User talk:Cyde/Archive017

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

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

Category:Jewish mathematicians[edit]

You had your bot remove everyone from this category. I and others worked hard to put them all there. Not thaw the cat removal decision was reversed and the cat is back please have your bot get all the removals reversed. If this is impossible please explain. Thank you. Mhym 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you get me a list of everything that used to be in the category I can easily have Cydebot recreate it. Otherwise, not much I can do. There's no big explanation here or anything — I can't easily reverse it for the same reason you can't put a smashed pot back together from parts — it's a one-way operation. --Cyde Weys 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Ugh... Maybe you should adopt a policy of waiting for two weeks before doing all the removal. Or (even better) have a log of all bot's work (doesn't it have list of contributions?). Anyhow, use this list for now. Mhym 21:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

<list redacted>

Alrighty, should be fixed up now. And you're right, theoretically it would be nifty if pyWikipediaBot could keep track of everything it did and make it easily reversible in the future. That would be a nice feature. Unfortunately, it'd also be a difficult feature to code up, and since it isn't very critical, we pyWikipediaBot developers are spending our time on other tasks. Not that it would matter anyway, because I just reinstalled my server over the weekend and would've thus lost any bot history anyway. --Cyde Weys 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And I really don't think a waiting period would be a good idea. The longer you wait to fix this stuff, the more compounded the problem becomes in the interim. We just need to make sure everyone updating WP:CFDW is very careful about their work. --Cyde Weys 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Non-free user-created public domain" images?[edit]

Hi, just wondering what we should do about images that are tagged as both "non-free" and "public domain"? Isn't this a contradiction? See for example Image:Flag of The Jewish Autonomous Oblast.svg. I'm asking you because I have a suspicion this may be something to do with your bot. Thanks – Gurch 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that there isn't my fault. The guy who originally uploaded it tagged it as both PD and insignia (insignia being a fair use tag), so he was just mistaken. This also illustrates one of the main reasons the templates were renamed: to prevent confusion. Previously, the templates were ambiguous, and a lot of people were using them as categorization tools rather than licensing templates. Now that they've been renamed it should be a lot more clear that you shouldn't use a non-free template on a free image. --Cyde Weys 20:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Not appropriate"?[edit]

For the deletion the Suicide userbox...you say it's not appropriate? It violates no rules and "not appropriate" is very subjective. If you have something against suicide, too bad, it's there and saying it's "not appropriate" will not make it go away. If you get rid of the userbox, might as well delete the whole Suicide article, as you seem to think it's "not appropriate". It's not an encyclopedic article, it's a userbox. The depression userbox is really not that different from it, yet it's used. I won't remake it, but next time don't think you know what is appropriate and what isn't for everything just because you're an administrator. Eridani 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"If you get rid of the userbox, might as well delete the whole Suicide article" — that's the kind of logic that makes Baby Jesus cry. --Cyde Weys 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this deletion fits in with the Deletion Policy, but I'm hoping you can explain to me under what section of the policy you acted. — The Storm Surfer 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I used the common sense part of the policy. Do you really not see anything wrong with a userbox saying "This user is suicidal"? --Cyde Weys 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I could see how it is offensive to some people, though. And just as a note, you make me cry inside. ♥ Fredil 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a "common sense" criterion for speedy deletion. I believe that the deletion policies have been carefully crafted and should be carefully followed. — The Storm Surfer 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's because it's actually a clause that applies to all of Wikipedia, not just deletion. --Cyde Weys 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, common sense has nothing to do with this. How is it common sense to delete a box that refers to suicide? It's not bad, society may see it as bad, but as far as I know Wikipedia is unbiased in all opinions, society-agreed or not. Eridani 05:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Common sense has everything to do with everything on Wikipedia. If you don't agree, go somewhere else. --Cyde Weys 13:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about common sense on wikipedia, I'm talking about censorship and biased deletions, which you just did. With someone who makes deletion based whether he thinks it's inappropriate when something is clearly not, without seeing if other people agree...that's bad practice. Eridani 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You call it bad practice, I call it a good use of Wikipedia's fifth pillar. What now? --Cyde Weys 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
What now? The five pillars are guidelines, not rules. And from what I can tell, you disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point, your opinion on that a suicide box is not appropriate. You may think it's good use of the the fifth pillar, but not so of the fourth. The following quote in particular comes to mind:

