Revision as of 18:48, 18 July 2006 editCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →Automotive company stubs← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:53, 18 July 2006 edit undoEmmSeeMusic (talk | contribs)286 edits External linksNext edit → | ||
Line 295: | Line 295: | ||
When you closed out the ''automobile manufacturer'' to ''motor vehicle manufacturer'' umbrella CFD last month, you made a slight mess of things with this stub category. Stub categories aren't handled by CFD, but solely by SFD, in part because there are several places that updates need to be made, besides the stub template and the category. I've reverted your change to {{tl|auto-company-stub}} and the change to {{cl|Automotive company stubs}} save for updating the non-stub parent cat from Automobile manufacturers to {{cl|Automotive companies}} which is where it should have been in the first place, regardless of the CFD. <span style="font-family:cursive">]</span> ] 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | When you closed out the ''automobile manufacturer'' to ''motor vehicle manufacturer'' umbrella CFD last month, you made a slight mess of things with this stub category. Stub categories aren't handled by CFD, but solely by SFD, in part because there are several places that updates need to be made, besides the stub template and the category. I've reverted your change to {{tl|auto-company-stub}} and the change to {{cl|Automotive company stubs}} save for updating the non-stub parent cat from Automobile manufacturers to {{cl|Automotive companies}} which is where it should have been in the first place, regardless of the CFD. <span style="font-family:cursive">]</span> ] 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
Don't play jurisdictional games, just fix it everywhere it needs to be fixed, because apparently I'm not aware of all of those little niggling places. --] 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Bill O'Reilly site == | == Bill O'Reilly site == | ||
Line 303: | Line 301: | ||
I couldn't help but notice that you removed all of the links that were critical of Bill O'Reilly while leaving all of the ones that were supportive in place. In particular, you really can't justify removing the Media Matters link ''at all''. --] 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | I couldn't help but notice that you removed all of the links that were critical of Bill O'Reilly while leaving all of the ones that were supportive in place. In particular, you really can't justify removing the Media Matters link ''at all''. --] 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
* That's untrue. The only links I left were the Lawsuits against him from Smoking Gun. You can not say that Media Matters is a neutral links since their job is to bash conservatives. I don't fall on either side, I just like to clean out articles of junk links that have no reason to be there, Wiki it's a link directory for each topic. --] 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:53, 18 July 2006
NO SPAMMING
Cyde's talk page Leave a new message
Archives
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
10
11
12
Signpost updated for July 3rd.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
| |
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.
User:Vitriouxc
This user that you blocked has been using IP addresses to continue voting at RFA's. He has also made borderline personal attacks against you at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Randall Brackett. If you could check of this. — The King of Kings 07:57 July 09 '06
Bots
The automatic vandalism bots seem to be a funny invention but could you please stop yours and visit the talk page of Muslim Bulgarians / Bulgarian Muslims?
Userbox: Roman Catholic
Perhaps I missed the reason, but why did you delete the Roman Catholic userbox? Killua 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
T1. If anyone actually cared about it they would have migrated it to userspace already. --Cyde↔Weys 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Canadian provincial (non-geo) types
There has been a proposal on SFD since June 9, 2006 for the deletion of stubs for three Canadian provinces and the three territories. It has now lingered without being closed, one way or another, for over a month now. I've put a lot of effort into populating these stub categories, and decided to finish things off by nominating the creation of stubs for the three remaining provinces. However, I don't want to do any further work on any of this if the proposal at SFD succeeds. I just want to know if I'm wasting my time or not. Could you review the discussion and close it? Agent 86 17:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Images in Signatures
HUNDREDS of users have flags in their pictures. why am i singled out? User:Denelson83 has VERY similar formatting to my signature. OTher people also have flags in their signatures. i feel i'm being injustly targeted. i'll remove them, but i'm keeping my mask icon between my User page and Talk page, in the signature, as shown here → User:Raccoon Fox Talk 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't play the persecution card. Do you think I inspect every single person's signature on-wiki? Of course not. In the course of my daily business, if I see someone with an inappropriate signature, I let them know. I always do this. You're not being singled out. And your signature is still a bit too obstrusive, and still contains an image. --Cyde↔Weys 19:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not, and i don't need to. I thought that as an administrator, you would at least try to be fair and unbiased. I also don't understand your definition of "unobtrusive". can you be a bit more specific for me? User:Raccoon Fox Talk 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am fair and unbiased. I leave the same comment on the talk page of everyone I see using a signature with images in it, no exceptions! --Cyde↔Weys 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
fair enough. is this signature more to your liking? (I may put in a character like "|" in between my userpage link and talk link...). I want to know if i need to continue editing or not. User:Raccoon Fox Talk 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see why it needs the thick black border and gray background. That's what I meant by obtrustive. It looks more like a placard than a signature that is supposed to flow inline with text. --Cyde↔Weys 20:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
