Misplaced Pages

Please delete

Template:GUS UBX to Rfrisbie 19:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

talk page

You reverted me on my talk page! How rude are you! --Brandnewuser 19:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Quoting a response of yours from above:

"Please see WP:GUS. No more non-encyclopedic userboxes are to be created in Template: space. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

Ignoring for the moment that WP:GUS clearly states that it isn't policy. What it is designed for is controversial userboxes that foster advocacy (such as religion and politics). Not ALL userboxes.

Quote of the very first section of text in WP:GUS:May 27, 2006 The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Misplaced Pages userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.

Clearly says: Political or other campaigns.

Quote:"It should be noted that use of is strongly discouraged at Misplaced Pages, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time." - Misplaced Pages:Jimbo on Userboxes

Again clearly states the parameters (the bracket is his use, not mine).

Quote:"Regarding at least the political templates, I would like to raise, gently, a different issue. I have concern about people massing together in groups based on political affiliations at Misplaced Pages.

For me, when I enter Misplaced Pages, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection. A mood of kindness and love. A mood of helpfulness and productivity. Neutrality and _getting it right_in the company of others who are doing the same, this is what I'm here for.

Outside, I may be an advocate. But here, I am a Wikipedian.

--Jimbo" -

Making it clear it's a concern about advocacy.

Userboxes that show topical interest, or knowledge, or current status of the user (happy, sad, only child, etc.) are clearly not a part of WP:GUS.

I bring this up because, as I read your talk page, you're taking actions adverse to concensus - {{User DAoC}} for example. And assuming good faith, I'm presuming this is merely a misunderstanding on your part. Hope this helps : ) - Jc37 22:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this may be a misunderstanding on your part. The point of WP:GUS is that userboxes are userfied, not that dozens of new unecyclopedic ones are created in template space every day. --Cyde Weys 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not what is said in the examples I gave above, further examples on the rest of those and other pages, including several RfCs. I appreciate your opinion, but that's not what I'm reading. Can you substantiate your opinion? - Jc37 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:GUS has been in effect for over two months now. Part of userfying userboxes is ensuring that no new ones are created in template space. Template space was created for templates that help write the encyclopedia ... all of this non-encyclopedic stuff (when will "This user plays DAOC" ever be used on an article?) has to be migrated to userspace. --Cyde Weys 00:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing WP:GUS. I just think you may misunderstand its purpose. but that aside...

Again... While I appreciate that this is your opinion, I was wondering upon what do you substantiate it? As for the example of whether something will be used in the encyclopedia, there are many answers (which have been previously given), including articles about DAoC, RPGs, MMORPGs, etc., as well as simply that wikipedia is a community. A community with a goal (see the 5 pillars), but a community nonetheless. Otherwise, the simple definition about what is useful to an encyclopedia, would see things like the village pump, and the signpost deleted.

But this all begs the initial question. Upon what do you base your opinion? - Jc37 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your block on Nathan

Hi Cyde.

I noticed that you blocked Nathan since he claimed he was not coming back. However, many users have returned to Misplaced Pages after making such claims (like Moe Epsilon, for instance). In addition, I didn't see anything in WP:BLOCK about your blocking reasoning. Anyway, I'd be interested in what you had to say about the above reasoning.

As always, happy editing! -- Where 00:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's time for him to move on and he's admitted as such. He just seems to have problems leaving on his own accord, so I'm giving him help. This will be best for everyone involved. --Cyde Weys 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've undone the block after an anon mentioned it on WP:AN. Any user who voluntarily leaves Misplaced Pages is free to come back, so we should leave that option open for him. --Conti|✉ 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

personally, I favour the lifelong block, but then, what do I know? DiLuna25 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We try not to if possible DiLuna. If you're wondering who the anon on WP:AN was that reported the block, it was me. Hey, I guess I do come back after leaving, like Where said. :) — The King of Kings 00:58 August 14 '06 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Email from me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution

Well, it seems that you aren't going to acknowledge that you unfairly blocked me on two occassions for adding myself to a category that existed and was at CfD, and you haven't exactly been helpful in reaching an understanding between us about why you did it. I do have a theory that relates to your deletion of numerous Userbox templates, which is that you believe that nothing that doesn't directly improve the encyclopedia ought to be deleted. (On a side note: I believe that a number of users expressed concern over your heavy participation in the userbox debates during your RfA; you seemed to assure that you were taking a break from those debates. I suppose after you gained your adminship, you hopped back in and expressed your previous opinion by deleting various userbox templates, whether or not they were userfied. This is simply my opinion, but it's pretty obvious based on your talk page alone.) I respect that opinion, however when it gets out of control, you ought to at least acknowledge your mistake. I don't want to take this to Mediation or Request for Comment or something like that, because I believe that two people can be perfectly civil and resolve their disputes on their own, however both parties have to work towards that, something I haven't seen much of from you beyond picking out statements from my comments and attacking them rather than taking the message as a whole and responding to it. syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are still persuing this. Let it go. --Cyde Weys 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that I am concerned for the encyclopedia as a whole when admins can ban users for making legitimate edits. (Especially when they have a related bias which other users expressed concern over before the user ever became an admin.) syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point you're just holding a grudge. That's not good for the encyclopedia either. Let it go. I'm not bothering you anymore. --Cyde Weys 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I hold no grudge against you, that's against everything that I believe in, but I won't get into that. Rather, I'm just requesting an apology, which I think is warranted considering the 34 hours I was unable to edit for no legitimate reason. One user "holding a grudge" isn't nearly as bad for the encyclopedia as one admin pushing his views about the encyclopedia in ways that are against policy, despite users expressing concern over this before they were ever admin. Hopefully it's not that bad, but it's rather difficult to conclude otherwise when reviewing your edits over a long period of time. Unfortunately, I'm not totally clueless and have been around for quite a while and seen a lot of work (good and otherwise) that you've done here. I say unfortunately, because had you blocked some other user (such as The Raven) who didn't have such an extensive knowledge of policy and previous debates, as well as your very own work, then they wouldn't have made much of a big deal about it. syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot apologize because I do not think I did anything wrong. I deleted that category and you repeatedly recreated it and readded yourself. I gave you a short block as a warning; I honestly thought that would be the end of it. Imagine my surprise when I saw that you had readded the category again. That's what the majority of the 34 hours blocked came from ... you doing something after you had been warned against it and after you had already been blocked for it. --Cyde Weys 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the category and I brought it to DRV, which I notified you of on several occassions. The deletion was overturned and the CfD reopened, thus I was not wrong in recreating it or adding myself to it as it wasn't deleted at the time. I don't believe that blocking policy allows admins to block users simply because they are in a category that the admin doesn't happen to like very much. Blocking me multiple times, as well as Raven, and then removing us from the category meant that there were no users in that category during the CfD for it; this could very easily have caused people to assume that it was empty and want to delete it for that reason. Whether or not this was your intention is impossible for me to decide, and I doubt that it was anyhow, but it could have easily been an unfortunate side effect. syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it seems that you've indefinitely blocked User:PhoenixPinion, whom I've associated with before, as well as User:The_Raven_is_God for 48 hours, all because Phoenix posted a joke that The Raven is God was dead. While I agree that the joke was very inappropriate, it's utterly ridiculous to block them for such lengths of time. This conduct is highly unbecoming of an administrator, and unfortunately I'm probably going to have to bring this up at AN/I because of these recent actions in addition to a number of others that I've investigated. It's not like I'm asking you to give up your sysop status; just recognize that your blocking me was a mistake, and that the block lengths that you blocked Phoenix and Raven is God for are much too long. Blocking users I know to make a point is a very bad idea; not all people are willing to look the other way. And just to clarify, I'm not posting this to defend Raven is God or Phoenix's actions, they can do that perfectly well enough themselves. (I'd rather not incur accusations that I'm posting for a blocked user or anything like that, from you or more probably other users who might read this.) syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The number of contributions you made after I posted this leads me to believe that you didn't see it due to another edit that came quickly after this one. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Deceased Wikipedians is for real people who have died in real life. How anyone could possibly make a joke about this, or defend someone who has made a joke about this, is beyond me. Some things just shouldn't be thrown around as idle jokes. Just to put this in perspective, Anthere, one of the five members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, spent the last part of her talk at Wikimania giving remembrances to dead Wikipedians (including Treanna, who is listed in the category that your friends were screwing around with). It's despicable. All I've seen from your friends is screwing around with categories ("Gangsters", "Deceased") and other disruptive userpage nonsense, with precious little work actually being done on the encyclopedia. You tell me, why should we put up with this? --Cyde Weys 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that the "joke" was a very bad idea. However, I disagree wholeheartedly with the length of the blocks, especially the block on Phoenix who has made very valuable contributions based on his extensive knowledge of Belgium, Nonlinear Mathematics, Quantum Physics and Unified Field Theory, among other things, as well as whether or not the blocks were made in good faith. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea; do you have AOL Instant Messenger or some other IM application? If so, it would be much faster and less spammy to resolve our dispute there. I think I can make myself very clear and end this whole thing with both of us feeling good about each other. If you're willing to do this and have the means, then email me and we can talk. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Still willing to communicate with you in a faster-paced medium if you are. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep of redirect Trencher (bread)