What now? Eridani 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What now? Nothing. It stays rightfully deleted. And you are really grasping at straws trying to claim a WP:POINT violation, because I'm not seeing it at all. --Cyde Weys 22:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now we go to Deletion Review. — The Storm Surfer 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What a coincidence, Fredil, that I happened to look at your userpage and see the dark but sure-fire reference to suicide. Looks like you didn't mean that (or maybe it did), but you seem to understand certain things. Takes one to know one I guess. Eridani 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a suicidal box is nowhere near inappropriate, use common sense. WooyiTalk to me? 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing category Authors whose works are in the public domain[edit]

I noticed that your bot had removed the category "Authors whose works are in the public domain" from the article Harry Graham (poet). I noticed that the removal was tagged with "Robot - Removing category Authors whose works are in the public domain per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8". I followed that link, and found that the relevant discussion there (item 1.7) resulted in: The result of the debate was keep for now as a useful authoring resource for within (among others) Wikipedia, but note that, as suggested in the debate, listifying this would arguably be an even better resource. >Radiant< 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC) So has your bot perhaps made a mistake? JH (talk page) 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well here's your problem. You might want to ask Conscious what's going on, as he's the one who actually added it to the working page. Cydebot just did the bot work, same as any other bot that works off that page would. --Cyde Weys 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the result of the debate was keep or listify, can Cydebot find the articles from which it removed the category and add them to a list? bd2412 T 17:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:UBX/Suicide. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Storm Surfer 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Cyde, did you read my comments about it on deletion review?? I know you've taken part in a fair few userbox debates, and I agree with your opinion on this one. At least me, Sam Blanning, Doc glasgow and you, plus some others had the common sense to say it should be kept deleted. At best it should be listed at WP:PT just to prevent re-creation, or tagged with {{deletedpage}}. I also made a reference to the User:PatPeter incident as well on there, too. I just hope there isn't a flood of controversial userboxes being listed at DRV over the coming weeks... My view on userboxes is that as long as they are non-controversial in nature:

e.g "This user is a member of WikiProject XYZ" or along the lines of "This user uses Mozilla Firefox", "This user uses Windows XP", "This user is from the United Kingdom" etc. are productive userboxes. I don't know if you'll agree with me or not, but whatever way you look at, userboxes are a Wikipedia hot potato, and will continue to be. --SunStar Net talk 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Suicide box issue, please take a look of this one[edit]

Due to emotional mess on the suicide box deletion review, I have tried to reach a compromise by creating User:Wooyi/sdissues, this userbox is less offensive and just says the user is interested in suicidology and suicide-related issues, with a public domain graph of suicide rates on the side. Would you take a look and see if it's ok? Thanks! WooyiTalk to me? 02:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Query: Timothy McSweeney's Quarterly Concern[edit]

I noticed that an article I've made significant additions to—Timothy McSweeney's Quarterly Concern—is on Cydebot's list of fair-use abusers. Are all (or all but one) of those images going to have to go? I understand the rationale, I suppose, for limiting use of non-free material. So if the pics have to go, I'll remove the links & fix the table myself. Just let me know. Regards--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Surreal Barnstar.png The Surreal Barnstar
Despite our disagreement over some issues, I still confer this barnstar to you, Cyde Weys, for your great contributions, your excellent userbox generator, and your fancy "weird pictures" gallery. Hopefully after the debates subside we can reconcile. WooyiTalk to me? 19:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot[edit]

Hello, Cyde. I noticed a series of edits made by Cydebot per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 12#Category:Templates for deletion. I'm not sure if these should have been done manually or if instructions were not correct, but something doesn't look quite right to me. Can you please take a look at these edits [1] [2] [3]? Please note the category being moved outside of the parser function. If I'm wrong, can you please let me know. If I am right, what can be done now to fix things? --After Midnight 0001 19:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus ... yeah ... that's totally screwed up. Default pyWikipediaBot category moves don't work with complicated syntax like that. I guess this shouldn't have been put on the working page? It's pretty clear what should be done to fix this, at least. --Cyde Weys 20:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk: Phaedriel[edit]

