Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:16, 26 August 2007

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

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

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 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages that I know now. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

exxon valdez

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

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)

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)

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)

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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 all I had done was sort the category rather than put in the 2007 deaths. Tim! 06:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Yo!

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

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

Slim Virgin talk page...

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

I agree that a block would be wildly inappropriate here. Seraphimblade 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

ANI discussion

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

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)

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)

WP:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information

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

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)

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

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)

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)

WP:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information expressly forbids Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

You guys (except for Dragonfly) aren't seeing the forest for the trees. "THF" has no anonymity on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages should deal with his editing of articles that he has a direct conflict of interest over. --Cyde Weys 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Civility

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

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)

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. 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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 needs to remain to prevent potential violations of WP:AUTO. --Cyde Weys 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You can as long as some @#* admin dont keep posting his old name with his new one. 00:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)