Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyde (talk | contribs) at 23:01, 17 September 2006 (rv. trolling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Sorry to bother your bot again

First thanks for the last request that your bot did, it was great to see. After slogging through fixing the disambiguations I am noticing that there are a couple of fixes that cydebot could do without mix up. Would it be possible to program it to do the following?

] changed to ]

as well as ] changed to ]

If so, many thanks. Also, i have noticed your vandalbot recently. That is a really good utility, it will save hundreds of man hours in the long run, good job on writing these programs. David D. (Talk) 02:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've had a very, very, very minor role in the programming of Vandalbot. You can thank Joshbuddy for that. I just run it. --Cyde Weys 20:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Did the applications committee for Cydebot approve the above request? If not, I'll carry on with the manual. Thanks David D. (Talk) 19:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm running your changes now, there don't seem to be a lot of things that need updating though. As for bot approval ... if the bot applications committee really did approve every little different regex that bot operators run they would exhaust themselves in a day. Somewhere along the line you must've gotten some very restrictive notion of the bot approval process into your head when in reality it's not at all like that. --Cyde Weys 22:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, STOP, Many thanks but the worker ants got there first. Unbelieveably, it all got done by the disambig crew, while I was lazily waiting for cydebot. Thanks a lot anyway! David D. (Talk) 04:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong

I have unprotected Persecution of Falun Gong to ascertain the current status of disputes as they have filed a request for arbitration. Fred Bauder 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Have a look at this - Hope it helps, bad revert by your bot! HawkerTyphoon 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Blargh

Blargh, I are dead! Does this mean I should unblock that? >_> Luna Santin 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. What use would I have for an account that contained some variation on my email address? "User:Cyde" is just fine, thanks :-D (Damn vandals sure are getting persistent though). --Cyde Weys 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Which particular piece of trolling?

Which particular piece of trolling is Karwynn currently blocked for, with talk page protected? -GTBacchus 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

All of his recent edits, basically. The whole middle finger and "sit and spin" thing was what really did it. If this isn't classic trolling I don't know what is. There's no excuse for him not to be blocked over that. --Cyde Weys 12:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Twice though? Maybe I had the chronology wrong. I thought Tony blocked him for that, and then he removed the offending picture from his talk page, and then JoshuaZ unblocked him per discussion, and then you reblocked him... for the same thing again? I've just double checked , and that's what it looks like. The block summary wasn't very descriptive: just "trolling". -GTBacchus 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone has done something particularly bad and is mistakenly unblocked, I see no problem with reblocking them. --Cyde Weys 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

updating dates on AI history

I don't see how you have `updated' the date links on the history of artificial intelligence page. It looks like you have just deleted them all! The page you point to, WP:Dates does not say to do this, in fact, it says they were right as they were before.

Is there a reason I shouldn't revert your changes? --Jaibe 17:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:DATE carefully. It says that dates that allow the date preferences formatting to work are fine (such as 2006-09-14), but standalone linked years don't do anything for date preferences formatting, and since they add very little value, on the balance of things, it is better to not have them linked to reduce visual clutter and to emphasize the importance of links that actually make sense in the context of the article. In an article on the history of AI the link Neats vs. scruffies makes sense and adds to the quality of the article, whereas a link to 1954 doesn't really do anything ... "oooh look, here's a bunch of other unrelated things that happened in 1954 that have nothing to do with what I was reading about!" --Cyde Weys 17:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Splash's Unsemiprotects"

I saw that you withdrew your RfAr, which was probably sensible at this time. However, if there is further discussion of this issue, I'd appreciate your letting me know (or maybe posting a mention of it on one of the notice boards) as I am interested in following the discussion. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Consult others

I'd appreciate it if you contacted me before changing my block length here. I felt it was appropriate given the severity of the vandalism. Alphachimp 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think you should've contacted me first. That's an IP I identified as a serious source of vandalism and blocked for a whole fortnight, and then you come along after that expires and only block it for 3 hours? Block lengths go up over time as the vandalism continues, not way down. Four fortnights is appropriate; it's obvious the IP address is still in the hands of the same vandals. --Cyde Weys 04:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, this is sort of silly. I don't need a lesson on block lengths. How was I supposed to know that you were online? It would seem logical to block the IP before looking for you. Do you commonly consult others before blocking? Alphachimp 04:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, this is very silly. Why did you feel it necessary to come here attempting to chastise me for increasing the block length on a vandal you didn't fully investigate before choosing a block length for? --Cyde Weys 04:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, need I remind you to assume good faith? I'm not here to chastise you. I'm just asking that you consult me or any other admin in the future. I did investigate, and I did see previous vandalism. It was my judgment that this instance only merited a 3 hour block. I'll repeat my questions from before:

• "Do you commonly consult others before blocking?"

