Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:07, 20 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

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?

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)

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 heck?!?! and then I saw your message. :) the_ed17 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but seriously, how many mercenary aces are there in the world today???? the_ed17 19:15, 18 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

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)

Snopake: "Has someone been naughty?" — Nathan _{/ 02:14, 19 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)

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. --Cyde↔Weys 18:48, 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)
  • One more thing, the only links I left were the OFFICIAL links ... per WL:EL - I am totally in the right to remove the other junk. --EmmSeeMusic 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Media Matters is run by David Brock ... you know, the guy who became famous as a conservative journalist. Your attempts to delete this link by slandering Media Matters as existing solely to bash conservatives speak only to your own partisan motives and provide no actual reasoning as to why the link is bad. --Cyde↔Weys 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And please learn how to deal with edit conflicts, you just blanked my comment to another user. --Cyde↔Weys 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• So as I was saying - What are you talking about? I'm not the one with an agenda. Media Matters is obviously not something one should reference on Wiki.
• "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
• Peter Brock: "David Brock is the author of four political books, including The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. His preceding book, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, was a 2002 New York Times best-selling political memoir in which he chronicled his years as a conservative media insider. Brock serves on the advisory board of Democracy Radio Inc. and is the recipient of the New Democrat Network's first award for political entrepreneurship. He is the President and CEO of Media Matters for America."

Light Red Support Thanks!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting me in my Light Red RfA! I appreciate it! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:UB

Ok, I'm gonna sound ubx-naive here, but did you know there's a WikiProject explicitly for the purpose of increasing the population of userboxes on Misplaced Pages? Is this worth doing something about? We've learned that direct conflict is often counter-productive on this issue, but I can't help feeling this is totally inappropriate. JDoorjam Talk 05:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:UB has been around since last fall, and helped spur the geometrical growth in the number of userboxes we saw late last year and early this year. Trying to do something about the project now would just open up a hornet's nest. -- Donald Albury 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In need of a rouge admin

Would you have any interest in restoring the deleted edits from either User talk:Wsiegmund or North Saskatchewan River? Just for your own personal viewership?— 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thanks for letting me know. I'm not really sure why MONGO is going around removing innocuous edits he made while logged out. --Cyde↔Weys 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My personal view is to avoid people backtracking his ip to harass him outside of wiki. Syrthiss 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot moving HTML comments

In going over the Oscars / Academy Awards moves, Cydebot has moved a lot of HTML comments away from where they're supposed to be, see for instance this edit. —Gabbe 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't move the HTML comments so much as he moved the categories to the bottom of the article, which is standard. --Cyde↔Weys 13:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, the comments are no longer listed together with the category they describe - and are hence useless - as a result of your bot. —Gabbe 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot move incorrect

Your bot made a major cock-up re some CfD moves.

It interpreted the vote Category:English & British princesses to Category:Princesses of England and Britain as having been passed. The decision was 1 vote in favour, 3 against. The decision, as recorded, was merely to replace the ampersand in the original. A rename was thoroughly rejected.

Similarly the result at Category:English & British princes to Category:Princes of England and Britain was the exact opposite of what your bot did. 1 supported. 2 (3 if you interpret someone else's unclear comments that way, and on balance of probabilities that is how it should be interpreted) opposed it. Again the decision was

The result of the debate was replace ampersand. Conscious

Yet your bot recorded the following on the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom page.

Robot - Moving category English & British princesses to Princesses of England and Britain per CFD at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 9.

You will need to undo these moves. Not alone are they the direct opposite of the decision (the vote to move didn't even get a majority, much less the required percentage), the reasons why the proposals were voted down was because they contained a massive error. There is no such thing as a Prince or Princess of Britain. British Prince covers princes of the throne of Great Britain (1707-1800) and of the United Kingdom post 1801. (The wording was used on that basis.) But there ain't such a place as a Kingdom of Britain, at least not for millennia. So to be accurate unless the pages are moved back everyone post 1707 will have to be removed from the categories.

