User talk:Cyde/Archive018

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

I was wondering why all the {{radiologo}} templates where changes to standard {{Non-free logo}} templates. The radiologo ones were essentially the same thing, but just said "radio logo" on them. I don't mind it, I am just curious. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please click through the link in the edit summary included in all such edits. --Cyde Weys 14:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but I didn't find anything about the radio logos. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if you understand the whole purpose of the template renaming in general, then it should be obvious what's going on with the radio logos. --Cyde Weys 21:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't. I just post the {{tvlogo}} or {{radiologo}} templates to radio/TV logo pages, I handle the radio and TV station and radio and TV logo side. The templates for those logos, I don't have much knowledge of. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is taken directly from the top of the page linked to from every relevant edit. It should explain what's going on:

For the purposes of consistency and automated identification, all non-free images on English Wikipedia must be directly tagged with a template that begins with the prefix "Non-free". This will enable automated tools to detect such images by matching on the wikitext for the regex "\{\{[Nn]on-free" or by consulting the templatelinks table in the database. Machine readability is required by the Wikimedia foundation licensing policy.

--Cyde Weys 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it is mostly just for bots. OK, that is cool. I kinda liked the ol' radio logo templates, but this works too:) Thanks for explaining it to me, I appericate it. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is also for humans. If the template is named "radiologo", the human applying it may not really understand that it isn't just a way to categorize radio logos; it's actually a fair use tag to declare non-free content. By putting "non-free" in the name of the very template that the human must apply, they can no longer be unknowledgeable of exactly what the tag means. Remember, Wikipedia's mission is to create a freely redistributable free content encyclopedia, and non-free content hinders that mission, so it must be used as sparingly as possible. Too many Wikipedians don't realize this. --Cyde Weys 00:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oooooh, OK, now I understand:) I have changed my "templates" that I use for fair-use rationales (where I include a logo template) so that I don't keep adding the incorrect template. Thanks again....NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot query

Hi Cyde! It appears that your deletion bot has removed this category, but it does not appear to have moved the relevant articles to the destination cat. Do you know what's up? >Radiant< 11:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, no idea. I see that the destination category itself is deleted and empty. Maybe if I saw the edit history on an article that was in this category I'd be able to figure it out, but right now, I don't seem to have a way of getting such a thing. --Cyde Weys 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In [1] and [2], KudzuVine (talk · contribs) moved articles from Category: Historic South Carolina Counties, Districts, and Parishes to Category: Former South Carolina Counties, Districts, and Parishes, and later created the third article in the category: [3]. Based on these edits and KudzuVine's comment in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 11#Subcategories of Category:Former subdivisions of countries, it appears KudzuVine chose a category name and moved all articles (meaning both of them) manually before the debate closed. So I guess Category: Historic South Carolina Counties, Districts, and Parishes was empty at closure. PrimeHunter 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, that explains it, thanks. Hm, he shouldn't have done that, the current cat is badly capitalized. >Radiant< 08:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop messing up my archives.

Is there any reason WHY you are reverting me inside my userspace? You have removed lots of archived comments [4] [5]. Please stop. -- Cat ^chi? 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Want to quit lying? I don't see me removing any archived comments in those diffs. --Cyde Weys 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cydebot and speedies

As you're probably already aware, Cydebot is not currently updating it's list of speedy deletion candidates. It is still operating, however.--Chaser - T 03:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, actually, I wasn't aware. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I think it may have something to do with the tremendous number of other edits that Cydebot is currently making. Once those are finished, which shouldn't take more than half a day, then I'm predicting that the updating of the listified categories should proceed as normal. --Cyde Weys 03:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, that thing is running hot. Thank god it's flagged.--Chaser - T 03:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you think it's bad now, you should've been around a couple months ago. Cydebot was editing at that rate continuously for at least a whole week. He made about 300,000 edits during the course of that run. --Cyde Weys 03:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

black people

Would it be ok to add my picture to the galley at black people? The title of the page seems to exclude me, but hey, that doesn't seem to stop some people from adding themselves to pages whose name excludes them anyway. -N 10:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not see the difference between fucking around with articles and fucking around with non-encyclopedic content? One is vandalism and the other is putting people involved with stupid things in their place. --Cyde Weys 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Corner.jpg

FYI, I restored this image. The non-free license tag was for an old version of the file. User:Pharmakon uploaded the current one with the declaration, "I give this file to the public domain." I subsequently deleted the first copyvio upload. Regards, howcheng {chat} 00:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, phew, good to know we weren't using a non-free image of a corner. Because if we were ... oh man ... Cyde Weys 00:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We were.. but someone else had already fixed it a while ago, but never updated the tagging. Never fear, there is other insane stuff where that came from, like Image:Bilateral_symmetry.png. --Gmaxwell 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page omnitrix twice and got a warning for it but i dont know witch one.

Bot run amok

Your bot has run amok again, see its talk page.Rlevse 11:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's so nice your mindless bot has causes us HOURS of fixing work to do. Next time leave us a notice before you something like this.Rlevse 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't be so dramatic. There's no bot run amok. It's working as intended. --Cyde Weys 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see your bot tried to put stuff in non-existent categories, wrong cats, etc. I don't call that working. Our template does more than generate a non-free tag. You should be more considerate of the work of others. Rlevse 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is after we've already fixed hundreds...

To find the mis-categorized images, click on these links:

• Category:BSA (completed)
• Category:BSAC (111 images)
• Category:BSAMB (129 images)
• Category:BSAP (12 images)Rlevse 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the non-free content tag you were using was broken then. Non-free media tags should not be categorizing images by subject. I'm sorry you guys have to go through and do a bit of work, but it's not my fault that, at some point in the past, someone mistook the non-free image template for something it wasn't. --Cyde Weys 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's from you breaking it not us as the cats in red there are cats your bot tried to create, and you should have had the common courtesy to let us know you wanted to mess with hundreds of our images. It's not my fault you can see your own faults. Bye.Rlevse 16:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, they're not "your" images; please see WP:OWN. WikiProjects do not exist in any official capacity and do not control any part of Wikipedia. Nobody is required to notify them of anything. --Cyde Weys 13:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A task?

