User talk:Cyde/Archive014

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

Cyde's talk page Leave a new message

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

New talk page, new sig

I just archived my previous talk page, so ... it's time for a new sig! --This user is Cyde↔Weys. 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about this sig? ↔ 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be so freakin' pink? It hurts my eyes! And if a part of it could link to your talk, it'd be a lot better. Misza 13 ^{T C} 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, pink is dank. Don't be dissin' it.-- The ikiroid 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink is the new black.--Anchoress 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this sig? ↔ 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the pink myself. Every time I see a pink signature I doin't even need to read it - I know it's you. The only thing that slightly confuses me is the double arrows that appear when I hover over it, but ah well. It's very short and doesn't intrude upon the editing window in any way. Cowman109^Talk 18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pink, it's light red. --Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

travb indefinite block

Hi Cyde, did you get my email yesterday? --Duk 15:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus1338's rfa

“

I could only support if this user were to be honest about his identity to the community

”

I already voted oppose, but this got me curious. Could you elaborate? Kotepho 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He wishes to keep his identity secret, so I will respect that wish ... but I personally have very strong suspicions about who he was prior to this Pegasus account. --Cyde↔Weys 16:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is ok. I was just wondering what you meant (e.g. I (know/think/am pretty sure) he is (a former vandal/a troublemaker/a banned user/Jimmy Carter). ). I felt bad opposing as he seems to be trying to do his best. Kotepho 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: XX of Oz

Thanks for looking at that - am currently too much of a newbie to work out for myself what is a good or a bad addition to Wikipedia! Inner Earth 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back a page temporarily.

Cyde, I need some info from the Super Smash Brothers League page you deleted. Undelete it and let me get the info...If your scared to do so, talk to me...if not, do it, let me get the info and i'll let you do what you wish with the page (basically, deleting it) - NEPats17

Wiki source sent via email. --Cyde↔Weys 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't receive any email dude. Send it again to [[[mark_pare200@hotmail.com]]]. - NEPats17

User:Rex071404

Your indefinite block of this user is unwarranted. Rex071404 himself clearly is not a sockpuppet. 216.22.26.46 20:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... says the anonymous sockpuppet. LOL. --Cyde↔Weys 00:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JimboWales.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:JimboWales.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

—Hbdragon88 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little question... How did you make a "print screen" of the whole web page without having to scroll down? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 23:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use a 40" LCD computer screen with a resolution of 4800x2700 pixels, so it all just fit on one screen. --Cyde↔Weys 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I have a screen with 73,553x800,475 pixels . So you have to do it the hard way, eat bannanas . Well, at least bannanas are soft --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Göteborg Botanical Garden

Hello, this text in it`s largest part is copied from http://www.gotbot.se/engelska/english_start.html, without permission.

Then slap a {{ copyvio|url=http://www.gotbot.se/engelska/english_start.html }} on it. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Copyvio}} should not be subst'ed. Kusma (討論) 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it messes up the template if you don't subst it, because I always see ~~~~ in the middle of it. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to have ~~~~ in it, to cut and paste into WP:CP. See WP:SUBST#Templates that should NOT be subst'd. Kusma (討論) 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand now. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sig suggestion

Cyde, may I suggest that you take inspiration from this sig? :-) --Ssbohio 03:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Civility

I notice that you haven't reprimanded Tony Sidaway on the Personal Attacks and incivility on his Rfc.[1] Is there a reason for this double standard? ---Day 11:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "It's okay if I do bad because someone else is doing it and getting away with it" is a terrible, terrible argument. And secondly, my primary method of communication with Tony is not on-wiki. So you don't see most of the things I say to him, let alone any civility warnings. --Cyde↔Weys 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cydebot and template categories