I think you may be needing a Wikibreak. It seems that you went off on another editer who requested that Phaedriel make them a new userpage. She regularly does userpage requests, and I don't think it was your place to attack that other editor over their request. Maybe they don't think Wikipedia is MySpace. When I requested my userpage from her, I did it so it would be organized, as it was a huge mess before she redid it. I just wanted you to think about it, and you should maybe take some time to chill. It doesn't look all that good for admins to attack other editors. Karrmann 03:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you have absolutely no idea how insulting and counter-productive it is to suggest another editor take a wikibreak, do you? And I think you may have your outrage sensor tuned way too low: what I said to that guy wasn't mean or hurtful, it was simply the truth. You see how much unencyclopedic stuff Phaedriel deals with thanks to the hordes of adoring fans constantly badgering her for attention (you included, apparently). How about just leave her alone for awhile so she can get some work done for the encyclopedia? Her greatest weakness is that she doesn't know how to say no. --Cyde Weys 14:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not know. I also do not appreciate how you are treating me so hostile. If it will make you happy, then sure, I will quit talking to Phaedriel altogether if you it will make you happy, and so you will quit treting me like I think Wikipedia is MySpace. In case you don't know, I bust my ass on the encyclopedia daily. I spend WAY more time editing articles than I do socializing, and in case you don't know, I put up with a lot of shit in the process. I have guys calling me a "viscious teen vandal" because I reverted their POV edits to AMC Matador, or some guy calling me a massive deletionist because I deleted a bunch of paint codes from the Infiniti G20 article. In case you don't know, I revitalized many automotive articles, such as Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable, Cadillac CTS, among others. Also, I have 5 barnstars for my work. So yes, I like to come here often to escape the stress that comes working with automotive articles, but I in no way think Wikipedia is MySpace. Karrmann 15:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I really don't think I'm being hostile here. I guess you haven't seen truly hostile, because it's a lot uglier than this conversation has so far been. All I'm trying to do is alleviate some of Phaedriel's non-encyclopedic workload. She's overloaded but she finds it a bit hard to say no, so I'm just helping that along. --Cyde Weys 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe I just read too much into this. You are not being hostile, it you just came off on the wrong foot, and I apoligize for giving you a hard time. As for hostile, I have seen hostile alright. Karrmann 18:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, I am glad that we understand each other now. You will have to trust that I bear you no ill will. --Cyde Weys 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr pda script problem[edit]

Cyde, can you please visit this thread at Village Pump Technical? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

GFDL-self[edit]

Have you noticed that {{GFDL-self}} has a disclaimer notice again? Pagrashtak 17:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Follow all rules[edit]

This was made to be a joke. —Centrx→talk • 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And so was the trump. --Cyde Weys 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: GFDL template[edit]

I was fulfilling an editprotected request, and in the template history, there was an edit that claimed to "fix a cut and paste move" when it actually removed some text and removed two interwiki links ([4]). The editprotected asked for the interwiki links to be restored, and I figured the text removal was accidental (as I'm almost sure the removal of the interwiki links was). I didn't see anything on the talk page, so I "fixed" the problem. I'm in no way involved with image protection or copyright notices; if the line I added is incorrect, please feel free to remove it : - ). Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do with the interwiki links as you will, just don't re-add the very problematic "with disclaimers" phrase. I'm at least glad to hear that this was unintentional rather than actively malicious :-P --Cyde Weys 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your changes to MediaWiki:Searchsize[edit]

Please undo your change to use KiB and make it KB again to keep it consistent with the consensus demonstrated in WT:MOSNUM the guideline WP:MOSNUM and the other templates MediaWiki:size-gigabytes, MediaWiki:size-kilobytes, MediaWiki:size-megabytes, MediaWiki:longpageerror. Fnagaton 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref converter[edit]

I just tried unsuccessfully to access the ref converter. I see that the instructions there point to this URL on teamgamer.org. A whois on teamgamer.org was unable to find a match on that domain name. Is the ref converter defunct? Has it been relocated? -- Boracay Bill 22:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I reinstalled my server recently and I hadn't yet gotten around to moving all of the hosted sites over just yet. I'll fix that shortly. --Cyde Weys 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now? Tell me if it isn't. --Cyde Weys 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Cyde[edit]

William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - A Little Coaxing (1890).jpg

Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road;
Every life must have its burden, every heart its load.
Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup?
As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup.

Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet;
Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet.
Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face;
Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place.

Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves
O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves.
Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years,
Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears!

Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Have a beautiful day, dear Cyde! :)

Phaedriel
21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Older Version of Breakaway_Single.PNG[edit]

Excuse me Administrator Cyde, but are you able to delete the older version of the image Breakaway_Single.PNG that I posted? I just messed up the summary, so I decided to reupload the image, but you can still see the older summary. Please, I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance. Bull Borgnine 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please fix[edit]