Hi Cyde, Alison said you could help out with this, but not quite sure if suitable. Recently Irish Potato Famine was moved to Great Irish Famine. Wondering if your Bot could do the various changes. Then I can check them afterwards. About 150 changes to do. Thanks. GH 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "various changes" you speak of? You need to be specific. I'm not going to try to puzzle it out myself because I could easily be wrong, seeing as how you have much more familiarity with the subject than I do. --Cyde Weys 13:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it's just a name change, and the idea is to put in the new name in place of the old. I can do a check on them after as I have saved the list to my talk page. If there are snags involved then I can do manually. Slow and tedious. Thanks. GH 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "name change"? Unfortunately that's kind of vague. I'm going to take a guess and say I think you're referring of renaming all of the links in other articles that lead to this page? Or are you just talking about bypassing redirects (something we don't normally do)? --Cyde Weys 14:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, renaming the links from Irish Potato Famine to Great Irish Famine as the main article was so changed about 3 weeks ago, but it would also have the effect of bypassing Irish Potato Famine, which is now a redirect to Great Irish Famine. I understand about being careful with the Bots. If you think it's risky, maybe it's better do it manually. GH 14:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism attempts

We recently receive a notice that one of the users on "users.macerich.com" has vandalized a page (Noob Saibot). It is safe for you to block this IP Address from editing your wiki to prevent vandalism attempts to your site: our users are employees of Macerich Company and should be using company internet resources for their work only. While we do not block Wikipedia from their machines, there should be no reason for our users to have edit capability to your site. 208.24.252.14 02:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Bil_Dwyer.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Bil_Dwyer.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 07:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

JWJW has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--JWJW ^Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 07:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this trolling? It sure seems like it. --Cyde Weys 20:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WP:OP

Any guide on helping out this project? Seems like it's got some work that needs done. Q ^T C 06:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Identification

Out of curiosity, are you the Cyde Weys that has long posted on talk.origins? Digwuren 11:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that'd be me. I take it you're from talk.origins? Sorry, I don't recall the name "Digwuren"; did you post as something else on there? --Cyde Weys 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly lurk, actually. I think my last post is now two or three years old. Digwuren 01:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia template

Hi Cyde. Your bot just replaced {{insignia}} with {{Non-free logo}} on Image:Flag of Colonial Jamaica.png. What's the meaning of that? --Himasaram 08:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the page linked in the edit summaries of every edit. --Cyde Weys 23:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atomofish

So you warned him? Subsquent to your warning I note a few more 'problem' images. :( , Have not 'cleaned' back the messages on the talk page as I am doing on others Sfan00 IMG 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't uploaded anything in nearly a year, which is way before the warning I left, so there isn't much to do. He uploaded a lot of problem images before anyone properly spoke to him about it. --Cyde Weys 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My prognosis

G'day!
I appreciate you were only trying to be helpful, but I would appreciate it if you didn't remove or change my comments on my own user talk page.
Especially when other's had already responded to them in sections below.
Your removal of my comments left several other editor's contributions meaningless and without context.
The rationale for my stance is provided here, if you'll forgive the impertinence in providing links to someone that may just have written the original guideline: [6]

The other aspect of all this is that it is really up to my surgeons and other medics to comment on how long I expect to be around and not for you, since I really don't see how you know my prognosis better than I do. Since this is rather a sensitive subject, I would request that any further comment you have to make on this topic is either made here or by e-mail and not on my user talk page. Thanks in advance for your co-operation on this particular point.

Finally, if you thought that it was inappropriate for me to flag an erratic Wikibreak, then my condition means that I may suddenly require doses of morphine that make it very suddenly impossible to edit or respond. Thank you for your understanding and God bless!...Gaimhreadhan ^(kiwiexile at DMOZ)talk • 02:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Logo uploading troubles

I uploaded a few logo of French political parties- some defunct (such as RPR, MRP) and some exisiting (Lutte ouvriere, CAP21) and ran into problems with a bot complaining about some thing I don't understand such as 'non-free' or something else (see his messages on my talk page) and other pages I read are useless on that matter for me. Could you explain in a comprehensible manner?

I notice it's becoming a hell lot harder to upload images- if it continues i'll find somewhere else to contribute, because all these problems are wasting my time. Sorry

answer on my talk page please. --Petrovic-Njegos 19:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Talk:Meerkat Manor

Do you really mean to suggest that there are not people to whom the revelation that the Iraq War turns out poorly would be a surprise? Thank God that it is unlikely that certain of those people should ever have occasion to happen upon something so academically text-heavy as an encyclopedia.  :) Joe 06:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meerkat Manor/spoilers

Why do you beleive that there shouldn't be spoilers? I realy don't care but it's just that meerkat manor isn't a documentary, it's not a drama either it's both. It's a docudrama. So some people think of it as a documentary and don't see why there are spoilers. And some see it as a drama and need spoilers for it. So why not let the people who see it as a drama and want spoilers have them? After all the meerkat manor article was listed as a documentary/drama. So I would say let them have the spoilers and if you don't like them then just ignore them. I'm only saying this because I don't want to have to deal with another nasty edit war and get everyone who needs to put something on there can't. If you have anything to say to me about this then please tell me on my talk page. Thank you--Mattkenn3 19:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007

The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Request for Input

Hello. As an admin previous involved in the Gastrich [7] affair, I wonder if you would be so kind as to weigh in on the Kearny High School, San Diego [8], talk page and the inclusion of one of Mr Gastrich's privately-owned domain sites as a reference for the page. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

GFDL/GFLD

You left me a note which I believe was intended for User:Hyperbole.

