User talk:Cyde/Archive014

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.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Angela Beesley resigns as Wikimedia Foundation trustee	Requiring confirmed email suggested for uploads
Wikipedia cited by the England and Wales High Court	Unblock requests directed to new mailing list
News and Notes: Wiktionary milestone, privacy policy update	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

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 Wikipedia: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?

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)

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)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hello Cyde,

I'm not sure if your removal of my comments here has been intentional. I hope that my asking your opinion is not considered "spamming," as I see your neutral/admin oversight as both important for this article in general, and for preventing any mistaken controversial edits on my part. The issue that I approach you on at the moment is why there is a "US Aid to Israel" section, whether you believe it is NPOV, and/or whether I missed some relevant discussion on talk. I am raising my objections there as well, and plan to remove most of it and place relevant sections elsewhere. Thank you for your time, Tewfik^Talk 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I removed comments there? I don't recall doing that at all, must have been unintentional. Can you provide a diff so I know what you're talking about? --Cyde↔Weys 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. It was Werdnabot. In any event, keep up the NPOVing. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, since user Tewfik has requested your assistance on the past (assistance which has been useful), you might want to be aware I have raised a mediation request regarding his behaivior towards me at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24_Tewfik_harrassment_of_Cerejota.--Cerejota 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the list at WP:AN/I

Hi Cyde. Just a note. I put back the list you removed from WP:AN/I. I explained my reasoning in there.

If you feel strongly about removing it, I won't revert you, as I don't do revert wars and the whole matter is not worth all the fuss to start with.

However, I would like to ask you to not remove it again, and let me explain why.

You see, I am sure that both you and Kelly and a few others are well-meaning people. In the same time, I hope you understand how unhappy some people are that tabs are being kept about who votes against whom in an RfA. Really, that damages trust, and I hope it won't happen again.

I suggest you let the list stay at WP:AN/I. Removing it gives almost as bad an impression as creating it to start with. Let us leave things as much as possible in the open and move on. How does that sound? You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please expedite block

Can you pleas expedite this block, especially since the user has reverted again (6th or 7th time). This is very disruptive to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes consolidation support

What's on the slab Do not use these templates yet

You have recently either supported my userbox consolidation efforts or at least applauded them. Currently, I am putting together another larger batch of userbox deletions which will have master templates. (The master templates are not "live" yet.) Would you be willing to support me in this and any future consolidations? There will probably be a lot of resistance at first to this, so having a group of people supporting me would be greatly appreciated.

At the moment, 5 master userboxes are in the works to replace 72. That may increase significantly if I can get the sixth one to work as I would like. Some of the templates to be replaced are widely used, but with the consolidated templates there is more funcitionability.

Please let me know, you can click [edit] above as this conversation is transcluded to all.