Hello, I see that you are speedily removing the category "Japanese vegetables." However, as you have done in the past, you are doing so in an automated manner, and without much thought, i.e. you have not replaced the category with the "Japanese cuisine" category. Please go back and do so, thanks. Badagnani 04:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you have done the same for "Chinese vegetables"; you've removed the cats without replacing with "Chinese cuisine." This is again a poor manner of editing, and a waste of bandwidth (and your time), because you have to now go back and replace them. Please try to give these kinds of massive edits some thought before doing them because it can ruin a lot of hard work and make navigation for those interested in Asian cuisine very, very difficult, thanks. Badagnani 04:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very perplexing that you continue on doing other projects rather than addressing this. I see that you have also removed the category "Japanese sea vegetables" and not replaced it, as a normal non-automated editor would do as a matter of course, with the category "Sea vegetables." Again, your automated version of editing creates havoc for those of us who try to maintain cuisine articles. I hope by your failure to respond to these problems you've caused that you don't expect those of us who have created and maintain these articles to sweep up behind you for these dozens, if not hundreds of articles. That's just not right. Badagnani 04:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see here. It was decided by the closing admin not to replace the deleted categories with anything else. --Cyde Weys 04:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is unacceptable. You cannot expect editors who work on cuisine articles to sweep up after you. Please fix what you have broken first, rather than moving on to other projects. It does not make logical sense to not replace the Chinese vegetables cat with a "Chinese cuisine" cat, the same with the "Japanese vegetables" cat and the "Japanese sea vegetables" cat with "Sea vegetables." Please fix this immediately. Badagnani 04:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how the CFD process works? You're complaining to the wrong person right now. --Cyde Weys 04:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I also know that what you are doing is extremely improper, and is going to create dozens of hours of needless work on the part of those of us who must now--by hand--go through and replace all the Chinese and Japanese vegetables into the "Chinese cuisine" and "Japanese cuisine" categories. You should not have done what you did and you need to rectify this situation immediately. You simply cannot sweep through hundreds of articles in such a manner and add so much needless labor to other editors' workloads. Badagnani 04:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be continuing to have your bot do other edits while the huge chaos you've created in the Asian cuisine articles remains. Please take care of repairing the damage you've done first, before moving on to other projects. It would be greatly appreciated by those of us who attempt to maintain Asian cuisine articles, and who do not have access to bots. Many thanks. Badagnani 04:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So ... you didn't get your way at the CFD discussion and now you're taking it out on me for doing the grunt bot work? I don't think so. --Cyde Weys 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not take this down to an elementary school level. This is about editors having consideration and thoughtfulness toward other editors, something which I thought we all were supposed to have. What you did is remove dozens, if not hundreds of vegetable articles from the deleted categories and now appear to be refusing to substitute the proper replacement categories. That is just wrong. Hijiki, for example, is currently not in the "Sea vegetables" category--a situation which is absolutely improper and wrong. Your mechanized version of editing is going to create dozens of hours of needless labor to do things like replace the proper "Sea vegetables" category in the Hijiki article--times 100 or more. Please repair this problem immediately. Badagnani 04:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to be performing other, unrelated edits rather than undoing the damage you have created. This is WP policy, and I do expect you to adhere to it. If I had made a similar mistake, I would make good and repair the damage before moving on to other projects and leaving other editors, who do not maintain bots, to repair the damage, at great cost of their time and effort. Badagnani 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We cannot have a meaningful discussion so long as you continue to characterize a correct bot action as a result of a CFD discussion as "bot damage". The bot did exactly what it was told to do. If anything, you're the one in the wrong here: you're trying to circumvent CFD by falsely saying there was a bot mis-run when there wasn't; you just didn't like the result. Go to deletion review if you wish, but you're not going to make any headway here, because I can see right through you. --Cyde Weys 04:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you fail to address the fact that Hijiki not being in the category "Sea vegetables" is wrong? Whatever rule you are trying so hard to adhere to (is it to prevent your having to go back and fix the damage and needless work you have created for those of us who attempt to maintain Asian cuisine articles?), to the exclusion of considering the damage you have created, is in itself a serious problem. I'd appreciate your fixing the damage before continuing on to whatever other edits you are making at present, thanks. I obviously don't want or need any deletion reviewed; all that needs to be done is for your massive automated edits that failed to substitute the proper substitute categories be repaired (such as Hijiki not appearing in the "Sea vegetables" category, which is improper and wrong). Making statements such as "you didn't get your way" and "I can see right through you" are not helpful at best, and offensive to other editors at worst. Badagnani 04:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you've continued to make numerous other edits that are not addressing the damage; i.e. Shiitake is still not in the "Japanese cuisine" category and Hijiki is still not in the "Sea vegetables" category. From what you say above (that you think I'm trying to circumvent the CFD), I just don't understand why you are saying that, because I am asking only that you have taken a little time to think before you made your massive edits, and replace the articles in the proper, still-existing (i.e. not deleted) categories that are appropriate to them, in most cases one level up. I guess the misunderstanding came about simply because you're trying to do too many edits too quickly, in automated fashion, without first thinking about what you're doing--in this case creating dozens of hours of needless work for those of us who maintain articles on Asian cuisine. Thanks for your consideration and look forward to your repairing the damage, as per our policy. Badagnani 05:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Until you show some evidence that you're reading anything I'm saying, this conversation is impossible. Obviously you aren't reading (or at least not understanding) what I'm saying, because you keep on referring to "bot damage" when in fact the bot did exactly as intended, and you keep acting like it was my decision to make this category change when it was actually someone else entirely. --Cyde Weys 05:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No good! I've repeatedly presented evidence above (which you have not responded to at all), that in the current situation, after your damage, Hijiki is not in the category "Sea vegetables" and Shiitake is not in "Japanese cuisine," and dozens if not hundreds more. You have created a situation that through your thoughtless automated action (and refusal to correct it), editors who do not have access to similar bots are now forced to go back and add the proper categories by hand for each of these vegetable articles. Whether the bot was programmed to do what it did is immaterial; the bot edits created a situation that leaves dozens, if not hundreds of articles without proper categories. Your refusal to fix this situation, or even to address it (namely the examples I have provided above), is extremely disrespectful to other editors. You must correct damage must be corrected immediately, as I would do if it were pointed out that I had made such a mistake. Do not attempt to pass the buck; you made a mistake and it must be corrected. I should not have to send 8 or 9 messages to this effect; you just simply need to go back and clean up after yourself. It is not proper to ask other editors to sweep up after you to fix this damage. Badagnani 06:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You still don't understand the CFD process then. As a way to help you understand how CFD works, I offer up this simple metaphor. Cydebot is but a construction worker, working according to the master plan laid out by the city architect. You're complaining to the construction worker about decisions made by the architect, despite him having nothing to do whatsoever with the decision-making process. If you think Category:Japanese sea vegetables should have been merged to Category:Sea vegetables rather than being deleted, you should say so at a new CFD or at deletion review. Cydebot was just implementing the changes agreed to at the previous CFD. If you want to preserve the status quo of you continuing to come here and complain to the wrong person, go right ahead, but we're just going to keep on getting into these kinds of meaningless tussles because I handle the majority of CFD bot work and you're inevitably going to continue to find things wrong with CFD closures, but rather than doing anything to actually fix the problem, like using the appropriate processes, you're just going to keep yelling at the construction worker. --Cyde Weys 06:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no excuse. Your bot did something wrong, now you (as a person, Cyde, not the bot) needs to go in and fix it. It doesn't matter if it takes a long time, because you're the one that created the damage, and it is not proper to ask the editors who try to maintain the Asian cuisine articles to fix this damage. The fact that Hijiki is not in the category "Sea vegetables" is incorrect and must be fixed, along with all the other articles you've damaged through your actions. You continue to not address the examples I presented above. I am not incorrect in stating that the lack of categories is a serious problem. You need to fix it, now. Thanks. Badagnani 06:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I disagree. I don't think I've caused any damage, thus I don't see anything to fix. If I did see anything to fix, I would do so. You're trying to argue from the position that your opinion is by default the correct one, but that just isn't so. If you don't like a CFD outcome, use the proper processes. But yelling at the bot carrying out those decisions is just silly. --Cyde Weys 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. If you believe Hijiki should not be in the category "Sea vegetables" maybe it's just because you don't know what Hijiki is. If you read through the article carefully, you'll see that it is a type of seaweed that is eaten as a vegetable, mainly in Japan. Thus, it is what the Asians call a "sea vegetable." Similarly, the shiitake is a type of mushroom that is extremely common in Japanese cuisine, though maybe not well known in the area you live. Thus, it should be listed under the category "Japanese cuisine," just as for example Sushi or Mirin are. That's why it's good to take the time to do these edits by hand rather than on a massive automated scale, so one takes the time to read through the articles and determine the proper categories. What you say above about my comments being "just silly" doesn't hold water, because your insistence that Shiitake should not be in the category "Japanese cuisine," or that Hijiki does not really need to be in the category "Sea vegetables," is really problematic. You made a mistake--a big one--and it doesn't help, in fact it compounds your mistake--by insisting that you don't need to do any extra work to undo your damage to these articles. You need to correct your mistake immediately, thanks--and I'd appreciate if you would actually do it this time, and not make me send another message to you. Badagnani 07:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Shiitake is a type of edible mushroom. Yes, it is used in many cuisines across the world, including Japanese, Chinese, Asian fusion, even some American recipes now, etc. It doesn't make sense to categorize it by what peoples use it in their food, because that is a lot. And I find your suggestion that thousands of robotic edits should be done manually absurd on its face. Nobody has that kind of time. Would you do it? And even had I removed the Japanese sea vegetables category manually, the result would have been exactly the same, because guess what, I'm not omniscient, and I didn't even know about this other Sea vegetables category until you just told me, after all of the work was completed. So I don't even see how making people do all of this tedious manual work would solve anything. --Cyde Weys 07:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • A quick comment from an admin who regularly participates in CfD discussions. The relevant CfD discussion was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_May_21#Fooian_vegetables, which was closed as "delete", so the bot worked entirely properly in implementing that CfD closure. If anyone disagrees with the way that CfD was closed, and believes that the closing admin should have closed the CfD differently, then they are free to use the deletion review process; but it is utterly useless to complain to the bot owner: as Cyde correctly says, the bot was merely implementing a decision: as Cyde elegantly phrased it, "Cydebot is but a construction worker, working according to the master plan laid out by the city architect". You are complaining in the wrong place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The point might also be made at CfD talk (not for the first time) that many decisions made to delete should be decisions to upmerge, to avoid this problem. But if this was not stated in the debate itself, there will be little point in taking it to DR review. I think an admin can retrieve the prior contents of the category, if these cannot be remembered. Johnbod 09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point. Rather than complaining to me when categories get deleted, we should change the culture at CFD so that upmerges are used more often. As for categories — nope, we admins don't have any advantages over regular users in that regards. The best way to recover the former members of a category is to find all of the category removals in the bot's contributions list. --Cyde Weys 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's persistence if I've ever seen it. I'm laughing uproariously right now. --tjstrf talk 09:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On your evil alter-ego[edit]