Cydebot has made a series of recent changes to templates due to a CFD. However, while updateing the templates it is also moving the categories to the bottom of the page, which is correct for articles however in templates this is taking the categories outside of the noinclude tags which is undesireable with template specific categories as all pages including that template will then be including in the category also. e.g. [2]. Shiroi Hane 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gahhh I thought I had already addressed this issue ... guess not :-( Looks like I'll be committing another update to pyWikipediaBot soon. Thanks for catching this. --Cyde↔Weys 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible bug I noticed happened here. The bot deleted a comment out piece of maintenance code in the interwiki section. I'd copied that there to make interwiki copying and pasting faster. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, it didn't delete it, just moved it elsewhere. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stricly speaking, the commented code is the only bit that didn't move ;) Shiroi Hane 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent edits by User:Cyde

Moved from WP:ANI. Please always take concerns about user behavior to their talk pages in the first instance unless there is an urgent problem.

In his continuing pattern of admin abuse, Cyde has modified the templates Template:Ref and Template:Note to claim that those templates are deprecated, despite the lack of consensus, or even majority support, for such a position. This vandalism continues Cyde's efforts to unilaterally impose the use of the tool he wrote, RefConverter, even where it directly contraverts article consensus. If ever an admin desperately needed desysop'ing, this is the one. LotLE×talk 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are deprecated, though. RefConverter is the easiest way to convert articles to the new Cite.php. It's hardly vandalism. Will (^E_@) T 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! They are not deprecated. It's only been the essentially unilateral actions by Cyde that have attempted to create that false impression. The actuall guideline, Wikipedia:Footnotes says:

Footnotes are an excellent way to cite sources, but they are not the only way; some articles use inline links instead, or Harvard referencing. Also, Cite.php footnotes are not the only way to make footnotes. Many articles use templates to create footnotes. For more information, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, which is the main style guide on citations.

A substantial minority of editors prefer m:Cite.php, but that does not warrant vandalism of template pages out of WP:POINT. LotLE×talk 22:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see metrics for that, as I've always seen that most editors prefer Cite.php nowadays. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't show up in the articles, though. He put it in a <noinclude> tag. It isn't vandalism, and so I'ved edited the section title accordingly. -Splash - tk 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while Cyde's actions may have sparked controversy in the past, going around blatantly saying he is abusing his powers is not going to get matters anywhere. Your issues are much more likely to be taken seriously, no offense, if you calmly state what's wrong and give evidence through diffs and specific examples. Saying that he desperately needs desysopping can easily be interpreted as a personal attack or trolling, so you may want to be careful of your wording as well. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GASP! Shocking abuse! Who does this SOB think he is, writing tools and leaving informative instructions on templates! Bailiff, whack his peepee! KWH 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOLD IT! This court of law has no jurisdiction to whack people's peepees! Will (^E_@) T 22:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOST RECENT EDITS are more than a month old? Aren't we being a little misleading here? -- Drini 22:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how edits from ONE AND A HALF MONTHS AGO qualify as an "incident" on the administrator's noticeboard. And I hardly see how they are "vandalism". I think Lulu's account has been hijacked. --Cyde↔Weys 22:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also opposed to this deprecation. - FrancisTyers 22:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did make an error when I looked at the edit history. These bad edits by Cyde were indeed from a while back; I only noticed them when another editor pointed it out at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. But given there age, probably an "incident" isn't the right category of report. Nonetheless, they are bad, and the are an abuse of admin powers. LotLE×talk 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why bad? Just because you say so? And ever present the cries of "admin abuse" ? How is editing a page on wikipedia abuse. Have you heard of WP:OWN ? -- Drini 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, nevermind the trivial details, like that Cyde was right... FeloniousMonk 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Neither of these is a userbox. JDoorj a m Talk 23:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RepRap project

Hey!

The Wikipedia entry for the RepRap project, which I have been looking after and keeping up to date for the past few months, was apparently visited by your Cydebot. It left a message in the entry's history page dated 22 May saying...

(Robot - moving categories per WP:CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 11.)