Sent to: Aeon1006, Andrew c, BigDT, Billpg, Brian Olsen, Cyde, Gperrow, Khaosworks, Luna Santin, Marcus-e, MiraLuka, NKSCF, Pegasus1138, Phil Boswell, Plange, RedZebra, Rfrisbie, Riana dzasta, Stefanmg, and Tuspm
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting use of transclusion. :) Can't promise I'll always vote to support, but I imagine that in many cases I will. Feel free to let me know when you post them (I tend not to watch TfD too often), and as always I'll be more than willing to lend what technical advice I can. Luna Santin 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lady Aleena, as noted in an earlier discussion with you, I think consolidation is fine for thematically related userboxes. However, I also support diversity through mass customization, so I'm more inclined to support consolidations that maintain display differences in images, colors and especially wordings. That's easy enough to do with parser functions. I wish you all the best. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 22:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As per the two posts above, I might very likely support it but I'll determine it on a case by case basis. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't overly care too terribly much. I will say that I think having generic userboxes is a good thing from one standpoint - it helps newbies learn Wikicode. If you can't just add {{User Hokie}} to your page but instead have optional parameters like {{User Hokie|year=2001|border=maroon|major=CS}}, that's definitely a good thing. BigDT 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here - case by case. I only voted on the Doctor Who box because it was part of the Wikiproject, anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just let me know when you need my support LA, Most od th eboxes I use are aprt of a wikiproject anyways or made myself Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't use userboxes, I only got into this because of the Doctor Who project. But I'd take a look on a case by case basis, certainly. --Brian Olsen 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT. Userboxes with optional parameters taught me how to use Wikicode. A master template isn't a bad idea... hell, it should be like that for most userboxes. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like this use of transclusion. I think I'll vote on a case by case basis, but I do like and support the idea as a whole. —Mira 02:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also take a look on a case-by-base basis. --Gperrow 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have appreciated your efforts so far and will extend my support to similar "consolidation" projects. RedZebra 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you know of anyone who may be interested in this, just transclude this to their talk page as it is transcluded to yours. - LA @ 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up! Stefanmg 11:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa ... time travel! ;) BigDT 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... I always copy some of previous posts. It's easier... I just forgot to change the date Stefanmg 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So Far I like what you have done! See your Talk page to find out How much! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One concern I have about this form of communication on a topic that admittedly might be controversial is the potential for accusations of recruiting for votestacking. What are others' views on this? Rfrisbie^talk 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I had wondered about this, but unless I am mistaken, this is an uncontroversial tidy up operation. Stephen B Streater 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As a lot of you have said, you will take my recommendations on a case by case basis. That tells me that you are ready, willing, and able to tell me when I have crossed the line. - LA @ 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just anticipating a potential issue so you can prepare for it. If anyone ever puts up a stink, you might want to disclose this page is here. But then again, it might never come up. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we don't vote on Wikipedia it should not be an issue hopefully. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Other consolidations

Myers-Briggs

• ENFJ: 26
• ENFP: 48
• ENTJ: 30
• ENTP: 46
• ESFJ: 15
• ESFP: 7
• ESTJ: 19
• ESTP: 8
• INFJ: 43
• INFP: 80
• INTJ: 135
• INTJ2: 45
• INTP: 151
• INTP2: 34
• ISFJ: 13
• ISFP: 13
• ISTJ: 69
• ISTP: 42

Rfrisbie...have you thought about getting your Myers-Briggs templates deleted in favor of the combined one that Thadman created? That would be another 18 deleted. I did a survey of how many people were using each...

Some people have more than one of these on their user pages, so some of those are duplicates. I know that some look like a lot of people use them, but once we get people migrating from individual templates to master templates, it will get easier and easier to consolidate them. Hopefully we can keep user templates in Template space if we can show that we can police them. - LA @ 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi LA, of course, we all know they're not “my” templates. I just moved some to userspace as part of the effort to find a userbox compromise most people could live with. I wasn’t kidding when I said I support diversity in userboxes. Although I think Thadman’s userbox {{User:The Thadman/Userbox/MBTI}} is cool, it displays differently than the others – only one color scheme with a set of profile scores – and it doesn’t use categories . I don’t have any problem with it or another template designed to consolidate the existing features of the other boxes for “elegance” reasons, as long as no features are lost. However, I do not see a “need” to do it. On a web site that went from 1 million articles to over 1.25 million in about four months, I really consider the number of userbox pages to be a non-issue. I’m also not aware of any material debates on keeping userboxes in templatespace if someone polices them. Maybe you can show me a link or two on that. In this particular case, it’s even more superfluous because all personality boxes already are in userspace (User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Personality) and the Wikipedia directory page was deleted. [1] Rfrisbie^talk 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on GUS on the WikiProject Userboxes talk page. - LA @ 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. What that shows me is that you are very well-intentioned in your efforts, your rationale for this process as a means to keep userboxes in template space is not supported by consensus, and the specific case of the Myers-Briggs templates does not apply, since they already are ugly in userspace. Sorry, I'm still not convinced of the need or consensus to do this. However, if you're still interested in combining the boxes for "efficiency," without changing the displays or categories, it's fine with me. Rfrisbie^talk 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have only gotten one reply to my initial statement. I wish that more people would comment for I really want to keep user templates in the template space. I will never use a user template in user space. - LA @ 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that LA I have been dealing with other issues, I agree with what your doing it should make things a lot simpler. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

LOTR

I've found a few more that may be worth consolidating: the LOTR userboxes. Luna Santin 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at those, however the merged template would have to have standardized wording. I will give it a good think. - LA @ 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Live master user templates

I have made four of those master templates live. I will not start the TfD process on the ones they are replacing for at least a week. I want to see how well they catch on without a TfD first. However, do you think that I could slip a little note onto the to be TfDd templates noting the new master without too much censure. The message would be in the box appearing on the user pages like a TfD, but not as obtrusive. - LA @ 06:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. What do the others think? Æon ^{Insane Ward} 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the card game user templates have been marked with a message about the master template. The ones which are of different design are not marked as of yet. - LA @ 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates for deletion in progress

Here are the TfDs in progress...