I was hoping you could expand on our discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion#What's up with saving page move history? since I noticed you were the keeping admin. What is there in the Trencher (bread) history that is not in the Trencher (tableware) history aside from the RfD and CSD stuff that pertains solely to the redirect?

Also, I'm a little surprised you closed the DRV discussion early considering only one more comment was made since it was relisted. Or was it not a DRV and the discussion was just a continuation of the previous one? I'm just trying to understand the process better; I've got no problem with the redirect staying or anything. Feel free to reply on this page if you prefer. BigNate37_(T) 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What DRV discussion? I wasn't aware of any DRV discussion. Anyway, Trencher (bread) was kept not because of anything in its history but because it seems to me to be a valid target that someone familiar with our disambiguation scheme might look for, considering many trenchers were apparently made out of bread. --Cyde Weys 03:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming it might have been DRV based on its reopening after deletion. Anyways, thanks for your reply, it cleared it up succinctly for me. BigNate37_(T) 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It was reopened after it was deleted? Really? Being on DRV implies actually being on the page WP:DRV ... was it ever put there? --Cyde Weys 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never checked DRV for it, it was an assumption. I did put a CSD tag on it and it went redlink; some time later the page existed again (and this time with an {{rfd}} tag and my closure of the RfD nom was reverted. BigNate37_(T) 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion

Cyde, you deleted a userbox I created. Can you explain why, please? SlimVirgin 07:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I created {{User PIIR}} for the new WikiProject Power in international relations (WP:PIIR). If it HAD to go, can you please tell me if there is a way to see the stuff I had in there before it was deleted. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I thought the userbox problems were confined to those that promoted or advertised political or other divisions. Userboxes about Misplaced Pages preferences and so on are fine, as I understood it anyway. SlimVirgin 10:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you didn't cite which userbox it was, so I don't really have any information to go on. Nobleeagle, the preferred location of WikiProject-related userboxes is in projectspace at a location such as "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject BlahBlah/Userbox". This way it stays out of template space and it is immediately clear which WikiProject it belongs to just looking at any page's source code that transcludes it (whereas "User PIIR") is very vague. The point is to get as many userboxes out of template space as necessary; most of them are going into userspace but the project-related ones really do belong in Misplaced Pages: space. Then just transclude them as you would any others. --Cyde Weys 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

A portal created recently by Mallimak (talk · contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

Thanks. --Mais oui! 09:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

{{WikiProject 911TM}}

I was referred to you by another editor who deleted a few pointers to this userfied template manually. Any chance your bot could finish the job? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Turns out Cydebot was hit by an autoblock on AntiVandalBot, which delayed his CFD work ... I'll get around to this work as soon as the CFD stuff is complete. --Cyde Weys 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

August Esperanza Newsletter

cydebot requests

Hi Cyde, I've noticed your bot is saving people a lot of time for repetitive edits. Can I place requests for future cydebot edits here, or is there an official page for such requests? David D. (Talk) 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is probably the best place ... and it's certainly the fastest way to reach me. No other page raises that unmissable yellow banner on the top of my screen, for instance. --Cyde Weys 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point! The following three edits would help speed along the process of correcting all the wikilinks that are now incorrect due to the page move of Athletics to Athletics (track and field).

From: {{MedalSport | Women's ]}}

To: {{MedalSport | Women's ]}}

From: {{MedalSport | Men's ]}}

To: {{MedalSport | Men's ]}}

From: ] (track and field)

To: ]

Thanks a lot, if this is possible. David D. (Talk) 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can handle the first two, I'm not necessarily the third one is something that should be done in an automated fashion though. How many articles really used that exact phrase anyway? --Cyde Weys 17:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops obviously did not check the edit to give the nowiki code. The last one appears to be on all the track and field related events. I can do that manually if there is an issue with it causing problems. If you can do the first two, that will be great, i suspect there an many in that category although i have not actually checked the correct number. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, I didn't realize the third was so widely used, I'll take care of that too then. Luckily all of the stuff you've given me can be handled with some custom regex and the what links here page generator. There's a bit of a queue though ... Cydebot is currently going through WP:CFDW and then he has to unlink {{WikiProject 911TM}}. Busy busy day. Oh, and it doesn't help that Cydebot started off the day with an autoblock from AntiVandalBot (same server). --Cyde Weys 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Could I change the request? I just happened to notice it while looking at something else on your talk page. We're trying to make those links as specific as possible to the Olympics vs. just directing them to the page on Athletics.