I wonder has the bot made many other errors? I only spotted these ones because I was a participant in the debates and had looked up the results, and only just noticed on some pages that the exact opposite of the result had been implemented. FearÉIREANN\ 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot just did whatever was recorded at WP:CFDW. What gets listed there depends on how the admin closes the CFD debate. If you want the categories renamed again take it back to CFD and make your case so that the debate gets closed with a different result this time. By the way, calling something a "major cock-up" isn't very productive. --Cyde↔Weys 17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way you still have an image in your signature despite strong admonishments against doing exactly that. If you can't even follow simple signature guidelines why should I think you know how best to interpret guidelines on category naming? --Cyde↔Weys 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's my mistake; see Jtdirl's talk page for details. WP:TEA, anyone? ;) Conscious 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable redirect

Hi Clyde, I may have created a "cross namespace" link when I recreated notable. I didn't realize this was a problem until I started looking through the Articles for Deletion requests. Please wipe it out again if it's incorrect. Thanks! Dreadlocke 20:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about that! Dreadlocke 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross name space redirects

RfD - I've left a reply for you. - Richardcavell 00:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User childfree

Hi Cyde, I noticed that you deleted this page because the userbox there was moved to user space. While I don't dispute this action, I wonder if you could restore the page temporarily so that I can use AWB on the pages linking to there to change the links to the new location. I wouldn't need it up for more than hour, if that. Please let me know. —Mira 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the request? This is working perfectly for me. If it's already moved to userspace, just change all of those links to point to the userspace location. --Cyde↔Weys 03:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's not it then. But AWB tells me that nothing links there. I don't get it... —Mira 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, just recreate the page with some nonsense content long enough to do your replacement work, and then tag it for speedy deletion once you're done. --Cyde↔Weys 04:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Another user restored it, and that seems to have worked. Thanks for suffering through my cluelessness. —Mira 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving some userboxes.

I'm undertaking the project of moving some userboxes I created to userspace, to save you the trouble of tagging them later =) — Nathan _{/ 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}

Portal: image credit

I agree with you, but take a look at the main page. I would like the portal to become featured, so we'll have to argue our way out of it somehow, or get a lot more support without the credit. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

List of channel 13 TV stations in the United States

Hey there! I saw you closed this RfD and deleted the List of channel 13 TV stations in the United States redirect. If you get a chance, can you also do the others of the same format (List of channel 2 TV stations in the United States through List of channel 20 TV stations in the United States)? I wasn't sure how to list them all at RfD. GassyGuy 10:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That B page

Hi. Let me start by saying I think you and Kelly Martin do a great job, and I have no intention of starting an argument.

OK. So Kelly Martin (and possibly others, i.e. yourself) disagreed with my vote. Fair enough. But while I understand the reasoning, I don't understand the reponse. She could have commented on the vote in the RfA itself, or left me a message on my talk page. Instead, she decides to add my name to an orphaned subpage of her userspace known only to her and a couple of other high-up administrators (such as your good self). Where I will presumably stay for... well, what? "Further monitoring"? All completely unknown to me, except that by chance I decided to take a look at "What links here" on my user page. Of course, there's nothing in any policy or guideline that says this is wrong, and I sort of see what's going on there. But if you, Kelly Martin or anyone else thinks someone's put a toe out of line, why not act the way Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution tells you to – talk to them! Set an example to the rest of us. Or at least the rest of them. I have other matters to attend to. Hopefully things will have changed by the time I get back.

By the way, you'll notice the page now has an incoming link! If you wipe this comment in order to remove said link, I shall be very annoyed indeed, so please don't, thanks. If, on the other hand, you can find a way to discuss issues like these more openly, thst would be great. And what does the "B" stand for? I still can't figure it out :) – Gurch 18:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gurch, your suggestion of the use of dispute resolution is inapplicable. There is no dispute between us to resolve, at least none that I am aware of (although it does seem to me as though you are attempting to create one, for reasons that escape me). The purpose of that list is my own. It is used by myself and certain others to benefit our decision-making processes. If you are unable to find a use for that list, you are free to ignore it. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)