August 7

User chess variants

Card game user templates

Idol series user templates

Newspaper types user templates

August 11

Prison Break

Law & Order series

Go take a look and tell the community what you think. - LA @ 07:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Checked them out, went delete on all. Great Job LA! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's userbox consolidation desk

If you find a group of userboxes which you think could be merged, place them on my userbox desk. Please alphabetalize them over the Edit section with NEW in the section name so it stands out a bit. I currently have 6 projects there. - LA @ 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

More user template deletions

To those who are still watching this, please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 25/User templates and give your opinion. - LA @ 08:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA comment

I noticed your comment here [2] which misses the point of a significant number of the oppose votes. As you may not have seen my belated response on the RfA page, or the other posts from opposers, I could correct your misconception here if this would help you. Stephen B Streater 22:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, so far I don't think I've seen anything to change my opinion of the oppose votes. But who knows, you could make me think otherwise. Let me just make one thing: I saw a little bit of validity in some of the oppose comments, but nothing approaching the level of denying him his request for re-adminship. Nobody's perfect ... and quite frankly, it's the perfect ones who do worry me, because they're so committed to remaining bland and uninteresting to maybe go for bureaucrat some day that they are incapable of making difficult and divisive, but entirely necessary, decisions. --Cyde↔Weys 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"incapable of making difficult and divisive, but entirely necessary, decisions." I think that anyone that opposed Sean Black, against the pressure from established wikipedians, is not the sort of person that is seeking to run for bureaucrat some day. It is quite possible to be a hard arse but at the same time explain ones actions with a rationale. It seems that SB often forgot that this is part of the job. Beating the opposition with a stick is unlikley to win them over sooner. Strong arguments based on reasoning will do the job. The latter is harder but it is what i expect from admins. Sure he may not abuse the tools, instead he may abuse those that disagree with him. I'm sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree on the qualities that are important for admins. David D. (Talk) 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to your first comment: yes, the two are not related, I just sort of went off on a rant there. I do think that the RFB process is fatally flawed. In response to the second part: The evidence brought against Sean Black was totally blown out of proportion. So he was a bit rude to two problem users. He's had great interactions with dozens of users who are actually themselves civil and are good contributors. I just didn't see anything there to want to deny giving back Sean the op bit. --Cyde↔Weys 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And I have to say that when i first opposed i was sitting on the fence. If i had seen some constructive rebuttals i think i might have changed to support. Instead, it turned ugly quite fast, and that, if anything made me shift to an even stronger oppose. Anyway it matters not now, since SB has reclaimed his admin status and i do not object to that at all. I think we can all take something from this RfA and use it too imporve wiki in the long term. David D. (Talk) 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think communication and accountability are important qualities for those with power. We all agree that even the best can make mistakes, and these can be most efficiently corrected if they are explained. Danny may make bold decisions, but you notice that he always explains them. You are discussing here. There is no fundamental reason for Sean Black not to do the same. I think that historically this has been his biggest weakness, and there is no reason not to fix it. Stephen B Streater 06:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

This arbitration case is closed, and the final decision has been published at the link above. For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 30	24 July 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Special report, writers wanted
Another country reportedly blocks Wikipedia	School files suit against anonymous user(s)
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Wikipedia featured in The New Yorker
Election officials named to handle vote for board seat	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and Notes: Biographies of living persons, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

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. --Michael Snow 03:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Erik the Rude