Could you tell me what this means? It looks rather threatening. :-(

Plaasjaapie

It's not threatening at all. We have a process called Categories for deletion (CFD) that's in charge of deletion and renaming of categories. On May 11 a decision was made through that process to change the name of the category. That's all that this means. --Cyde↔Weys 13:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a busy talk page isn't it?

Y'ello. Just thought I'd say hello and wish you a good day. I can imagine all this controversy that seems to be latching on to you with a fishing poll must be a tad stressful, so I thought I'd give you a cookie . Don't let it bother you, and take a bite and relax. Happy editing! Cowman109^{Talk (yes, the smile guy)} 01:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi, I believe you have deleted Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Shivraj Singh / DPSingh. Your edit summary indicates that you have moved it to some other location. I am unable to find that location -- can you send me a link? Thanx in advance, ImpuMozhi 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved here. --Cyde↔Weys 16:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why is it that you can be really nice to other people, phrasing your "request" in the form of a question, being very polite, telling them to have a nice day, etc but when it comes right down to me, you're rude, "blunt", and demanding?

I'm wondering if you have the capacity to be consistent - nice to everyone or rude to everyone. Why do I deserve your wrath and not him, for example?

Don't worry, Cyde, I don't expect you to answer this. — Natha n ^(talk) 12:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to guess that you learned from your experience dealing with Nathan, and as a result, now try to make extra sure that your reqeusts sound polite. Is that right? Wh e re ^(talk) 16:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't change my actions any after dealing with Nathan. I just think Nathan has an altered perception of things which are focused on trying to get him to change his ways; he seems to find them more demeaning and derogatory than they actually are (if they are demeaning and derogatory at all). Nathan self-identifies as having some kind of mood disorder, and this modified response to suggestions seemingly impinging on one's self is a pretty typical symptom of some mood disorders. --Cyde↔Weys 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, with all due respect, you deserve a slap in the face. And I'll accept a warning for being incivil. You have insulted me, my "perceptions" and my mood disorder..what do you know of mood disorders? You're a philosophy student. Is there some connection between psychology and philosophy that I don't know? Please, do enlighten me. Now, since you don't know me, I'm going to spare the details. All through life, I knew there was something wrong with me. Psychological problems run in my family. My father committed suicide (no I don't want your pretend pity). So yes, I do have a mood disorder unless you are questioning my psychiatrist's qualifications, and questioning what I know. Exactly who the hell are you to come and tell others what I do and do not have, what my perceptions are and otherwise. You are not a trained psychiatrist/psychologist, and if you are, I would love to see your qualifications. You have absolutely no sensitivity to people with mental disorders. It is not an altered perception. It is what it is. I don't have to tell you my family history, so I will refrain from doing so. For your information, oh great philosophy student: A mood disorder has absolutely nothing to do with perception. It does has to do with the frequency and intensity of the person's mood.

Now about a mood disorder: I can't speak for anyone else with one, but if a situation came up that has someone say "x" and there are two ways to take it a) offensive b) AGF, I'm most likely to choose A because of my experiece of being attacked in the past. So yes, it does have something to do with my perceptions if you mean it in that context. Even in relationships, there's no way to tell how someone with a mood disorder may respond to communication, I know this from experience. If your comment wasn't an attack, please do let me know because it sure as hell sounds like one from where I sit.

It is not fair to judge anyone. Be a better person and stop this.

Now, as to the matter of the actual request itself, I believe you said, "Your signature is beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. Three images is beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. Please change it." You know as well as I do that "request" was a "DO IT NOW + please". It was an order, not a request and I don't take kindly to orders. You have been as nice as pie to others and actually explained why their signatures needed changing. You did not do so with me. "It's not acceptable" Why isn't it acceptable? Prove to me it's not acceptable. You didn't do this.