Cydemon or Cyde Mon is a good alternative. Cydevil38 05:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really get it? Is this a reference to something I'm not familiar with? --Cyde Weys 05:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just joking on this comment[5] Cydevil38 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No no, I'm well aware of my own comment, I just don't understand why adding the suffix -mon would make for a good "evil version of me" name. --Cyde Weys 07:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cy-demon? :) Riana ⁂ 07:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, heh, okay, I get it now ... Cyde Weys 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Secularism[edit]

I think there may have been a mistake regarding the CFD of Category:Secularism. I believe the discussion was referring to two subcategories, not the entire category itself. johnpseudo 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop running an unapproved bot[edit]

Your request for a bot to modify your old sigs was turned down. Unfortunately, you then turned around and started making the edits on your main account, trying to bypass the decision. This isn't going to fly. Continue running your unapproved bot on any account and that account will be blocked. --Cyde Weys 15:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am running NO BOT. I have been using AWB to make modifications which I am more than allowed. -- Cat chi? 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is a bot, and if you keep it up, you will be blocked. The modifications themselves are bad and wrong; it doesn't matter which kind of automated or semi-automated program you are using to make them. --Cyde Weys 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat[edit]

Howdy, I hope you don't mind, but I nominated the page you re-created, User:Cool Cat for speedy deletion. It went through a hotly contested MfD, ending with speedy close, and is currently at deletion review. While I personally don't see what all the hub-bub is about, I figured it should probably be done by the book (and in all probability, you hadn't seen the deletion pages). I hope you don't mind. All the best, --TeaDrinker 15:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hrmm, I wasn't aware of the MFD/DRV. It's not particularly relevant though: I wasn't restoring the old deleted content, just turning it into a functional redirect. --Cyde Weys 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That was the entire past content. I thank you for your valiance in seeking broken redirects but I really do not desire anything inside "Cool Cat" namespace. Thanks though. -- Cat chi? 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not about what you desire though, it's about what is most functional and useful for the whole of Wikipedia. Your bizarre and unexplainable desire to not even have a redirect from your old username is not outweighed by the very pragmatic usefulness to everyone else, especially those unaware of your name change, of having such a redirect. --Cyde Weys 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Am I even required to have a userpage? No. I am not required to provide courtesy (my former userpage), do not demand/require it. I desire to completely clear my former userspace. This (clearing former userpsace) has been done before in the past many times.
I offered a compromise as a solution to the problem such as something like User:White Cat/ (formerly Cool Cat) - but it was rejected. I can only compromise as much as the other party and since they aren't even willing to compromise at all over something exclusively relevant to me, there is nothing I desire to do about it.
-- Cat chi? 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Aren't Cat's arguments valid under WP:VANISH, if he is doing this to protect his privacy? Just asking. --Zamkudi 09:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Undo-success[edit]