I noticed you blocked this user -- he did note in a comment on his talk page that he thought his account had been hacked. Perhaps blocking is the best thing if it has been hacked (and I won't speculate as to the veracity of his comment), but I just thought you should be aware of it. Catamorphism 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way - whether the account has just been hacked or that comment is legit - the block is deserved. --Cyde↔Weys 04:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe a block is deserved based just on that. Why not ask for a simple retraction of it? It definitely appeared intended as a vague threat, but it's no good to reflexively react. What are the user's other contributions like, in general? Everyking 05:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Everyking, I just can't take you seriously when you don't think a block is deserved for someone who has made personal threats against another user's life. The user's other contributions are irrelevant - this was unacceptable. --Cyde↔Weys 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be deserved; I was only saying it would be better not to be reflexive, to give the guy a chance to be reasonable and apologize for that comment before taking drastic action. Everyking 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why sould I bother to give someone a chance to offer an apology over something I would never accept an apology for anyway? --Cyde↔Weys 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't Kelly be the one who would be accepting the apology? I have to agree that a ban is appropriate for what was said on her talk page. Indefinite ban, I'm not so sure.

Cyde, i do agree with Friday (mentioned below) that leaving a message on rudes talk page would seem appropriate. You just open yourself up for criticism when deciding to ignore standard procedure (at least i assume it is standard to inform people of blocks). David D. (Talk) 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing I'm opening myself up for criticism on this one, because it lets me ferret out the people who discredit themselves by saying they do not think death threats deserve indefinite bans. --Cyde↔Weys 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if it's a real death threat for sure its a definite ban. But i don't know this user well enough to know the real intent of that message. Looked more like bluster to me, although, it was not funny at all. Regardless by leaving the message due process is done. By not leaving a message you just open the gates for whinning and wikilawyering. David D. (Talk) 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, let me be very blunt. I don't want to get involved, at all, with someone who has made a death threat against another admin, because I do not want to place myself in any unnecessary danger. Ideally these kinds of blocks could be made anonymously, but that isn't possible, so my next best option is to not have any communication with him whatsoever outside of blocking his account. --Cyde↔Weys 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious, you really consider rude that much of a threat? If that was your rationale why didn't you get someone else to block? It's not like your block is anonymous and not informing Rude of the block seems to be more antagonistic than a block with a message on the user page. If you're worried about reprisals the latter block, following standard procedure, would seem to be the way to go. Just my 2cents. David D. (Talk) 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm discrediting myself? Maybe i just don't see things in a black and white way. David D. (Talk) 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Count me as Officially No Longer Having Any Clue What's Up With This Guy, anyway. No idea who's controlling either account, but Brian G. Crawford is also up and running again. Catamorphism 06:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(indents getting excessive) I gotta agree with David D. here- not explaining the block doesn't seem to address the privacy concern in any way at all. Really, the simplest best thing is just to remember to leave users a message explaining why you've blocked them. This will save time all around, and might even head off "I was blocked with no explanation!" complaints. Friday (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say an apology would not be acceptable in case of a threat like this. Truly indefinite bans—not just indefinite by technical length, but also due to the idea that there is no possible redemption for what a user has done—should be used only in the rarest of cases, when a level of clear danger exists far above this comment that was probably only meant in jest, or perhaps as a means of expressing annoyance or frustration in an inappropriate way. To just lock out a human being from contributing here for the rest of his life on the basis of one stupid comment that he probably regrets is the height of overreaction. What I say is this: ask him what he meant, and if he stands by the threat, fine, leave the indef block, but otherwise shorten it to some reasonable length of time. Everyking 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear Everyking, I have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to determine appropriate blocks. Even before the threatening letter this was pretty much the worst thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I cannot believe that you'd try to stick up for this guy saying the block length was inappropriate. --Cyde↔Weys 18:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The letter gives me further doubts about the user, but nevertheless I think you took the wrong approach. Everyking 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He's a reincarnation of a banned troll who's harrassed other people, it turns out. I have no doubts that I took the right approach. --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox generator

I sat for a few minutes pondering how I could best express my approval and glee, then drank a pint, thought some more, then checkmated myself in three consecutive chess matches, then thought... this simply rocks. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