All i wanted was a unique signature...i also thought a grey background with a brown/black border would be nice...(the colours of a raccoon). User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 20:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You might want to try asking some other administrators what they think about your signature. --Cyde↔Weys 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
my current one? i don't know who the other admins are....i just keep to myself here and contribute to articles... User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 20:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Try a different font. Play with the font size (just don't make it excessively large or small), etc. Play with the font colour (again, be sensible). You could even play with the way the date is displayed. Lots of different ways to change the signature. Remember the whole signature issue with me, and the other stuff that followed? My signature was unnecessarily large and contained images (remember some people still access the Internet with dial-up - adding images and unnecessary code - no offense - increases the page load time for people who use dialup). This should not be read as "Nathan's taking sides". — Nathan / 18:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
HTML
Would HTML be alright to start in? GangstaEB (penguin log~petition) 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
HTML isn't a programming language, it is a markup language. This may sound like some insignificant distinction, but believe me, it's not. HTML lacks the property of being Turing-complete, which is one of the main criteria of being a programming language. Among other things, this means you wouldn't be able to write in HTML, say, a Misplaced Pages bot. Think of HTML more as a document format (like a Microsoft Word document), because it's not even close to being a programming language. Programming languages do things, HTML just formats things. Understand? --Cyde↔Weys 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and don't link to a petition in your signature. Editors (notably Karmafist) have been blocked for doing stuff like that before. Signatures should just be used to identify that you wrote comments; they shouldn't be used to advertise your ideas. --Cyde↔Weys 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have a planned bot. It will be for archiving talk pages. Every week it will count the kilobytes in the talk page and if it is over the kbs before the talk page is archived, it will archive it via page move. What would be language to start in? Perl? Or is that to complicated? GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perl is not a good beginner's language. I would definitely recommend learning programming before trying to jump and program a bot, because that certainly isn't the easiest thing to do. But if you really want to, you're going to need a good bot framework, because writing everything from scratch would take ten times longer. The best bot framework out there is pyWikipediaBot, which is written in Python, so I guess you'd end up using Python. --Cyde↔Weys 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
RE: Greetings
Don't worry, I'm not an impersonator, I just like the sound of the name Cyda. I put a notice on my Userpage. Sorry for any confusion. Cyda (T) 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just fixed the invalid sig for this user and added "Greetings" to the heading, since you left a message with this to his talk page. -- ADNghiem501 23:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Fake User
So, who is he a sockpuppet of? And please excuse my extremely long signature, I'm trying to find a solution for my signature template problem... Fredil Yupigo 02:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea, I don't even know the guy, all I know is that he wanted to delete a bunch of templates and suddenly people keep accusing me of being him. It makes no sense. If I'm an administrator and I want to delete a template, I delete it (and many people can attest to this). I don't need to screw around with sockpuppets. --Cyde↔Weys 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Xaosflux/UBX + category usage
Cyde, after consults with others, FSM and IPU templates I've german-ified no longer have the templates included in them, they are included only for reference. Although related, user categories are not the same as the template: namespace concerns, and WP:GUS even states that consensus on what to do with them has not been reached yet. Thank you, — xaosflux 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:User meritocracy
Just wondering why you deleted the user meritocracy template? I thought the general consensus was to go for migrating userboxes as per the German userbox solution rather than deleting them. I'm sure you had a good reason for doing so though, just wondering what it is! Cheers. Caprosser 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, WP:TGS is the solution, but it seems to be stalling out. It needs some prodding. --Cyde↔Weys 15:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
"Prod" as in poke or "prod" as in {{PROD}} ?? :) (I agree it does look like it stalled, which is too bad because it's the way to go of all the alternatives so far) ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"Prod" as in poke. Although now that we have that userfying category things look to be getting a bit better, so long as things in that category are userfied on a reasonable timeframe. I see a lot of people with archives competing to have the largest archive, though, so I'm not too worried about it getting done. --Cyde↔Weys 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
{{current}}
Hi. I removed this template from 21st century, as it would need to stay there for an entire century, due to the fact that things change at the present. Per template talk:current, that template needs to be used only for short amounts of time and when significant changes happen to an article, at least that's how I interpret it.