Cyde, would you mind changing the messagebox to say "You should....." instead of "You are required to"? I don't see anything on WP:REVERT that states that, and I don't think that this change should be implemented without a policy decision behind it. SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it definitely is a requirement. We don't allow people to revert war with each other with automated tools. If you're reverting a non-vandalism edit, you always have to explain yourself. That's the way it's always been, and if WP:REVERT doesn't mention it then it should be modified so that it does. --Cyde Weys 00:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:REVERT can't be modified. This is a copy of the master help page at Meta. Do not edit this copy. Edits will be lost in the next update from the master page. See below for more information. It would have to be modified on Meta. SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's because you're talking about Help:Reverting, which isn't a policy page at all, merely a help page. Anyway, read the "Explain reverts" section on it. That pretty well covers the changes that I made. --Cyde Weys 14:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Original research[edit]

I didn't say "crusade", I said "which-hunt". —Angr 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oooof, well I totally missed that pun then, didn't I. --Cyde Weys 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot stopped for moving category Current British MPs to British MPs[edit]

Hi, the bot has bee "Moving category Current British MPs to British MPs per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22.)

Unfortunately, that was not what the CfD decided: its conclusion was to "Delete Category:Current British MPs"

I think I understand how the bot may have got the wrong idea: some vandalism by Mais oui!, see User_talk:Mais_oui!#Your_speedy_deletion_tags_on_Categories:British_MPs and these edits to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, which would have had the effect of causing the bots to merge Category:Current British MPs to Category:British MPs. I reverted that change, but maybe the bot had grabbed its worklist before then?

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on the bad edit to WP:CFDW, and I've finished reverting the rest of the changes, but the block of Cydebot was really unnecessary, because by the time you blocked him he was already finished with the British MP task and was doing other (valid) tasks, which ended up being delayed due to the block. Generally bots should only be blocked when they are currently malfunctioning; the nature of CFD and category changes is such that once a task is completed, there is no further risk. --Cyde Weys 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cyde, actually, when I stopped it, Category:Current British MPs was still populated with more than 50 articles, which I recategorised manually, as well as fixing some of those which the bot had caught. I didn't know at that point whether the bot would continue with the 150n or so articles which had been in the category when it started its run, the 470 which had been there when the CFDW/W edit had been reverted, or if it would pick up only the articles still there. For future info, can you perhaps explain how and when cydebot gets its list?
Anyway, sorry if I made the wrong call: the vandalism to WP:CFD/W it was a most unusual situation which I had never encountered before, and I was unsure what the bot was going to do next. It does seem to me to expose a serious weakness in the CfD system: can you imagine the consequences if someone placed Category:Living people in the "delete and empty" section of WP:CFD/W without it being caught? I have never before seen an attempt to exploit the system in this way, but I am worried by the fact that this relatively minor abuse of it was partially successful, even tho CFD/W had been fixed many hours before Cydebot started work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I didn't realize that. Either way, it doesn't much matter. An active bot's block log is destined to be long. As for CFDW, we're not quite as vulnerable as you might think, because I already do manually inspect the list to verify that nothing outrageous has been inserted into it (like emptying out Living people). It's just that the prime minister thing seemed reasonable, so I didn't catch it. I guess I'll just have to start looking at the page history as well and inspecting carefully any edits by people whose names I don't recognize as being regular contributors to CFDW. --Cyde Weys 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Time_to_protect_this_page. It's great to know that you check things so carefully, but even so, I think that protection would be safer. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Could Cydebot handle a replacement like "category:A" to "category:B category:C", in effect putting an article in two cats rather than one? E.g. changing Cat:American Fluteplayers to Cat:American Musicians and Cat:Fluteplayers, deleting the former of the three. >Radiant< 11:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Cydebot could handle such a move if I gave it the appropriate parameters manually, but it sounds like you're referring to modifying the WP:CFDW listings format? If so, I'd have to change my automatic bot a bit to handle the new syntax, but that wouldn't be too much of a problem. It's probably best to think of a good, intuitive, standardized format for listing these things on CFD. --Cyde Weys 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Not modifying per se, but adding an option. We've had a few CFDs recently to change one cat to two cats; from a closer's point of view it's most intuitive to list those on the work page like
Category:Something to Category:One Category:Two
  • But such issues have been moved to the "manual" page on apparent grounds that the bots can't handle it. It's not that big a deal because it's only a few cats per week, but it would be nice if the bots could help. If you have suggestions on CFD/W and its legibility to bots we'd be happy to hear them. Cheers, >Radiant< 10:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another award[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
To Cyde and your sidekick Cydebot, for your laborious efforts in changing Category:Natives of Foo to Category:People from Foo, and recategorizing all their articles, after my CFDS nomination. Wikipedia is much more compliant today with its guidelines than it was yesterday thanks to your hard work Bencherlite 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Saw it had been done, checked the logs, saw it was you (both) and saw how long it took. And I thought preparing the nomination took time! Bencherlite 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you for the barnstar, but if I told you how much actual work was involved on my end in processing these category changes, you might take that barnstar back :-P I've done so many of these now that I've basically automated it all down to a single command. It took a lot of work to write that bot, mind you, but it's paying dividends in making it really easy to handle any new CFD work. --Cyde Weys 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK then, Barnstar. No, only kidding - at the very least, your work in writing the bot deserves high praise for making life after CFD trouble-free for those who participate at CFD. We can just !vote delete but don't usually bother with how that's put into action, and your work in creating a bot for this work means that there aren't long backlogs for things to be done manually, attracting complaints etc... Anyway, if you think this barnstar was too lightly awarded (a) it's the first full barnstar I've given (b) accept it as consolation for all those other times when you've felt someone should have recognised you but didn't and / or to make up for the times when the builder has been upbraided for following the architect's instructions. Bencherlite 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