From: {{MedalSport | Women's ]}}

To: {{MedalSport | Women's ]}}

From: {{MedalSport | Men's ]}}

To: {{MedalSport | Men's ]}}

Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions. --Sue Anne 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that {{MedalSport}} is only used on Olympics-related pages? If it's used anywhere else, those changes you've suggested will cause some serious issues. --Cyde Weys 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be having some problems with the regex ... can you give me an example of pages that use each of these three different things you want replaced? --Cyde Weys 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some manual edits i made with respect to the three edits described above.

At Trine Hattestad, I made this edit

At Paavo_Nurmi, I made this edit

At triple jump, I made this edit

I'm still not sure if the medal header is specific to the Olympics. If it is then her suggested edits are probably preferable. David D. (Talk) 22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrmmm, well find out if it's exclusive or not. In the mean time I'm fixing the disambiguation. --Cyde Weys 00:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff from cyde bot to date. With respect to the template, it seems to be specific to the Olympic medals tables that appear on some athletes pages. i have not looked exahaustively and there is no doubt it could be used for other medals tables. Certainly the current changes are not changing anything that could be viewed as incorrect. Better to be on the safe side. David D. (Talk) 04:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Check my talk page. i have found a few examples where that MedalSport template is used for the Goodwill games and Commonwealth games. On and unrelated note: FYI David D. (Talk) 17:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RECALL

OK. Sorry. rootology (T) 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

thermographic images of animals

Hello Cyde,

I'm very interested in the subject of thermoregulation. I saw that Misplaced Pages has this area very good covered. We made a pretty big collection of thermographic images of animals, mainly for educational purposes. I was wondering if some of them could be interesting for the biology-portal. You can find a lot of examples at www.nutscode.com. I'm not a frequent wikipedia-user (yet), so I don't realy know where to start and who to ask.

Greatings,

Arno Vlooswijk info@nutscode.com

Those images are very nice, but unfortunately they are released with a license that is incompatible with Misplaced Pages. Those images are under an "education only" license, whereas Misplaced Pages requires licenses that fully allow commercial works, such as GFDL or CC-by-sa. --Cyde Weys 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nathan affair

I'm going to leave roughly this same note on Mackensen's talk page.

At the point that I started seeing what was going on, it was clear that everyone in the world had already commented, that the information was "out there", etc. The cat cannot be forced back into the bag.

You're partially right, I am launching complaints about various administrators. I am doing so because I believe the admin misbehavior in this case was serious and uncalled for. You and Mackensen both acted irresponsibly, in my opinion, and sufficiently badly enough that I believe that both of you needed to be called on it, in public.

I have not, that I recall, had any concerns about Mackensen previously, and only very minor ones about you. Both of you are, in general and as a rule, good administrators who contribute very positively to WP. This is not about expressing any sort of pre-existing dislike for either of you (or the other admins I was complaining about). My complaints are specific to your actions in this incident.

Nobody who was in a position of authority or responsibility with WP should have commented on the situation to the degree that it was discussed. The information probably would have come out anyways, but there is a big difference between "Moe is saying that Nathan was blocked because..." and "Cyde and Mackensen and Kelly have indicated....". You all essentially put into public an unofficial official position which had way too much information in it.

It it unlikely that information will stay truly secret. Having parts of it leak out is probably unavoidable. Having Misplaced Pages's community structure via some admins take an official public stance and put some of that information out there with the apparent backing of the community structure is very, very bad. It makes us look irresponsible, vindictive, and unprofessional. If there were to be media coverage, selective use of administrator quotes from the AN discussion could do serious damage to WP credibility.

As I said in AN: the public comments should have been limited to "This is an Office matter, we can't comment.".

There should be a formal policy which states that for serious incidents, they should be kicked to Office without any further public comment than that action has happened. I would have hoped that people would have already understood how important that is, but apparently not yet. So it needs to get formalized.