Block me for incivility for what I just said. I don't care. It needed to be said. — Natha n ^(talk) 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read it, it was not incivil. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to respectfully disagree with Nathan on this point. This is the comment that Cyde made on Nathan's userpage that triggered everything:

Willful disobedience of Wikipedia guidelines does not look good in a user. That means that people will not treat your opinions with as much respect, and you can pretty much kiss any chance of adminship good-bye.

Nathan responded by claiming that Cyde issued an order for him to change the sig and then accused Cyde of violating WP:DICK [3]. However, I do not think this interpretation was accurate. I personally view Cyde's comment however as a statement of what he believes to be WP policy and as an attempt to dissuade Nathan from violating what Cyde sees as policy. At worst, it could be seen as mildly uncivil in tone. (Note that I am not denying that Cyde's subsequent comments were quite uncivil). My point is that Nathan does occasionally overreact to situations, which is what Cyde stated. Hopefully, Nathan will address this so future conflicts don't come up as easily. Perhaps speculating on the nature of Nathan's mood disorder shouldn't have been made publically so as to not upset Nathan; however, I think it was an honest mistake on the part of Cyde. Please note that all criticism in this post is meant merely as constructive criticism :). Wh e re ^(talk) 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, please do review this addition to my userpage. I view speculative comments on my mood disorder (such as yours) as rude and incivil whether they were meant as such or not. If you have any questions about my mood disorder and how it affects me, please do ask me (I would rather you ask than see you jump to conclusions which may or may not be valid), as it's me we're talking about. Please ask questions or refrain from making such comments, which are not helpful and can be viewed as disruptive. Cheers. — Nathan ^(talk) 23:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Job for your bot- subst on spam series of templates

{{spam2}}, {{spam3}} and {{spam4}} are incorrectly named (they should be spam3,4,5 respectively). There has been talk for a long time about re-naming these, but first the existing ones need to be subst to prevent messages on talk pages changing. Could your bot do this? Cheers, Petros471 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm substituting them now. --Cyde↔Weys 16:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Am I right in thinking that the only things now showing up using the 'what links here' are linked like I did above, rather than placed as message on a talk page to a spammer? I.e. it's ok to go ahead with the moves? Petros471 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, go ahead with it. --Cyde↔Weys 19:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris Userbox

Dear Cyde, I noticed that after nominating the Chuck Norris Userbox for deletion (which failed) you seemed to have a change of heart and included a funny "fact" in the userbox. I think this showed good faith on your part and I apologize for every nasty thing I've ever said about you. Love, --FairNBalanced 07:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Cyde changed his mind in view of the wrath of Chuck Norris that was sure to descend on one who TfDed the CN userbox... Joe 06:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I found God. He was in Chuck Norris' stomach. --Cyde↔Weys 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection at Japanese spider crab

Japanese spider crab has been semi-protected for two weeks now. Is it time for the semi-protection to be revoked? --Stemonitis 10:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya caught me!

Argh, I woulda got away with it too, if it wasn't for those rascally kids and that dog. ;-) --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyde

Feel free to tell me to buzz off but, I posted this on Tony Sidaway's RfC 3:

Without disrespect whatsoever, Cyde, I'd appreciate if you'd consider changing your sig. I find the cursor to be disruptive. Thanks

Honestly, the sideways cursor bugs me a bit when I'm moving the mouse down the page. Appreciate if you'd consider changing it. Cheers and hope you're enjoying adminship -- Samir धर्म 15:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh ... disruptive? Really? What sense of that word are you using? I've never seen any disruption caused by my sig, whereas I can't say the same for a couple of other users ... Cyde↔Weys 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps disruptive was the wrong word. I guess I'm icon dependent and it takes more than a second for me to clue in when the sideways arrows come up. I agree that many other sigs are far more disruptive, but when I e-mailed less responsive editors about their sigs, all I got back was vitriol. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I also find it disruptive. Whenever my computer (which happens to not be the best computer in the world) scrolls the cursor over yuour signature, my computer tends to freeze for a few seconds as it searches for the right cursor (I use an alternative cursor set). This is especially disrupting when I scroll down pages. Thanks. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also experience the same chugging problem when you perform other activities in your interface that require cursor changes, like moving the mouse over a text box, resizing a window, mousing over a weblink, etc.? --Cyde↔Weys 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, as a matter of fact, I do not. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see a different cursor when mousing over my signature than you see when you move your mouse over a vertical edge of a resizable window? --Cyde↔Weys 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do. :-) Netscott 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What OS? Are you using any custom cursors? --Cyde↔Weys 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest version of Firefox on PowerPC version of OS 10.4.6 . The cursor looks like this:

