things ran smoothly, insuring that we could focus on sharing ideas, and making sure that zealots didn't gum up the works. It is the result of hundreds of thousands of words of debate and many months of discussion over what is the best way forward. It is in fact the transubstantiation of consensus into praxis; a tool that hopes to ensure that not only is the best result achieved this time, but every time.

I'm willing to bet my arse to a hat that you don't mean that when you say "process."

It is not a hair shirt, nor Prometheus's chains binding us, but a finely tuned set of checks and balances that guard against hubris, passion, and myopia. It should be questioned constantly and refined daily, but cast aside only when calamitous misfortune will result if it is not.

Long version - the ends and the means.

Since a process is a tool, and its purpose is to facilitate an outcome, it can be enticing to proceed from the argument of the consequence: If all parties want to get to the same place, why natter about the method? This is an observational fallacy, one that in its reductionist manner ignores the ongoing development of Misplaced Pages, the existing plurality of its contributors, and the capacity for errors of good faith.

Each decision, each edit, each administrative action is only one in a mind-bogglingly long chain of similar actions. We follow and set precedent every minute, and the more high-profile the action the greater the implications. There will be some dismissingly few times where unanimity is achieved, but mostly Wikipedians will fight and bite and spit and snarl until reaching an agreement everyone is equally unhappy with. By taking shortcuts in the occasions when there is some rough-toothed agreement and pushing aside forums for mannered debate, we are setting the stage for progressively less inclusive debate. There should be no volume component to a rational debate.

It's comforting to stand in the company of the like-minded and pass agreement around like a totem, and easy to be dismissive of a dissenting opinion. Like Copernicus. While there is meaningful debate on an issue, it should continue. Weight of numbers alone does not a compelling argument make, and it's a sign of maturity to accept the possibility of one's own errors. In the rare event that you and I do agree on something, I understand that we might both be wrong, and I am eager to have opposing views presented to me.

Long version - the actual category.

There is zero chance that we are going to agree on this, but you did ask: The likelihood of this category being used in the manner that loosens the bowels of the crowd at deletion review is so small, the projections of doom so fantastically far-fetched, that I struggle to put it into words. I've said this several times before, but I will say it again here: If a person wants to find someone vulnerable online, there are countless places less moderated than Misplaced Pages. MySpace, MMORPGs, MSN-style chat, it's a cornucopia of young and dumb. The fact that "something could happen" is a statement of fact that in unassailable. Yes, something could happen. But realistic assessment of risk is simply not occurring here. Even more shockingly thoughtless are comments about "making it easy" to prey upon children: Is the implication that if it were difficult than no one would do it?

Your actual question presented a false duality by asking if this was a "good idea." My personal opinion is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of user categories are nonsensical at best. I have three - "Admin" in case someone needs one, "Australian Admin" in case someone needs one in my time zone, and "Admin Recall" which is borderline useless like almost all the others. I could stretch a long bow at the last and suggest fancy ways it could be used, but it's main purpose would be just as well served by a simple notice on my talk page.

In an ideal world where everyone thought like me and half of them looked like Isabella Fiorella Elettra Giovanna Rossellini, all this sort of identitarian gimcrackery would vanish.

I don't personally understand the urge to create userboxen and "hi mom" categories, I prefer to not pigeon-hole myself. It's only circa yesterday that I added biographical information to my talk page, and only then as a mirror to my Citizendium pilot page. But lots of people seem to enjoy labelling themselves in such a manner, and I see very little harm in it in moderation.

What I do see harm in is zealous enforcement of an individual's belief set about the way Misplaced Pages does and should work. And I react with utter abhorrence to taking the name of the foundation, jimbo's will, IRC chat, or as-yet-unknown-potential-victims as a gonfalon.

brenneman 07:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian

RE "No, it doesn't, because Google the verb is much, much more notable and widespread than the term "Wikipedian". I've seen Google used on many television programs, and frequently in real life. The only time I've ever heard Wikipedian was in the context of Misplaced Pages on Misplaced Pages. The two situations are not comparable. --Cyde Weys 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"

You should know better than me that WP:N doesn't require TV anchor man coverage. Real life application too is hard to monitor. lol, Owned and ASL are compliant with WP:N in this regard too. Prominent media bodies are have already taken on this term. Google it. Thanks for your input. frummer 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, you're the one making the claim, you have to provide the evidence yourself. It's unacceptable to tell me to Google it and then act like you've presented evidence. Please, I implore you, give me some links that are reliable sources that talk about the term "Wikipedian" in the same was as all of those articles we've both seen that talk about "Googling" and "LOL". --Cyde Weys 05:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting it that way is obviously making it unnecessarily harder. In my humble opinion there is an ongoing misconception as far as the letter of the law is concerned in regards to Internet fame and the relatively new phenomenon in crowd sourcing and user based websites such as YouTube and MySpace etc. It is ludicrous to think that this project remains in the realm of the encyclopedic rules it first adopted. I am talking specifically of WP:N. Misplaced Pages has succeeded in functioning as a wiki search engine for millions of users who now constitute a community and must modernise the rules so as to include information that is regarded notable by a wider array of social circles, to put it broadly. This is a typical example of this problem. I would like to ask you to take your mind of this particular term and comment on a possible solution for this problem. As I'm sure you are aware it has been brought up thousands of times. frummer 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS carefully, and then provide me at least one source that talks about the phrase "Wikipedian". Until you can provide even this minimal amount of verification, there is no evidence whatsoever that it merits an article. --Cyde Weys 05:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You won't like the ones I give you. I'd appreciate you addressing the point I digressed to. Cheers. frummer 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Cyde!

As you know, Esperanza was recently successfully deleted/salted as a result of its MFD, with only four exceptions: COTM, the birthday thing, Stress Alerts, and Admin Coaching. I don't believe you said anything about Admin Coaching during this MFD, but during the last one, I remember you said it was for the most part gaming the system.

Cyde, you're a well-respected admin, and your work on AntiVandalBot and CydeBot alone make you very worthwhile to the Misplaced Pages project; so many times I've gone to revert vandalism, only to see it's already been reverted by AntiVandalBot. Because I am an active admin coach, and because I would like to see this program be successful, I'm requesting feedback from you on ways in which Admin Coaching might improve. Your comment indicates you believe admin coaching isn't worthwhile because it is gaming the system.

Could you possibly take a look at some admin coaching sessions and point out potential problems that could be avoided in the future? For example, if there was something you specifically objected to, or something you felt should be added, we could address that, and improve the program. Here are some examples of Admin coaching sessions which I have participated in: My admin coaching page (June '06) Ginkgo100's coaching page (Oct '06), Exir's coaching page (Oct '06), Fabrib's coaching page (current). (Feel free to seek out others yourself; each admin coach has different techniques or ideas, and this may not be a representative sample). I know you keep pretty busy, but if you have a chance, your feedback, even very negative feedback, would be appreciated.

Feel free to leave comments on my talk page or on the Admin coaching talk page. Best wishes and happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).