I would prefer that you understand that I see this as having been a very serious problem. It might have been more politic for me to wait a couple of days to point it out and bring up the formal policy. I don't want you to feel that I'm attacking you in general - in my experience, you've been a great part of Misplaced Pages working smoothly. But I feel very strongly that this event shouldn't happen again. And that probably requires a formal policy.

Ideally I would like to ultimately have your support for the above policy. I hope that you can understand why I am so concerned about what happened and why I feel it needs to not happen again.

Georgewilliamherbert 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How did I act irresponsibly? I didn't even release any information. I just said that people really did not want to be involved in this. --Cyde Weys 19:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

...And that people should contact you privately for more details. Those details should not have been available to anyone but Office (in the form of whoever Office really is at the moment; practically Danny or Jimbo might well have just had the same set of people handle it, I know). It should not have been implied that anyone other than "Office" was going to be brought into the loop.

You yourself didn't then post those additional details, but others did, and the implication that you made makes it look like a wide cabal of admins ended up gossiping about it, as opposed to a minimal quiet investigation and response by "Office".

Even if you just meant to say "senior admins / office staff can contact me privately for more details", there was an appearance that you were the root of a lot of the internal info flow and then sideways comment/discussion by other admins. Georgewilliamherbert 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You doth assume too much. I only even provided details to one other user via email, and that was an admin. --Cyde Weys 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins have to avoid more than impropriety; they have to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The overall pattern of admin discussion here appeared to be highly improper.

The reason I'm coming to you is that your comment was the immediate indent root of the WP:AN thread that then wandered off into more detailed comments which admins should not have made. The combination of that and your comment that people should contact you privately for more details looks bad.

I am glad that the underlying facts are that you were responsible with the information. For that, thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Progress

Check out my Recall reply to you (and thank you for keeping an apparent open mind). rootology (T) 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Statute of limitations

This idea has me intrigued. Do you think RECALL would get needed support to become policy if there was such a thing that said "basis of dispute/primary evidence" must be from AFTER the time the policy is implemented? I.e., say you (hypothetically) did something vile and probably worthy of Recall x days, weeks, months, or years ago. What if the policy specifically said under Limitations "Diffs as evidence for basis of dispute must be dated after 10/01/06, the date this policy became effective. Older supplemental material/background material may be older." rootology (T) 21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The specific idea being to stop any stupid or absurd flood gates of stuff from the "old days", and so that everyone--admin and editor alike--was on the up and up from Day 1 of the policy's adoption. rootology (T) 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for Cyde

The Original Barnstar For being a good admin, running the Cydebot, blocking vandals and other obnoxious users, and being a great admin. This barnstar's also for his knowledge of bot programming (something I need to learn!) So here's to you, Cyde! TheM62Manchester 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot

Please make sure Cydebot doesn't subst: templates on User talk:TheM62Manchester Test Account, I want to leave them as they are, e.g. {{test}} rather than {{subst:test}}.

BTW, Cydebot is great... hopefully I'll have a 'bot account soon, can you help me to set up one?? --TheM62Manchester 21:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Hey, you may have done this yourself, but is it supposed to say "I am a fucking wanker?" Just wanted to make sure it's not old vandalism or something. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL no, it's not supposed to say that, thanks for pointing that out. Hysterical though. Silly vandals. --Cyde Weys 00:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Greeting From Karmafist

       That's praise from Caesar considering that it seems that you're trying to vie with Kelly Martin for most snide person on Misplaced Pages.

I will decide when I leave not you, Karmafist is just a vessel(which someone has hacked apparently, i've been busy with my socks, a few are coming up for rfa soon), and to paraphrase Obi Wan Kanobi "You people struck me down, now i'm more powerful than you can imagine."

Have a nice day, i'll be around,

Karmafist

You attract weird talk messages, Cyde. BigNate37_(T) 01:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