You deleted Template:User antiracist mx admirer with "T1" as explanation. That's pretty cryptical. What is T1? I know F1 and TT and AT&T and FU2, but how are we to understand T1? ActiveSelective 09:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:GUS for the future of userboxes; T1 is a WP:CSD. --Cyde↔Weys 12:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Erik the Rude

I see an indefinite block for threats, made by you. However I see no explanation of said block on the user's talk page. What's the deal? Don't we always explain ourselves when we block people? I'm not disagreeing with the block, just wondering where it was explained. Friday (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the edit in question. And given the nature of it, I don't really feel like getting involved with him on his talk page. He knows what he did, and this has been thoroughly discussed on ANI. --Cyde↔Weys 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks- per that edit the block seems obviously justfied to me. I'd warned this guy about threats before but I see it made little difference. I still think it's extremely helpful to explain blocks on talk pages- if for no other reason than to save time by preventing random passersby from asking questions. Friday (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleteing of Jew Listbox

Hello. I mean what I'm about to say as respectfully as possible but I find your deleteion and block of the Jew user box to be Racist. Judaism is not just a religion... it is a culture. How come an Irish person can say they're Irish but a Jewish person cannot say they're Jewish.

LOL, you might want to do more a little bit more research before accusing someone of being racist ... are you accusing me of being racist against my own people?! This has everything to do with WP:GUS and nothing to do with racism. --Cyde↔Weys 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I said the action was racist, Why can;t we bring it back as an ethnicity?--Dr who1975 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok... here's another thought... why not a least make it a redirect page to something like User:Disavian/Userboxes/Jewish so we know we have an option when we see an empty spot on our user page. I'm sitting here gettong pissed off over semantics because I wasn;t told any different.--Dr who1975 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just include {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/Jewish}} on your userpage. There's no need to redirect from the one in template space because the one in template space isn't supposed to exist anymore. --Cyde↔Weys 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to make the Template more like the one below which redirects you to an alternate tmeplate. Other wise you;re going to get more whiney, crazy people like me bothering you.--Dr who1975 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Template:User Doctor Who 5th Doctor.

Zereshk

Hi

I see your message in Zereshk's talk page. I send a mail for him and told him to be more patiant. would you please tell me when zereshk can edit again?--Sa.vakilian 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Aminz

Hi, Cyde, you seem to be around. Could you reply to blocked user Aminz, please? He's asking on his talkpage what his personal attacks are, and asking for examples and diffs. He appears convinced he hasn't attacked or harassed anybody. I don't know him personally, but regard him as a good-faith editor, and have often seen him defusing rather than instigating conflicts. Although I'm having trouble finding my way around his edits recently, as he's been very active the last few days. I notice his e-mail isn't enabled, and if I understand how that works, that means he can't e-mail you either. Please respond to him. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

Aminz and Zereshk have been on a harrassing and annoying campaign against InShanee for awhile now because InShanee dared to step into some silly cultural conflict and Zereshk basically responded with, "You have no right to tell us anything about this, it's not your cultur, you won't understand." This has been going on for quite some time with disruptive threads on ANI and veiled insults all over the wiki. And now that Aminz is being blocked I just see him repeatedly Wikilawyering. All of this harrassment and campaigning against admins needs to stop; he can't weasel his way out of it. --Cyde↔Weys 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just wish you'd respond to him, with that same explanation or some diffs to the veiled insults or something. I'm not asking you to withdraw the block. But leaving him with just the formula given in the block log does look unspecific, especially when he asks about it. Cyde, please don't give the guy a reason to feel at the mercy of admins. I really don't see Aminz — at least normally, usually — as a malcontent. I appreciate that something may have happened recently to turn him into one. But this isn't a bad user. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