RandomCritic 02:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Xaosflux and BJAODN

Technically, I think he only undeleted about half the subpages. I did about half (rough guess) before noticing that the DRV was up to speed and stopping pending that. Georgewilliamherbert 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thanks for telling me. I looked at a couple subpages at random and all were undeleted by Xaosflux, but I guess my sample was either non-random or my sample size was too small. --Cyde Weys 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice, I've placed a statement on the WP:RFARB. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know this incident is stressing a lot of people out, but you've snapped at Ricky pretty badly on the DRV page. He doesn't deserve that, he surely hasn't done anything wrong here. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're mistaken. I'm not stressed out about it, he does deserve it, and he has done something wrong. --Cyde Weys 12:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted category

You deleted the category for All-America Cities, with the following summary: "22:51, 12 May 2007 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:All-America City" (Robot - Removing category All-America City per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 3.)" However, I don't actually see a discussion about that category on that page. What am I missing? (Not trying to be sarcastic-- I was seriously interested in seeing the discussion and I can't find it.) DCB4W 00:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a discussion, but I can find the person who caused that category to be deleted. You should ask him for further information. --Cyde Weys 01:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War Help

Hello, I was wondering if it would be possible for you to take a look at an edit war that is going on at Gary Peters (Michigan politician). The main part of the dispute revolves around the "Central Michigan Controversy" area and is especially related to WP:RS. I do not believe the "Central Michigan Monitor" which is a blog published by the Young Americans for Freedom at Central Michigan, is an example of NPOV. A unregisterd user with slight different IP addresses continues to edit the page to include information from this website. Michiganpolitics 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Cat:Kyle XY

It's baaaaa-aaaack! Wanna delete and salt it? Otto4711 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link for quoting re last discussion is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_11#Category:Kyle_XY.

I've left an explanation on the author's talk page. Sorry I omitted to do that last time. - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, re-deleted. Hopefully now that you've left him a message he'll know not to recreate it. I really hope blocking doesn't become necessary. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All Wikipedian by political ideology categories

Could you explain why you came to speedy delete these categories when this was specificaly rejected in previous discussion and then rejected in a FULL discussion just a few months ago? Were you not aware of these previous discussions? Galloglass 12:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you are talking about when you say "speedy delete"? --Cyde Weys 13:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, just to cut down the number of cycles before you understand what's going on, I'm going to respond with an answer. The CFD process is supposed to take five days. These political categories were deleted in six days. If anything, that is a late delete. The discussion was completely valid; go read it and you'll see the valid arguments made for deletion. Pretty much the only argument for keeping it was "but it's too soon since the last debate to delete it!" — well, evidently it's not. --Cyde Weys 13:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not having been affected by this myself, I still have to point out that that looks a lot more like "No consensus" than a clear delete vote. Nobody bothered to give evidence of the canvassing accusation, so that reason to delete isn't completely valid, and since both the last CfD and its related DRV seem to have voted Keep, that again weighs in the direction of "No consensus" at worst.--SarekOfVulcan 13:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can possibly come to a conclusion of "no consensus". There were no real reasons for keeping it and lots of good reasons for deleting it. On a personal note, I have seen these kinds of categories used for canvassing. I used to keep a huge list of lots of userboxes on a test page, and every so often I'd get a message on my talk page or an email from someone who was canvassing everyone either using the userbox or the associated category. Some of the messages were benign, albeit spammish, like "Join my external site!", whereas others were recruiting people to rally to specific discussions that were subsequently derailed. --Cyde Weys 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I am asking is that you read the previous discussion and reconsider your actions. Twice in the past few months there has been a STRONG KEEP concensus. There was no 'deletion discussion notice' posted on ANY of these categories to let anyone know that this was being reviewed again so soon. This was even mentioned in the most recent discussion by some of those in favour of deletion. Galloglass 15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may weigh in, I must say that previous discussions do not matter (unless they're only a few days prior). Please remember that consensus can change and indeed it had. The only reasons advocated to keep the categories in that discussion were either variations of WP:ILIKEIT or "it's too soon since the last debate", neither of which are very good reasons to keep. Those advocating deletion raised real concerns (such as being used for canvassing, as Cyde mentioned above, and issues with WP:NOT) that were never refuted by those advocating to keep it. The numbers are arguably close, but remember that xFDs are not a vote. I believe Cyde was well within his administrative discretion in closing this debate. ^demon^[omg plz] 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out Demon, all the arguments for deletion were refuted in the previous discussion. Please go and look at that discussion. Its easy to find as it involves several times the number that contributed to this new discussion. On a personal note I might add that this is my final contribution to wikipedia, so disheartened am I by this bit of sharp practice thats been conducted here. Galloglass 19:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will go back over the old discussions and re-consider them. On a different note, it would be a terrible shame if you were to leave Wikipedia over this. User categories don't matter. The only thing that really matters here is the encyclopedic content. You can see why I don't like user categories to begin with if they cause distractions like these that eventually lead to blow-ups and people leaving. But leaving the useless categories around with all of the canvassing they promote wouldn't be good either. --Cyde Weys 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, unless I missed a statement from you (which is quite possible), I believe that you added a party to the case without actually commenting on it, except in the edit summary. (This is somewhat unusual, but no one seems to be objecting.) Anyway, I'm providing you this pro forma notice of the case opening, although I doubt you would have missed it in any event. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yup, I'm definitely aware of it. I already had all of the RFAR subpages watchlisted before this notice arrived. As for me adding a party to the dispute without making a comment, I submit that the inclusion of Xaosflux in the RFAR was obvious and mainly a oversight by the original, who didn't realize that George only undeleted half of the subpages, the other half being undeleted by Xaosflux. --Cyde Weys 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

skim reading

Skim reading affects comprehension. WAS 4.250 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I read everything you said, I just think your view that WP:NLT covers all possible scenarios regarding attempted revocation of the GFDL is overly idealistic. --Cyde Weys 18:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