• "How was I supposed to know that you were online?" Alphachimp 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:AAGF. It's a really bad habit to be shoving your "good faith" in other people's faces all the time. If you're really acting in good faith, it should be patently obvious. --Cyde Weys 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you answered the two questions. Alphachimp 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been tracking this vandal for awhile now, ever since I first blocked it. I see that it started vandalizing again after the last stern block, so I go to take care of it, only to see that you've already blocked it, but with a really short duration. So I increased the duration. I don't see why you are making such a big deal out of this. --Cyde Weys 05:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The questions? Out of interest, why is it necessary for your bot to refactor my signature? Alphachimp 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There was getting to be too much formatting, it made the edit window hard to read. As for your questions: do I commonly consult others before blocking? Not necessarily. But I don't raise a big stink if someone who has more information than I do comes along and revises my block. As for how you were supposed to know I was online ... try IRC. --Cyde Weys 05:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, when I used IRC, you were always on. Anyway, I don't have access to it anymore. I shouldn't have to log onto an IRC chat to determine whether or not to block a user. You and I both know that. As for the questions: I've never seen an admin consult before blocking for vandalism, but I almost always see admins consulting before reverting others' actions. alphaChimp 05:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert your actions. Is the IP address unblocked now? Sure as hell not! I strengthened your actions! If I was going to go and unblock it, I would have talked with you. But I didn't do that. --Cyde Weys 05:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically you did revert my block, although only for a second. Such a large change in block length could be significant. If you'd just left a simple message on my talk page, we could have discussed it within those 3 hours. I'm open to that, and would appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you before such a change. I really don't see how that would have been a problem. alphaChimp 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, leave the wikilawyering out of it. Nobody's going to buy the, "Oh, but technically you did reverse my block, because the software requires that the old block be temporarily lifted before a new one can be asigned." --Cyde Weys 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You chose to question my definition of terms, specifically "reversion", and I responded. I'd appreciate if you avoided personal attacks both here and directly below. Just avoid the ad hominem fallacy entirely. I'm not attacking your character, and I'd appreciate if you did not characterize mine. alphaChimp 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn to stop citing policies when they don't apply. It's just annoying trying to talk to someone when they're constantly spouting off, "Oh, assume good faith! Stop being incivil!" Talk about the issues. And I would really like to know what you construed as a personal attack above. --Cyde Weys 15:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

When you characterize the person instead of the action, it becomes a personal attack. alphaChimp 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice evasion. I mean quote me what you think was a personal attack above. My guess is that you think "wikilawyering is a personal attack", but it isn't, and it's clear that you were engaged in it by making the statement, "Technically you did revert my block, although only for a second." --Cyde Weys 17:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume you're trying to make some sort of issue out of this because you had an issue with me in the past. Knock it off. If it was anyone else who had revised one of your block durations you wouldn't have given it a second look. Expecting that people consult you every time before revising any of your actions is a bit egocentric and unwiki. --Cyde Weys 05:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I really don't appreciate that comment. Please treat me respectfully. alphaChimp 05:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely offended to be characterized as "egocentric and unwiki". I put a lot of effort into this project, and none of it is related to my ego. I came to this page with a simple request in regard to an administrative action. The only responses I've gotten on this page are denials (e.g. you don't understand wikipedia, you don't understand blocking) and personal attacks. Please apologize for your comment directly above and the characterization that I am "wikilawyering". alphaChimp 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Point to me another instance in which you got so peeved off when one of your block lengths was adjusted and I'll retract my statement. In all my months of adminning this is rather unheard of. Nobody's ever jumped at me for adjusting the length of a vandalism block like you have. --Cyde Weys 15:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So you stand by your comments that I am:

• "egocentric and unwiki"
• "shoving 'good faith' in other people's faces all the time"
• "wikilawyering"
• "trying to make some sort of issue out of this because you had an issue with me in the past"
• "jump at "?

When others adjust my block lengths, to the best of my knowledge, I have always been contacted, if only just as a courtesy. I do the same when changing another admin decision. This entire thing could be over if you had just said "OK, fine I'll do that next time." alphaChimp 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So you want me to lie to you now too? --Cyde Weys 17:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I should create a signature like "Buttinsky (The Uninvited Informal Mediator)". I know neither of you asked for a WP:3O but here it is whether you asked for it or not.

I can't believe you guys have wasted so much time on this useless thread. This has gotten blown all out of proportion. I think Cyde Weys could have left a note for AlphaChimp explaining why he lengthened the block. Cyde, just say you'll try to do so next time and be done with it.

I also think AlphaChimp should take a breather and say "Fine, Cyde didn't consult beforehand. Is the current fortnight block appropriate or inappropriate? If it is inappropriate, please make the case that it should be shortened. If it is appropriate, then you're arguing about style not substance. Don't you guys have anything better to do? Like fighting other vandals or something? --Richard 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Cyde Weys 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Hotrodhrs

Hope thats ok - Glen 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much hope for this :-/ Cyde Weys 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)