Aminz' mistake was in defending Zereshk, who does engage in the behavior described. Aminz doesn't.Timothy Usher 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, those who read what Aminz has posted on his talk page since his block will realize what those who edit articles with him routinely have to go through. Pecher ^Talk 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for the diffs please. --Aminz 04:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to re-read the block message I left on your userpage, particularly the part where I said "I strongly urge that you do not continue this pattern of editing once your block expires." It's done with, get over it, move on; don't fixate on me now as a target and excessively bicker and wikilawyer about. --Cyde↔Weys 04:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is it that asking why I was blocked is excessively bicker? I just want to know why I was blocked. Please ask Shane and he will witness to you that our conversation didn't have any "cultural conflict" element. I have never edited Iran related articles. I don't know even when or where the quote you mentioned has been posted. I wasn't there for sure. I met Shane a couple of days ago. I even haven't had much encounter with Zereshk before this (well my main encounter was when I wanted to nominate Zora for adminship and Zereshk opposed but that's pretty much of it) Zereshk only edits Iranian/Shia related articles and I edit Islam related articles. --Aminz 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, do you agree that the connection you made above between the "cultural conflict" point and my block case were irrelevant to each other? Now, can you please let me know the diffs for my other alledged deeds. Also, could you please why didn't you reply me back on my talk page, or to my email, during my block? Thanks --Aminz 06:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I find your last comment hurting. Please revise it. --Aminz 06:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of cooling down, looking back into what happened, I do admit that I lost my temper block of Zereshk. Even having a point can never justify my voluminous criticisms of InShaneee's administrative decision. I ignored the fact that one's admin actions does not necessarily depend on what a person has immediately done. I do admit that I lost my temper again after I got blocked myself and have done what I shouldn't have done; and by doing so, I have poisoned the well. So did I after Zereshk's block.--Aminz 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm sorry, but I think I'm gonna have to ask you for some sort of clarification of your intent. As you've posted no reply (that I know of) to my concerns [3], am I to assume that you plan to take no action on this issue? —Gabbe 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User liberal anglican

Cyde, why did you delete the liberal Anglican userbox? There was no deletion discussion and you did not provide a summary, aside from the cryptic and meaningless alphanumeric combination T1. Carolynparrishfan 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:GUS and WP:CSD. --Cyde↔Weys 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Both these issues have been discussed at the DRV talk page. The consensus among regulars there is that blanking logs is fine. Since people have requested it, I do add a summary of the close to my editing comment when I add to the Recently Closed section -- I'd rather not do it twice. I don't understand why it isn't intuitive that one should look in the recently closed section to see what the recent results are; but, I guess enough people are confused such that I will start typing the result twice. As I said when we were discussing things before, DRV really isn't as important as the other forums: it just decides whether a new discussion is needed, and rarely reaches a "final result" on matters... except the trash. DRV is the last place that bad article ideas go to die. Anyway, templates would lend a false sense of importance. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

Cydebot request

Hi Cyde,
Further to here, a request for your bot to move all the "Aircraft manufacturers of [country]" subcategories of Category:Aircraft manufacturers to Category:Aircraft manufacturers by country (which I've just created). Hope this is straightforward. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done --Cyde↔Weys 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!  David 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to AntiVandalBot

• Thanks goes out to your AntiVandalBot to patrolling recent vandalism on some pages I contribute to. User Blondie0309 has taken to simply deleting all text on articles, without comment, here [4], and here [5]], and actually reverting back to said deletions of text, here [6]. It would be greatly appreciated if you would look into this, as had been done with User Passintheclassin. Thanks, Smeelgova 06:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

Image talk:Israeli Soldiers with LB Hezbollah Flags.jpg

Cyde,

I'd appreciate your input on the Fair use of this image.

Thanks,

AdamKesher 15:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Specifics on what? Karmafist 17:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Errr

By your own standards, isn't this an attack? Telling a user you have no confidence whatsoever in their ability to do something isn't very nice, is it? (I'm not actually suggesting such statements should be seen as attacks, just trying to point out the difference between criticism and an attack.) Friday (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do have no confidence whatsoever in Everyking; it is absolutely appalling to me that he would argue for the side of the user that has made death threats merely because he has had some disagreements with Kelly Martin in the past. I too have had disagreements with other users, but I would never side against them with psycopaths who are making threats against their life. There are no parallels with this to Karmafist's situation because Karmafist is on a civility probation from ArbCom and has been repeatedly blocked for weeks for all manners of unconstructive behavior. --Cyde↔Weys 18:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Cydebot