C++ examples

You were the original creator of this page, and I thought I should let you know that I have nominated it for deletion at AFD. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me, but I shall not be protesting its deletion. I created that article way back in 2003, before I knew a tenth the things about Wikipedia that I know now. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Animal births

Thanks for letting me know about that. What I think I'll do is put them under the year category. That was I thought of doing first, but looking at animal deaths I saw that most of those had been placed under <year> deaths. Those will need to be moved too, as for example [9] all I had done was sort the category rather than put in the 2007 deaths. Tim! 06:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved those which were still in the human deaths category into the year category and left a comment on each one so noone makes the same mistake :) Tim! 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --Cyde Weys 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo!

What's Up! Cyde Normalmichael 23:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not bad, what's up? Who are you, by the way? This seems slightly random. --Cyde Weys 23:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Curious About Your Bot

He made this edit to this and some other images I have uploaded. Is there something wrong with the images or where I got them? -WarthogDemon 01:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click the link in the edit summary of the diff you just linked to. --Cyde Weys 02:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the first time but somehow had overlooked the insanely obvious. I did a second time and now figured it out. Thanks and sorry for bothering ya. Cheers! -WarthogDemon 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exxon valdez

why did you fully protect the exxon valdez oil spill article? Randomfrenchie 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned on The Colbert Report and history seems to indicate that anything mentioned on that show is heavily vandalized. Don't worry, the protection will end soon. --Cyde Weys 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you just say this in the edit summary? It would seem appropriate to mention why, rather than "here we go again" and "you know why", the summaries you left for Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and ExxonMobil, respectively. Not everyone owns a TV. As there was a broken link on ExxonMobil, I've had to do a protected edit request to get around this, and I'm a little annoyed. Pro crast in a tor 06:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I think all admins are more than a little jaded of Colbert's antics & the whole silly memes thing. It's just a lot of hard work for us & it really is a case of "here we go again" - Alison ☺ 06:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you were inconvenienced from editing for a few days, but as Alison says, it really is a case of "here we go again" (and I nearly used that as one of the protection messages). Since I protected within 10 seconds of said segment airing, there's no real way to know whether I actually did prevent a good bit of vandalism, or if it was unnecessary. Oh well. Just remember, Wikipedia has no deadline, so you have all the time you need to fix up the article now. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion

Ummm... how come you're using an essay as justification for deleting a category. Isn't there supposed to be a vote or discussion or something before you can do that? Or am I misconstruing something?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, practically speaking, what effect does deleting a category before actually emptying it have? Doesn't it just change the font color of the Category name from blue to red?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come you're so vandal-obsessed? That category was deleted awhile ago by consensus and its recreation was a mistake. --Cyde Weys 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the deletion discussion? I don't doubt you; I'm just having trouble finding it myself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone restored the category (it wasn't me, I swear). Better show them what's what. Did you ever find that past discussion, btw?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin talk page...

What on earth is this all about??? Georgewilliamherbert 00:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your eyes pealed on WP:ANI, I'm preparing a post. --Cyde Weys 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the edit histories for all the claimed abuses that Bagley called out. The only violation of WP:SOCK, assuming that the two accounts are related, is the dual votes on Featured article candidates/Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. All the other edits were innocuous, even if they're socks. They weren't really 3RR, supporting each other to create false consensus, etc. For the most part they were all unrelated editing.

I am assuming here that there weren't more edits in there which were later oversighted, but the dual voting seems to be the only actual WP:SOCK violation to stand up to examination. Georgewilliamherbert 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you accidentally undo someone's AN/I edit?

Cyde, with reference to this edit, did you unintentionally undo someone else's unrelated edit? I was going to revert because you didn't mention anything in your edit comment about reverting that other unrelated comment, and it appears to be a botched edit conflict (or something), but I wanted to check with you first. ATren 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the editor who originally posted it reposted. ATren 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's bizarre. I have no idea how that happened. And yeah, obviously, that was goof. If I'm ever meaning to remove someone else's comments in an edit, I state an explanation for it in the edit summary. --Cyde Weys 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured it was a glitch or you would have mentioned it in the edit comment. I think I've seen this once before, so maybe it's a bug in the software. In any case, no harm done. ATren 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack site

Cyde, if you persist posting links to attack sites, you will be blocked. Please stop. Thanks, Crum375 00:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's posting important evidence for a case that quite frankly, could make the Essjay controversy look like a tempest in a teacup. Respectfully, I see no problem with what he is doing. SirFozzie 00:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and reposted the link. A block over this would frankly be out of order. Majorly (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He can provide evidence without linking to an attack site. Crum375 00:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a block would be wildly inappropriate here. Seraphimblade ^Talk to me 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence ≠ attack site. If the page said "SlimVirgin sucks" (in more explicit terms), I'm sure Cyde wouldn't have linked it. Please drop it Crum375. ⇒ SWATJester ^Denny Crane. 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it says something critical about a Wikipedian does not automatically make it an attack site. It's not. You need to get over this naive view that everything can always be solved simply by sweeping it under the rug, pretending it didn't happen, and then threatening to block whoever brought it up. These revelations of SlimVirgin are hugely important and you can't simply make that go away by trying to suppress the link. --Cyde Weys 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of ExxonMobil