<-|

On the latest version of Safari (same system) it looks like this:

<----

No custom cursors. Netscott 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign

Say, I was wondering, Cyde. I recall you promising up and down during your campaign for adminship that you were through with touching userboxes. What's the story on that? Just wondering what your side of that is, since as it is, it looks pretty damning. D. G. 07:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do I know you? --Cyde Weys 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er. No you don't; I don't believe we've directly interacted before, if that's what you mean. That's not the point. Do you not wish to disclose an answer to my query? D. G. 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered this, read further up on this page. --Cyde Weys 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have read through this page, and that isn't true. The closest I can find is a statement to the effect that you will follow through on your word and stop involving yourself with userboxes after all of your goals with respect to them are met. This isn't a question to the answer, it's a restatement of the question. I would not have wasted your and my time posting this question for your consideration if an answer were not already available for my consumption. Thank you, Cyde. D. G. 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this question to you seems to have come right before you did an archive of your talk page, so it was lost there. I've copied it here and my question stands as before. Thank you, Cyde. D. G. 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting rather sick of assumptions of bad faith. Every single time when I've archived my talk page, without fail, someone has accused me of doing it to cover something up. --Cyde↔Weys 21:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... The only bad faith assumption I see here is yours. DG just pointed out that the question had been lost in the archival. TheJabberwʘck^help! 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of his message makes it quite clear what he meant. And please, for the love of God, can you fix your sig?! --Cyde↔Weys 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you're both ABF'ing. By "fix," do you mean shorten? I'm about to transition to a new username, so I'm not gonna change it yet, except to remove the help part from the end. TheJabberwʘck 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do mean shorten. It's three lines long in my edit window ... it tends to overwhelm comments. Cutting out the various unnecessary font formatting would help reduce its size a bit. Look at my sig: it's just as colorful as yours, but it does it all inside of a single tag. --Cyde↔Weys 21:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As requested: not as short as yours, but not too bad either. Λυδ α cιτγ 04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to have answered the original question. CelestialRender 01:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wasn't implying that the archival had been done intentionally. The sentence would likely have been inverted, I think, were that the case ("You archived right after I made my question to you" rather than "I made my question to you right before you archived"). I'm sorry if this tends to happen to you a lot, but it's to be expected (by both you and me) and you should be used to it, seeing as you are someone with a high-traffic talk page. With so much talk, there is bound to be something going on anytime that you archive. As for "tone," we all know about the effectiveness of reading tone on the Internet. Retroactive pardon for any misunderstanding, then. Anyway, wonderful little thread of conversation here going (I might add that yes, that 3 line signature is obnoxious!), but I am still waiting for an answer to my original query... Thank you again, Cyde. D. G. 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume good faith and patiently repost this request for an answer. Thank you, Cyde. D. G. 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a poor time to start bugging me about this again. Change comes from within, not without. --Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit odd to call it bad timing, when you haven't responded in three weeks. Raphael1 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way to examine the situation before responding. --Cyde↔Weys 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 5th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 23	5 June 2006	About the Signpost

New revision-hiding feature added	Paper profiles Wales, slams Wikipedia business coverage
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	New external tools
News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line

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

CSD C3?