RFA Voting

Thank you for your concern about my voting habits. Please allow me to remind you that I am allowed to vote, and it is never possible to call any oppose vote a disruption, as was the decision by the arbitartion committee. --Masssiveego 04:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the voting that's disruptive, it's the disruption that's disruptive, and you can be blocked for that. Knock it off. --Cyde Weys 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect, voting cannot be considered a disruption under any circumstances. I cannot be blocked for voting my position, nor be compelled to explain my vote. However it seems you are trying to force me to vote "support", or force me to not vote at all both of which is voter intimidation. Please do reconsider your position. --Masssiveego 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, since it's not a vote, but rather a discussion, you really do have to explain yourself. I guess the alternative to blocking you is to just to start blanking your stuff, because it's becoming readily apparent you don't care about the RFA process at all ... you just want to sow disruption by opposing every single RFA that comes along. Though frankly I'm quite sure the closing bureaucrats are already routinely ignoring you. --Cyde Weys 04:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Again that is incorrect, wikipedians are not allowed to blank a vote or comment made legitimately during an RFA vote. It is part discussion but it is also a tally vote. The bureaucrats routinely count my vote at every tally regardless of what reason I may place beside. Per above means I agree with the above reasons to oppose the canidate. --Masssiveego 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"The bureaucrats routinely count my vote at every tally regardless of what reason I may place beside." — Please go to WP:BN and ask them what they think of that statement. --Cyde Weys 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th

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. Ralbot 06:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox notifications

Hi, Cyde. I noticed you were notifying users about userboxes they created. I have no issue with this, but you're going to want to change your wording a bit. The phrase "German userbox final solution" is incredibly offensive. The Final Solution isn't exactly something we want to associate with a Misplaced Pages process, especially one that has "German" in front of it. Obviously the association was unintentional, but you'll want to change it in any case. Anyway, just some friendly advice. Aren't I Obscure? 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside completely the historical associations of the phrase, I too would like to oppose its use in the notification message. Due to ongoing controversy over whether it should be implemented or not, WP:GUS seems to be far from "final." Although I will personally abide by the GUS in the forseeable future by not creating any new userboxes outside of my user-space, the issue continues to be somewhat controversial, and I question its being used to justify speedy deletion of templates without debate or even prior notice. Andrew Levine 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the deletion combined with your notice is fine, and should help to do the userfying of userboxes without unnecessary drama. Just change the wording on the notice because Endlösung is a bad word to use. Kusma (討論) 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bible Broadcast Network

Hi, I see you were a mediator on this article in February (a long time ago!). I just happened to stop by it to add my two cents, and it appeared the dispute had sort of just stopped without a resolution. The article appears to be unsourced and to contain some unencyclopedic assertions. Can I just do what I want with the article, or is there some sort of past agreement I need to abide by? Jacqui 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just do what you want. Mediation isn't binding to people who were involved anyway, let alone people who weren't involved. Ping me when you're done and I'll take a look over it for cleanup and such. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OS:All userbox

Cyde, thanks for adding the comments on my talk page. The last deletion before just happened with no explanation (I'm not sure who by), and I was not aware of the German Userbox Solution, so I was quite alarmed that it vanished, so I re-created it in the confusion. So thanks for letting me know why, and it shal remain deleted. I found that the current selection of computer userboxes were far too zilot/campy; e.g., "I'm from the Windows camp" vs "I'm from the Debian camp" vs "I'm a Mac ziolot". This I thought was very un-Misplaced Pages-like and soap-boxy. The intent of OS:All was that it is non-exclusive to any OS camp, because I do find that many mac/linux/windows zilots are narrow minded, and ignorant to good software and OS features on other platforms. They are all fantastic (or not), and I felt that others would also share that opinion. —Mwtoews 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Those other userboxes sound like they might need to be dealt with too, either by userfication or outright deletion. I'll take a look. --Cyde Weys 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect your bravery, and I suppose you'll get a whole lot of flame, but those users should really join their favorite fan club. Good luck! --Mwtoews 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're for the high jump

I'll spell archaically if I want to. Don't you dare disregard this important freedom of mine! Sam Korn 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of User OS winxp regret

Hi, Cyde, you deleted the template {{User OS winxp regret}}, with a reason of "T1". First, I don't know what this means, second, you don't seem to have said why you deleted it anywhere, and third, you deleted it when many people were still using it. I'm wondering why you deleted it, and if you did so in accordance with WP:GUS, why you didn't recreate (or just move it in the first place). — SheeEttin {T/C} 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking up two sections and reading the exchange, I see you were going to do something about OS boxen. Deletion of OS-specific boxen is rather hasty and is overkill, because what about the browser boxen, editor boxen, politics boxen, etc.? — SheeEttin {T/C} 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'll get to those eventually. Hopefully not before they are userfied ... Cyde Weys 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest! — SheeEttin {T/C} 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the funny thing ... I make jokes about it now, but a few months down the road your userpage is going to be up on blocks, all of its userboxes missing. Just ask the people who were using divisive/inflammatory userboxes ... Cyde Weys 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay. I'll just subst them before you get to them. — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just userfied this box from Google Cache... {{User:BarkerJr/UserBoxen/OS WinXP Regret}} Enjoy! BarkerJr 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:NorthernEmpire.jpg