You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Cydebot on CFD and templates
User_talk:Cydebot#Cydebot_on_CFD_and_templates. Kotepho 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Best edit ever?
Maybe... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It seemed like the thing to do :-P Cyde↔Weys 13:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Comment on RfA
I wasn't talking about Sean's comment; I was talking about his edit summary. I hope you don't think that was appropriate. -- joturner 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess you could call it harsh language, but I don't really care about "harsh" language ... it's all just phonemes, and it only has the impact you assign it. He wasn't making personal attacks on anyone, just expressing frustration that someone was messing up the sections on the page with bad formatting. That pisses me off too, truth be told. --Cyde↔Weys 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
AC0
Ya, the game is great, but I've only been able to play it once-my PS2 says "disk read error" on any CD you put in. I have to trade it in for a refurbished one when I get the money. And the new message template is sweet, but it scared me when it looked different. I was like what the?!?! and then I saw your message. :) the_ed17 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Object to crisis --> conflict on the basis of unanimity_conflict_on_the_basis_of_unanimity-2006-07-17T17:20:00.000Z">
Most users on the talk page object such a move, which means that such a move cannot be made on basis of almost unanimity. See the poll in the section "discussion about the name of the article"). Please restore the page. Sijo Ripa 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)_conflict_on_the_basis_of_unanimity"> _conflict_on_the_basis_of_unanimity">
I didn't see a single person on the talk page who objected to upgrading the name from crisis to either conflict or war. Since I'm not sure everyone would consider this a war just yet, I went with conflict. Conflict is a more neutral name than crisis anyway. --Cyde↔Weys 17:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)_conflict_on_the_basis_of_unanimity"> _conflict_on_the_basis_of_unanimity">
Template:User rc
If you unprotect it, I'll move it. Rfrisbie 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Date linking
Whoops, my bad; I must have missed that. I thought only month/day/year dates should be linked. Looks like I'll have to revise my editing methodology. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:User politician
You added the Userfy/GUS template to the User politician userbox. This userbox is not an advocacy box. It's simply identifying the user's profession (just like User academic, User actor, etc.). It doesn't specify any particular political party or ideology. Is it your intent to have all profession templates userfied? —GrantNeufeld 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It was on Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Beliefs. If you want to make an overall organizational restructuring to the Misplaced Pages:Userboxes repository, go right ahead. It needs it! Right now it focuses a lot on stuff that belongs squirrelled away in userspace archives. --Cyde↔Weys 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
ridiculous
I did not discount what you said, I just mentioned that your approach and phrasing was uncivil. But apparently, berating those you don't agree with is what you're doing on this particular RfA... perhaps you should consider the fact that your approach may be doing more damage to Sean Black's chances than good. Anyways, I felt insulted by those comments, and you came onto my talk page to reinforce the fact that you don't care if I felt insulted; well good for you, I wish you the best of luck. Themindset 18:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If it seems like I'm berating anyone it's only because so many specious reasons are being thrown around to oppose giving Sean Black the mop back after a brief reprieve. Anyone who's been an admin for awhile is inevitably going to attract some detractors who swarm from the woodwork in the event of another RFA. A lot of the diffs being cited in the Oppose section aren't even Sean Black doing anything wrong, just exemplary actions of an admin valuing the end product and making the tough decisions. That's always going to leave behind some people who feel wronged because they didn't get their way. And I'm sorry if you feel that I insulted you, but that was not my intent. I was just pointing out that I think it's ridiculous to treat a seasoned admin with the same kind of requirements as a newbie. --Cyde↔Weys 18:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Not spammer :) but so grateful
Clyde/bot/admins in general
As a dj for a hospital radio station here in the uk i must thank you all for the hard work and dedication you must put into this site.