Hi Cyde, it looks like you've protected ExxonMobil with the reason "you know why". Actually, I don't, and I've been the most active editor there the past few days, and there have been no reverts to my edits. I've been reducing redundancy and reorganizing, I don't think it's anything contentious. So, um, what's up? Did you mean to do it? I'm going to request that it be unprotected as I see nothing untoward happening. Pro crast in a tor 04:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected - Please give Cyde an opportunity to reply - Alison ☺ 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do, Alison. One possibility is that ExxonMobil just appealed to the Supreme Court, which is no surprise there as the 90 day deadline was today. It doesn't seem to be a good reason to protect the page to me, as this isn't a big news event, just another chapter in a 14 year legal battle. Pro crast in a tor 05:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me. It was mentioned on The Colbert Report, and sometimes when that's happened in the past, pages become a target for vandalism. My cryptic protection message was a form of WP:DENY. I've removed the protection now. --Cyde Weys 12:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Mr. Colbert doesn't care (and will never know) if you acknowledge him or not in your edit summary. I could agree with semi-protection to avoid the anons, but full protection still seems unjustified. Whatever. Pro crast in a tor 13:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointed

So, based on your comment here, your subsequent post at AN/I indicates that "springing" this, well incredible evidence (pun) of sockpuppet activity by SlimVirgin, (what 2 to 3 years ago!!!!) seems to have been done for malicious purposes. We are talking about edits made a long time ago..and there are pretty few as well, no? So, you post that to discredit someone that you have had numerous disagreements with. I see...I am very disappointed, but frankly, I am not surprised...the longer I watch the noticeboards, the more they start to look like WR and ED, thanks in no small part to your latest contribution.--MONGO 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. That you were crowing about it in advance, can't help but lead one to ponder the motivation behind your choice of forum for this "expose". SV isn't perfect, but knowing fine well the unhealthy interest others take in her, she of all people deserves the courtesy of an email to check this isn't a huge misunderstanding before hanging her out to dry. You have done yourself, and our project, no favors here. Rockpocket 08:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first comment on her talk page was utter disgust at learning what she had been up to. Then, realizing what I had learned, I couldn't keep it quiet, and decided it would eventually be brought to community discussion anyway, so why not centralize it. "SV isn't perfect" is a freaking understatement. I guess you don't know what happens to editors who get in her way, but I've tasted it. It typically involves an intimidation campaign, both on-wiki and through email, coming from her and her friends. It didn't work on me, but it has worked on many others. You've seen it happening, admit it. We don't have to put up with it any more, especially now that even more wrongdoing by SV has been revealed. At some point you need to ask yourself: are you going to support her, or the site? No one deserves your infinite, unwavering loyalty, especially as more and more misdeeds come to light. --Cyde Weys 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure seems like you're justifying an attack, rather than providing evidence of wrongdoing, like you have an axe to grind no matter the issue. For a single case of apparent sockpuppeting, there are dozens of plausible situations I can think of having to do with shared computers. If there's more than that, show your cards. (btw, I'm completely uninvolved in this, and WP:DGAF) .Pro crast in a tor 13:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His message on SV's page aside, the posting on AN/I was not an attack at all. He was obviously dismayed at the charge (which seems to be true) but he just put it out there for others to judge. In my case, I was pretty shocked when I saw clear evidence of a double vote, so I can't say I blame Cyde for reacting the way he did. Now, with perspective and lots of discussion, it appears the overall transgression was not as serious as it initially appeared to be (though an explanation from SV would be nice), but I don't think we should make the mistake of blaming Cyde for bringing this to everyone's attention. ATren 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing it to everybody's attention was fine but I would prefer to have seen evidence that you had discussed it with SV first. --John 18:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has already extensively been discussed in private. --Cyde Weys 19:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

This ANI thread is discussion your actions. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 13:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Isn't it fun that we get to go through this one again? --Cyde Weys 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, there's been a discussion on WP:BN about your bot, and Deskana says that an RfA should be filed. I'd love to do the honors, but I'd rather see what you think about it. Maxim_(talk) 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information

Per WP:HARASS, I am entitled to change my username and not have my real name mentioned on Wikipedia. Please respect that policy. THF 18:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are requesting is impossible. It's like trying to shatter a vase that's been broken into a million pieces. If you do value anonymity, you'll need to start over from a new user account. But you can't just make everyone go "la la la la we don't know who you are" — it's absurd. We all do. And there's something very fishy about a Federalist Society lawyer wanting to go undercover so he can continue perverting Michael Moore's articles. Your best course of action would just be to stay away from articles where you have a clear conflict of interest. --Cyde Weys 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a COI. See WP:COI/N#Sicko. And you are violating Wikipedia polciies by repeatedly posting my identity on Wikipedia. Are you go to abide by the policy, or do I need to go to Arbcom? THF 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? You say it's fishy for him to go undercover, but that's what you're demanding him to do. Don't you think it's much easier to monitor his COI on the THF account? Do you actually want him to get a new one? Incidentally, how does he have a COI with Michael Moore? Wouldn't almost all published conservatives have a COI by your reasoning—any one who has written and unkind word about Moore? Cool Hand Luke 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a lawyer, so let me use a legal analogy. Surely you're familiar with the law regarding trade secrets? The only way trade secrets are protected is by keeping them secret. Once they are made available publicly, they are no longer trade secrets, and do not enjoy any protections. To protect trade secrets, they must be kept secret. Similarly, you have lost your anonymity by giving away who you are. It's not like you were outed by Michael Moore; you said very explicitly, who you are. It's even logged on site. You only keep your anonymity by — surprise surprise — remaining anonymous. Now that your conflict of interest has been pointed out and you see the value of remaining anonymous, you'd like to be anonymous, but that opportunity is gone.