Does CSD C3 apply to templates that have not been deleted? —Ashley Y 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on what's colloquially being called "The German Solution". All of the templates are being deleted and recreated somewhere in userspace (in fact, I think all of the religion ones already have been). --Cyde↔Weys 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, you removed categories from templates that I had already "Germanised" into my space. But C3 says it only applies to deleted templates, while mine still exist in my space (and, I hope, are not threatened).

I'm not against removing all categories from User: space userboxes if that's how people think things should go, I just want to be sure of the process. —Ashley Y 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages in userspace are not templates. The templates were deleted, the categories should go. (Note that Cydebot was enlisted for this purpose, I'm trying to get out of this stuff actually). And yeah, it's definitely looking like getting rid of userbox categories is the way things are going. --Cyde↔Weys 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it's not a template. But C3 says "If a category is solely populated from a template..." which it isn't if it has my subpage in it. So C3 doesn't apply? (I'm referring to this edit.) —Ashley Y 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like Wikilawyering to me ... that category existed for many months and was populated solely by a template ... but because, a few days ago, you moved it into a user subpage, it suddenly no longer qualifies? I don't think that works. --Cyde↔Weys 01:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the point of C3 is that it applies to orphan categories: it's not populated by templates (because they've been deleted) and it's not populated by any other kind of page, so go ahead and delete it because it's not being used. This isn't the case here. —Ashley Y 01:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: political and religious user-categorizing The problem with the userboxes using categories is that it turns them from harmless cute little things into rallying-people tools. It's one thing to say "Hey I'm anti-mathematics" (to say something) and other different thing to turn such statement into a network of math haters which could be contacted for instance, vote stack at an AFD about mathematics and push the anti-math bias.

Here's a pearl of wisdom from [from the site's owner:

The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else. We actually are extremely tolerant about this, and I see no reason for us to change that. However, the issue with userboxes is that they are templates, and as such, they are categorized and easy to replicate and easy to use for campaigning and so on, and so they turn individual advocacy behavior, which is bad enough, into group campaigns.

so, removing such categorizing makes userboxes stand on a firmer ground and shuts down one of the antiuserbox arguments usually stated. -- Drini 01:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine, just don't call it CSD C3. —Ashley Y 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring

WHY do you have to censor peoples userboxes? Why can't you just calm yourself down and let people have userboxes on their pages? Raichu 01:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for chrissakes, if you're going to misrepresent things that badly I don't really feel any need to respond. --Cyde↔Weys 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cydebot removing cats

Cyde - check out [4] ... FYI ... when your bot substed categories, it seems to have badly messed up formatting. If you want to re-run it to remove all cats, that's fine. At some point, I might just have a macro do it - I have no use in being in all of those categories. If it isn't a trivial thing for your bot to remove all of them and it's causing a problem, feel free to just delete the pages on User:BigDT/Userbox Index. I thought it would be something useful to have a library of substed ubxen to assist if/when the German plan became the law of the land, but considering that nothing links here, I don't know that it's of any use. BigDT 03:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I think I just accidentally ran Cydebot with the experimental category-mode enabled :-O I did not mean to do that ... as you can see, it's not quite ready for primetime yet. --Cyde↔Weys 03:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ... no problem ... I've reverted the three pages that got messed up ... and if having links to non-existent categories causes a problem for anything, go ahead and wipe them ... I think having a copy of everything that existed before userboxes were moved would be useful, but it isn't anything to lose sleep over. BigDT 04:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just re-checked and I wasn't running Cydebot in experimental mode ... that was default category mode. It was built for articles, so it moves all of the categories to the bottom of the page for formatting reasons. Obviously this doesn't work so well for other things, so in the future I'm going to use AWB for removing template categories until I finish up with my experimental mode on pyWiki (which is designed to get around this problem). --Cyde↔Weys 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moe Epsilon/haha

Ya right! [5] ;-) Cheers! The King of Kings 05:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF!!! AGF!!! --Cyde↔Weys 12:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]