Could you give me your opinion of the licencing and sourcing of this image? Haukur 21:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had them (and some other uploads by the same contributor) deleted. They were terrible quality, but more importantly, they had no source information. "I found it on Google Images" isn't acceptable on Wikimedia Commons. --Cyde Weys 21:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. Thank you! Haukur 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is asking for a reason unreasonable?

I'm sorry you feel I'm being unreasonable asking for a reason for a community imposed block on Nathandotcom, however as a member of the community I very much would like to know why a user was blocked. That's not too much to ask. Per policy the reason should be logged which to this point it hasn't been. I would just like to know what is being done in my name here as a member of the community imposing said block. JohnnyBGood 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And for the record through searches and supposition I'm assuming he was blocked for hitting on underage users? A simple yes or no would be appreciated. JohnnyBGood 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this attitude. You have no right to know everything that's going on. Some things must be done privately. End of story. --Cyde Weys 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages is an open community of users, especially when it comes to blocks and bans. I can find no precedent for such a shrouded dismissal of a user. Correct me if I'm wrong of course. JohnnyBGood 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are corrected. -- Drini 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages is not an open community of users. You only think it is because that's how most things are done; but of course there are exceptions. WP:OFFICE is proof of that. If you were a Google employee, would you barge into Sergei Brin's office and demand to know every detail of the company's future products? I don't think so. You don't have any sort of right to know everything that goes on in Misplaced Pages either. --Cyde Weys 22:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying Jimbo or Danny Wool are actually the one who are blocking this user? JohnnyBGood 22:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak for them on this issue. Only they can speak for themselves in this. --Cyde Weys 22:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me amend that ... I don't speak for them on any issues, and certainly not in any sort of official capacity. --Cyde Weys 22:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't image you would. I don't think they have any designated proxies at this time. JohnnyBGood 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR exists for a reason. Not everything has to be detailed and set in written policy. Admins are expected to exercise their commons sense, and this was the case. Move on. -- Drini 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty Johnny (and Cyde), this shouldn't have been discussed on Misplaced Pages in the first place. This misunderstanding should have resolved itself off-wiki other than admins, ArbCom, or OFFICE involved to begin with. — Moe Epsilon 22:56 August 15 '06

I wasn't the one who brought all of the sordid details on-wiki ... you, more than anyone else, was the one who did that. --Cyde Weys 22:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? You blocked him. Which sent me to AN talking about the block. I thought the block was inappropriate and I didn't intend on discussing it in full detail. — Moe Epsilon 23:02 August 15 '06

I didn't reveal any detail on-wiki. You were the one who revealed lots of detail. But there's no point in getting into a he said/she said ... the diffs reveal the truth for what it is. --Cyde Weys 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I started on the vague description stating there was a disturbance outside Misplaced Pages and the block was innapropriate. Yeh, you're one to talk about the truth... — Moe Epsilon 23:07 August 15 '06

I think we're done here. There's nothing productive that can be gained from further discussion on this issue. --Cyde Weys 23:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, feel free to archive this section. After reviewing the "timeline of events" provided by Nathan himself I must say I actually am in agreement with the block now. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::Cyde, as per the "timeline" of events, please, take this down of the wiki. As you and many others have said, this is a deeply personal matter, which never should have seen the light of day on here, and now this timeline reveals personal information which could be used in future to harrass the users involved. This is obviously a case of placing users, some of which are minors, in clear danger. Please, I beg, take this down. You know that I havn't been vocal about this subject, as I'm involved, but this is too much, and shouldn't be here. Thε Halo 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I'd also ask for the talk page to be fully protected, and George to be given a short block for releasing personal infomation. This is obviously down to your good judgement. Thε Halo 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Sorry to keep coming here (looks like trolling, but trust me, it isn't) but seeing as you weren't around, I took the offending material down myself. I still request all the other actions i suggested (along with maybe deleting that section of page history, if that can be done). I've taken this here as I really didn't want to create another mess on WP:AN. Thank you for understanding. Thε Halo 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

These situations have been sorted out elsewhere. Sorry to have done all this here. Thε Halo 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)