And yeah, threaten to go to ArbCom to put the genie back into the bottle. ArbCom can't do the impossible. --Cyde Weys 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information expressly forbids Wikipedia users from doing what you're doing even if the genie is out of the bottle. Just like you can't post SlimVirgin's real name on Wikipedia, you can't post mine. This has nothing to do with offsite. It has to do with your on-site behavior. THF 19:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're being utterly illogical, and I don't take illogical requests seriously. And the huge difference between SlimVirgin and you is that she never gave away who she was. --Cyde Weys 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THF's name

Regardless of whether he's revealed it before, you should not be using it now. This is clearly stated in WP:HARASS. Please refrain from doing it in the future. ATren 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse that request. To keep doing so is a clear violation of WP:HARASS:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This . . . also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. (emphasis added)

He changed name. He removed personal information from his user page. Some time later, he asked an administrator to delete the history of his page. It's very inappropriate to have people constantly pointing out where to find his old name, or posting links to the rename logs. Please stop doing it. ElinorD (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even without WP:HARASS, it should seem uncivil. I would do not appreciate, for example, being called a Mormon in threads as a way of disparaging edits that comply with policy. Cool Hand Luke 20:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once he's made the revelation, the information is out there. More than one person has been bitten by their previous personal revelations on WP; we've even lost an administrator after someone scraped together a dozen personal comments she made over a two-year period, deduced her true identity, and threatened her. Mr Frank is out of luck. DS 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmhmm. No one will forget who he is, but it would be nice if admins were exemplars of civility. Cool Hand Luke 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I really don't see anything uncivil in Dragonfly's comment. --Cyde Weys 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most decent people would find it uncivil to unnecessarily use someone's surname after he has made it clear that he wishes people to refer to him by his user name. It's not as if editors normally go round referring to each other as Mr and Mrs. That gratuitous reference to a surname was certainly not a model of ideal behaviour from an administrator. ElinorD (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's uncivil, don't go near a television ... Cyde Weys 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're behaving in a way that you know annoys him for no conceivable encyclopedia-building purpose. At the least, this is uncivil. Cool Hand Luke 01:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys (except for Dragonfly) aren't seeing the forest for the trees. "THF" has no anonymity on Wikipedia. He never did. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. And trying to forbid people from linking to articles he's written that have a direct bearing on how "neutral" he can be while editing anything related to Michael Moore simply won't work. What's important here is considering how Wikipedia should deal with his editing of articles that he has a direct conflict of interest over. --Cyde Weys 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THF doesn't fit the usual reason we don't allow real names to be used on-wiki after renames. The usual scenario is that someone has used their real name and wants to change it because they fear consequences in real life for their editing off-wiki. We have been forceful in defending this right, and I think we should continue to uphold that. But this situation is very different. THF doesn't fear off-wiki reprisals if his name is made known, he objects to the on-wiki consequences of his name being made known. I am not sure how we should respond to that, but it isn't a clear case of WP:HARASS. WjBscribe 21:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that THF merely editing Michael Moore is not in itself a COI - there must also be evidence that he is editing abusively. It's not POV pushing if you are making the article more neutral via citation requests and well-sourced edits, and I've yet to see a single piece of evidence that THF has been abusive in any way. If he had registered anonymously, nobody would question his edits, so I fail to see why we should be criticising him for admitting who he is. ATren 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked several times by several people, including admins, not to violate WP:HARASS. There is certainly no consensus that you can do so. Yet you WP:STALKed me and did so with an edit-war edit to reveal personal information, presumably in violation of WP:POINT. I have opened a thread on WP:AN/I. THF 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, there was no edit warring. Nice mis-characterization though. And citing random inapplicable pages like WP:POINT isn't helping your case. I can do it too, see? By saying "presumably in violation of WP:POINT", you are yourself violating WP:AGF. --Cyde Weys 23:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've apologized at WP:VPP#THF. As someone noted at ANI, I hope you can understand why I was upset at the indiscriminate undeletion of the history; I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia policy of undeletion, so did not realize there could be a good-faith reason to restore that history. THF 16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And I apologize for not reading the content more carefully before restoring it. I had assumed it was merely an article deleted on notability grounds, but it looks like a vandal got to the later versions of it. --Cyde Weys 16:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please avoid saying thinks to other editors like "lying out your ass." [10] You'll do much better if you maintain civility. All it takes is waiting a few moments before hitting "save page." - Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if someone is lying out their ass and accusing me of terrible things that I've never done, then I'm going to call it as I see it. Instead of whining at me, why don't you go tell him to stop making false accusations? --Cyde Weys 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet strangely here you are still trying to force a users name out in the open again, you are violating WP:HARASS stop! YOU can't publish private info of a wikipedian who wants to remain private.^(Hypnosadist) 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a private individual, that's the thing. He identified himself and he's notable enough to have an article about him. Quit harassing me with false accusations of harassment. --Cyde Weys 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know he changed his User name to get anonimity back. Re-read WP:HARASS. ^(Hypnosadist) 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "get anonymity back", and changing one's username still doesn't change the fact that he is a published, public person. If nothing else, the disclaimer at the top of Talk:Ted Frank needs to remain to prevent potential violations of WP:AUTO. --Cyde Weys 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who knew?