I am a aol user and am appauled to see some childish little ****** defacing the pages.... to that person or persons.................... 'Its Not Big Nor Is It Clever'
'nuff said
ChrisUK
Nottinghamshire
UK
Thanks, and I agree with you. It's amazing how many people become vandals and assholes when granted just a little anonymity. It makes you think what's keeping a lot of people in check is not holding to a code of ethics and morals, but rather, the simple threat of negative consequences. Anonymity takes away those potential consequences, and then you get a bunch of people acting like two year olds. I believe some other people may have discovered this connection. --Cyde↔Weys 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
cydebot removing of category error
Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Playboy_Cyber_Club According to that, certain playboy related categories and articiles were to be deleted. but it never said that the category "Playboy models" should be deleted. your bot deleted it and removed it from pages leaving the msg - "Robot - Removing category Playboy models per CFD at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 9." I went to that page and the "Playboy models" is never deleted. it is asked to be merged but that's it. am i missing something??--Jaysscholar 21:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope, you're not missing anything, the bot messed up. I've fixed it. --Cyde↔Weys 23:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 17th
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 29 | 17 July 2006 | |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN |
|
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. Treebark (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
It was quite frustrating to be continually spoken down to by Cerejota on the Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Could you recommend a strategy for dealing with the user; I have attempted to engage in discussion, but the user does not respond in kind and constantly rebrands the article. Cheers, Tewfik 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Now Tewfik, this is not true. I have engaged in discussion, civil discussion, and you have continually reverted my changes. Others with a different POV from me have commended me on my civility and willingness to compromise. Perhaps you should never give up conversing, as when good faith is assumed wonders happen.--Cerejota 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- You seriously need to stop referencing "assume good faith" ... anyone who references that actually only serves to reduce their credibility further. --Cyde↔Weys 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I didnt mean good faith as the wiki term but the general term used by regular people, I didnt wish to imply anything. Now, as to the original accusation by Tewfik, I hope a reading of the talk pages in question will show that while we disagree, I have responded assidiously and respectfully to our differences, and in other discussions I have also reached compromises. I do think Tewfik is not being truthful in his above description of our differences.--Cerejota 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, others branded the article NPOV, I just wanted it branded POV Check...--Cerejota 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Closing RfDs
What is the reason for putting closing templates inside the section header as opposed to outside like at AFD? —Centrx→talk • 03:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It functions a lot better (it's also how they do it at WP:CFD). This way hitting (edit) on the section heading actually displays everything related to that subject, not just the title, discussion, and closing text. --Cyde↔Weys 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Userpage.
I really like your new userpage. — Nathan / 08:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I must give credit to freakofnurture ... oh, and I'm not nearly done with it. That Falkirk Wheel just stuck in my head ever since I saw it as a Featured Picture a long time ago. --Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't forget your request...
I just delayed it until after I took a nap and loaded the DB on the fast system. :) Wee. Query only tool 1 second. Here are your results. --Gmaxwell 09:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's really not as bad as I thought. It shouldn't take a single person more than a few hours to clean all of that old mess up. --Cyde↔Weys 12:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sex
I'm sorry, I was just wondering, because I've heard a lot of stuff lately...are you male or female? Sergeant Snopake 10:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really relevant :-D Cyde↔Weys 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I knew you were going to say that. :) Sergeant Snopake 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
(In response to your edit summary) Who is the bet with? --Cyde↔Weys 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just a user I know. Sergeant Snopake 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for rename
Thanks for the rename, I was at a loss what title to put and yours is bettter...--Cerejota 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Automotive company stubs
When you closed out the automobile manufacturer to motor vehicle manufacturer umbrella CFD last month, you made a slight mess of things with this stub category. Stub categories aren't handled by CFD, but solely by SFD, in part because there are several places that updates need to be made, besides the stub template and the category. I've reverted your change to {{auto-company-stub}} and the change to Category:Automotive company stubs save for updating the non-stub parent cat from Automobile manufacturers to Category:Automotive companies which is where it should have been in the first place, regardless of the CFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Bill O'Reilly site
Why did you revert my edit of the External Links removal? Why is there a need to clutter an article with unofficial links, including direct links to video files??? The WP:EL has sections about the type of links that were listed. There's no point in them being there. --EmmSeeMusic 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that you removed all of the links that were critical of Bill O'Reilly while leaving all of the ones that were supportive in place. In particular, you really can't justify removing the Media Matters link at all. --Cyde↔Weys 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's untrue. The only links I left were the Lawsuits against him from Smoking Gun. You can not say that Media Matters is a neutral links since their job is to bash conservatives. I don't fall on either side, I just like to clean out articles of junk links that have no reason to be there, Wiki it's a link directory for each topic. --EmmSeeMusic 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)