I don't know if this is too urgent but your bot, for lack of a better word, messed up my user page (link). I don't know if there is something wrong or malfunctioning with the bot. Possibly a script error. Not sure. Thanks for your time. --WillMak050389 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, people need to stop bringing Wikipedian user categories through WP:CFD and just delete them instead. The pyWikipediaBot framework works on standard assumptions about how articles are categorized, something which apparently doesn't transfer very well to userboxes. --Cyde↔Weys 18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just thought I'd notify you. I believe I have fixed it though. --WillMak050389 19:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not venting at you, so you have no need to apologize. I'm just venting at the people who somehow thought these user categories were going to be a good idea without considering how worthless and headache-inducing they actually are. CFD wastes a lot more time than necessary trying to figure out what the "optimal" name for any particular user category should be, when my personal viewpoint is that they shouldn't exist at all because WP:ENC tells us Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, so categories should be used to categorize articles, not users. --Cyde↔Weys 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you because we all know this encyclopedia would be better if people didn't spend so much time working on those user categories and other useless info. --WillMak050389 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Zachariah Blanton

Yeah, you're right, thanks. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Subpages of my talkpage

Please return User talk:Ssbohio/B & User talk:Ssbohio/BB to their condition before being deleted & moved. I hadn't finished my work on B, and BB doesn't belong in its place. Since this entirely concerns my talk page, please direct further discussion there. Thanks. --Ssbohio 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I was unclear, but I'm asking you to undo both your move and your deletion of subpages of my talk page. You've undone the move, which I appreciate, but I'd really like the pages back the way I had them before your work on them. Also, I'd ask you to be careful with edit summaries. The move wasn't made because I wanted a different name for the page, but because I wanted you to revert your actions taken with regard to both affected pages. Thanks again. --Ssbohio 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'm done here. I don't like your attitude at all. You ask me to fix one of your pages while simultaneously writing something negative about me on that page? What is wrong with you? --Cyde↔Weys 02:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. You delete one of the subpages of my talkpage for no reason that I can determine, fial to explain yourself when questioned about it, and fail to revert your deletion when asked to. Yet, perversely, the problem is my attitude? You're the one with the administrator's tools that you're using to make deletions not supported by deletion policy on pages that relate to a controversy in which you are involved. I didn't come into your userpages and start deleting things. You came into mine. Of the two of us, the onus is on you, both by virtue of your position in this community & by virtue of you being the one who made the deletion. I shouldn't have to curry your favor to get you to restore these pages to the condition they were in before you intervened. I'm not asking you for a favor, Cyde. --Ssbohio 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'll tell you what's amazing, that you act like a jerk and then think I owe it to you to help you out. --Cyde↔Weys 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the misunderstanding. I don't expect you to help me out. I only expect you to undo what you've done. I'm here doing what I'm supposed to do when an administrator takes an action. I'm addressing it with that administrator. I don't think ill of you for taking the original action. I've seen enough of your work here to know that you're motivated by good intentions. That doesn't mean that the deletion you made should stay deleted. You may think I'm acting like a jerk, but all I want is a return to the status quo ante, not any favor or extraordinary treatment. --Ssbohio 03:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

T1 userboxes

There are some userboxes requiring your talents. ;) Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 26 - Template:User free palestine and Template:User palestinian cause. BigDT 02:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! BigDT 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, nice tip. --Cyde↔Weys 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Empty userbox page

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Colours is empty (all boxes have been moved to user space), should you care to delete it. —Mira 07:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken care of it, and good work. --Cyde↔Weys 13:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects with funky quotation

In regards to your generally exasperated throwing-up-of-hands in WP:RFD - I don't know what causes people to make redirects like that (or what caused them to make two more just since I bulk-nominated them for deletion!), but I'm working on tracking down most of the oddly punctuated ones via Special:Allpages. In the case of multiple single quotes, at least, I should catch any new ones. Thanks, btw, for not killing the messenger. Gavia immer 14:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Block explanations

I'm trying to understand here- do you actually disagree that blocked editors should be left a message explaining the block? I can't think of any circumstance where not explaining is actually helpful. Would you consider making it a habit to provide explanations? Friday (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do provide explanations most of the time. The only time I can think of in recent memory was that repeatedly-banned death threats troll. --Cyde↔Weys 16:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)