I'm sure it wasn't your main intent but your stock is going through the roof at WR. What a turnaround, it's nice to see your work appreciated! Westwindrain 04:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that wasn't my intention. I'm just doing what I think is good for Wikipedia, and for once, maybe we are seeing eye-to-eye. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it reminds me a little of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"....it's all a little mercenary for me. But another couple weeks and it won't matter. Westwindrain 05:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wheee, what happens in another couple weeks? I can confirm that nothing will be changing with my situation in a couple weeks. Maybe you know something I don't? --Cyde Weys 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In two weeks? Same thing that always happens, the bad blood will still be here but everyone will have moved on to the next outrage. Westwindrain 05:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, of course, but that's a given. Dare I say Wikipedia has grown too much? It's not nearly as tight-knit and cohesive as it used to be. Give us a few more years at this rate and we'll be no better than real world politics. And you know how ugly that gets. It's a shame. Wikipedia was special there, for awhile. But WP:CIVIL is an utter joke. --Cyde Weys 05:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll tell you what's an utter joke, WP:Battle. It's been ground into dust and otherwise well intentioned editors get drawn into disputes that are just quagmires. Real world disputes involving politics, conspiracy theories, ethnic and nationalistic factions are becoming way more disruptive than even a year ago. It was happening then but not to this level of intensity or frequency. And it's only going to get worse. As far as WP:Civil goes, we've slowly redefined it as not actually calling someone a [insert vile insult here]. Wanna be snide, sarcastic or poisonous to someone, go right ahead. It's dying the death of a thousand cuts. And to be honest, you've put more than a few of them in yourself. But, as you say Wikipedia is a victim of it's own success. It's gotten too big and the center is starting to break apart. Westwindrain 15:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Real world politics is a battleground, and thus, that's what Wikipedia is becoming. We don't have a two-party system, but there are very obviously factions who are warring with one another. I'm not as pessimistic as you are though. I don't think Wikipedia will collapse, it will merely morph into a different form of governance that is more like real world governments. Optimistic (and perhaps naive) policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, WP:AGF, etc., will die out, and one can easily argue that they are already mostly dead. It will be a battleground, but it will not stop running. It won't really even affect how the site is viewed by outsiders, either. Nobody cares about internal politics. Just trying to find out about internal politics is overwhelming. There are so many pages that need reading. --Cyde Weys 16:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Seal}}

Cyde, is your bot meant to do this? The seal is obviously not a logo, and I didn't understand why it is being renamed "per Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates". Cheers. --DarkFalls ^talk 10:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A seal can be considered a type of logo, I think, since it serves to identify a particular organization / government / entity. However, it doesn't seem good that a bot ends up engaging in edit-warring; aren't those things supposed to be programmed to be smarter than that? If somebody reverts a bot, further action should be taken by humans, not by the bot repeatedly. *Dan T.* 15:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that image tagged with a "Non-free" tag when it also indicates that it is in the public domain (with restrictions)? --Iamunknown 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. Found Image:Westvirginiastateseal.jpg --Iamunknown 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space opera

Cydebot changed Category:Space opera to Category:Space operas. This clearly isn't right, at least as far as the Scientology-related articles go, because in that context it is "Space Opera" as an overarching term, whether singular or plural, never "Space Operas". wikipediatrix 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it looks like the scientology-articles were put into the wrong category. I don't know what the hell "Space Opera" is in the context of scientology and I don't want to know anymore about that particular cult than what I learned about Xenu on South Park, but the category that was moved over was the non-scientological category of space operas in the traditional sense. By the way, Hubbard perverts the classic scifi phrase "space opera" to mean something pseudo-religious and people are rushing to give him money hand over fist like he's some sort of genius? I don't get it. --Cyde Weys 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Let's discuss it

I'd like to discuss with you the block you put on me. I don't think the block was justified, and I think you could have taken another approach. (I don't think I took the right approach either, although I was trying.) Would you discuss the matter with me, civillly, on my talk page? (I'm not interested in an emotional argument.) Noroton 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GMU Fairfax Campus

Hi Cyde, I see that George Mason University Fairfax Campus links to your prod list. I've removed the prod and set the page as a redirect to the main article. Seems the page was a copy of info already on the main GMU article. If you feel the redirect is errenous. let em know. i'll watch this page. Cheers, --DBishop^1984 18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

British English: "connexion"

Dear User:Cyde, I wish that you had looked at the discussion page for Pith helmet - because, if you had, you would have noticed that User:SigPig had already dealt with the spelling "connexion". It's not inventive, it's (standard) British English. (It also has the advantage, along with words such as "inflexion", "reflexion", etc., that it has one less letter to write (or, indeed, type). Since the article started in, and continues to be in, British English, I've simply changed it back. Please: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ... Hair Commodore 20:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of these words being spelled with xs in them, and I asked around before making that edit too, and nobody else had heard of it, either. Are you really sure that it's "standard" British English? We've all heard of "colour" etc., but not "connexion". --Cyde Weys 20:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the Oxford English Dictionary, or its Shorter cousin; or one of many books on English usage in Britain. (Examples: Fowler's The King's English, or Eric Partridge's Usage and Abusage). I've changed it back on the Pith helmet page, and pointed to the connexion page too ... Hair Commodore 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Connexion" is a perfectly correct but very old fashioned alternative spelling of "connection" in Britain. Modern useage in the UK is normally "connection" and I see that someone has reverted the spelling in the Pith helmet article to this (along with a suitably sardonic comment). 210.246.16.195 05:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When these debates come up, we should always remember there's a wiktionary right down the hall. In this case, it confirms that "connexion" was standard British English until a few years ago but seems to be yielding to "connection" more recently. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it sounds like this isn't a color/colour kind of debate. Connection definitely seems to be preferred, so there's no reason to be reverting on articles to keep around ones preferred, but not often used, variant. --Cyde Weys 21:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about merging categories

Hi Cyde. Thank you for performing the routine tasks needed for deleting Category:Scania. Quick question: Can the categories Scania and Skåne (the Swedish name for the province) be merged and if so. what's the procedure to accomplish this? The Scania article has been changed from Skåne to Scania several times. On 21 August 2005, Category:Scania was changed to Category:Skåne (or rather replaced by Category:Skåne). So right now the main article is Scania and the category is back to Skåne again. To avoid all this back and forth (and to avoid having the Scania category used by some other commercial enterprice with Scania in their name), I think Category:Scania needs to be recreated and merged with Category:Skåne. But reading the help page, I'm not sure I understand whether or not it is possible to merge categories. Does it mean just placing a template on the page? Maybe I created extra work now by not requesting a merge at the time of the speedy rename request? Best wishes, Pia 02:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to go would be the Categories for discussion process. You can propose a merge/rename there. Just be sure to give a good explanation like you gave here. --Cyde Weys 02:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. Thank you Cyde. Pia 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkiersBot comment

You stated: "There's absolutely no point to it. All it does is spew talk page templates."

No point?

1. Most projects have people that look for articles that are connected to their project via these templates. Not necessarily going to the multiple stub (& recursed) categories.
2. Projects also have "task forces" that deal specifically with stub classes and evaluation of articles. Without an initial tagging of the article "class=stub", they're not aware that the article needs their attention.
3. Projects also have "task forces" that deal specifically with articles that are not rated via importance. If there's no "importance=<null>", the articles are not brought to their attention.
4. Once an article is marked with a stub, theoretically it should be also be marked for attention by the appropriate project. Why should a person have to do this manually? I've been doing this by hand and it does get extremely tedious.
5. Also acts as a method of cross checking for inappropriate stubs. If an article uses a stub inappropriately (i.e. bio-stub on a music article); once it's brought to the appropriate project's attention via this bot, the obviously incorrect stub could be corrected. How likely is it that this would happen otherwise? I've caught multiple instances of this in Songs and Films, specifically because I do generic stub patrol in both of them.
6. Many article creators do know that there are stubs or categories that are appropriate to the article, but are unaware of what project would be connected to it. This bot watches the categories and puts the article in contact with the appropriate project.

So, could you tell me exactly what "no point" specifically you're referring to? SkierRMH 23:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these theoretically useful actions you're talking about really happen in practice. The talk page templates are just about WikiProjects asserting ownership over wide parts of the encyclopedia (something they're not supposed to do). Most articles that are tagged in this manner aren't ever even edited by anyone in the WikiProject. It's pointless and it's polluting talk pages with meaningless templates. --Cyde Weys 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Arbcom

Hi just a note to say i added you as a party on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#THF_.2F_Michael_Moore . ^(Hypnosadist) 02:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Donation notice

Hey there, just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that your recent additions to MediaWiki:Common.js, which added a donation notice above the left-hand tabs, was having some overlap issues on many browsers, especially at low resolutions. For now, I've simply removed the problematic script and readded the notice to MediaWiki:Anonnotice. If you could perchance debug these issues and/or find a more suitable place to stick the notice, it would be great. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me some information on what is supposedly broken? Saying there are "overlap issues" on "many browsers" is just about as useful as saying "there was an error message" when trying to diagnose a problem. --Cyde Weys 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that he's only the messenger and may not know himself...If thats the case a pointer to the bug report will do. If it came via OTRS I'll get the details for you. The odd thing is that the version now actually wraps at a wider width than what was in previously. So,barring some weird browser interaction, I don't see how the change could have helped. --Gmaxwell 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tested this pretty exaustively, the only case where I can cause any "overlap issues" is when the screen is set so small that lots of things overlap, including the current notice. In fact, the notice as it was chnaged after AmiDaniel's note overlaps more than the prior version. As far as I can tell someone was just over-reacting. The change should be reverted. Oh, an I pinged AmiDaniel to respond a few days ago and I advised that without more information the change was going to be reverted. I've heard nothing. --Gmaxwell 18:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. I do apologize -- I've disappeared the last few days. In any case, this removal was in response to this post. Having noted his follow-up, it appears this was indeed an over-reaction. It seems he was playing around with resizing his browser window to ridiculously small sizes, and then reporting these behaviors as "bugs". I thought the images he provided were cropped from an image of a full-size browser window, possibly at a low resolution, and thus my reaction. Anyway, if you haven't already, please do revert my changes. Sorry for the misunderstanding. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Coat of Arms

Hello Cyde, you just deleted Image:Bigcancoat.png because Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg exists. However, I don't really believe that Image:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is free even though it's author User:Zscout370 placed the public domain tag on it. The original Coat of Arms, Image:Bigcancoat.png, is protected by Canadian Crown copyright as was indicated on its image page, and thus I don't think a reproduction can be made free. For example, take the NHL logo. If someone was to redraw it as an SVG, it doesn't make it public domain, it is still a copyright of the National Hockey League. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you restore the old file so that it's copyright info can be copied to the new file. -- Jeff3000 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the deletion of Category:Esperantists

Why did you delete the Category:Esperantists? I'm not sure why you ignored the vote, and went ahead and deleted it, when there was overwhelming support to keep the article. At the very least, the definition of "Esperantist" should be tightened up. I am an Esperantist, and I would not go as far as calling someone that casually supported the language but did not speak it (Like J.R.R. Tolkein) an Esperantist. An early document of Esperanto, the Declaration of Boulogne, defines an Esperantist as someone who uses Esperanto for any purpose. That may be a pretty good definition, and a pretty good place to draw the line for such a category. I think, for the most part, those people in the category almost all were solid speakers and advocates for the language. I also think it was an interesting category, to see the wide swath of people that Esperanto has influenced. Please help me understand why you deleted it.

Thanks for your time... Sincerely, Yekrats 19:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the link in the deletion log, it has the answers you seek. --Cyde Weys 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proactive protection

Per official WP policy in WP:PROT

"Semi-protection should not be used:

  As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred."

Your stated reasons for protection of ExxonMobil on 24-Aug was in disagreement with this policy for semi-protection, let alone full protection. Pro crast in a tor 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, but this issue is so old (and resolved) now that the relevant comments have been archived off my talk page. --Cyde Weys 00:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, I read your comments at the time, but it was just recently that I read the official policy, and thought I'd bring it to your attention. Nothing to be done about the past, I'm just looking ahead to the future. Best, Pro crast in a tor 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive. It sounds like the protection policy has gotten pretty far away from what occurs in practice, because nobody bats an eye at protecting an article when vandalism is imminent (but hasn't happened yet). --Cyde Weys 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]