page blanking[edit]

You blanked this BJAODN page to 'remove GFDL violations'... please elaborate on what parts of the page you think violate the GFDL. All sections clearly indicate what other pages or revisions they come from, a common practice throughout the wiki. +sj + 02:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking at the same page that I am? Nearly all sections do not include the original authors. Many do not list the page it came from. And for many, the page is now deleted, so readers cannot find attribution information at all. In my opinion, these BJAODN pages are severely broken in terms of GFDL compliance, and it would take many admin hours per page trawling through all of the histories and deleted revisions to find the original authors so correct attribution can be made. It's not worth it. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sections moved from one article to the next, by our own style guide, do not include the original authors. They may link to the original article implicitly, via a link or title or revision-link in the edit summary; or via a note on the talk page. The sections all seem to be titled with the name of the original article, as per what seems to be loose BJAODN style (some sections are subsections within a block with such style). The original page is sometimes deleted -- but then Wikipedia's history and attribution is always subject to deletion. Individual revisions deleted from an article don't uphold the strictest GFDL interpretation, and excerpts from deleted articles also often show up in AfDs for articles that get deleted, to similar effect. In many cases, on BJAODN, the excerpt found hilariously bad is removed but remains in the history of the offending article, from a time stamp around when the BJAODN addition was made. None of this is novel to BJAODN. Indeed, translations and other derivations made from material on a wiki have a far more obscured attribution trail (what language did it come from? what article had a similar but differently-worded paragraph that inspired this one?), and both of those happen many times more often than someone thinks to add a section to BJAODN. +sj + 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're vastly overstating the problems with articles and vastly understating the problems with BJAODN in an effort to create a false equivalence. Articles very rarely suffer from any type of GFDL problem. Sections moved from one article to the next, and then the source page being deleted rather than redirected? How often does that happen? Compare that to BJAODN, which is basically 100% unattributed sections, and not only that, a large proportion of them were individual joke articles that have since been deleted, so readers and editors can't even find the attribution on them anyway. Also, don't forget that we are an encyclopedia, and if we have to deal with a few edge cases while writing our article, that is okay. But it isn't acceptable for us to compromise our licensing policy in a big way for a series of worthless joke pages. --Cyde Weys 15:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tinkerbell[edit]

Not that I object to the page being deleted necessarily, but what are your reasons for proposing deletion? I think you need to make them clear, rather than just placing a vague tag on the page. Exploding Boy 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I forgot that prod takes a parameter. --Cyde Weys 05:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A small issue with Dominions 3[edit]

Hello. Your bot deleted the Sauromatia edit in nations section. It is 100% correct though, Sauromatia is a faction in game completely similar to historical Sarmatians. Can you re-edit it please? And keep your bot away from it. --85.100.123.118 07:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What? I have no idea what you're talking about. Some context please? --Cyde Weys 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dominions 3, section : Nations. Hope this helps.

New Template - Collapsable Wikiproject boxes[edit]

Check out the Talk:Rickey Henderson page. Is there already a default "collapse" template available? I couldn't find one but it seems like it is worth creating. The template would be called collapseboxstart with another collapseboxend. Content goes in the middle. Using these for talk pages with lots of WikiProject templtes (like the Rickey Henderson article) just seems to make sense. Ideas? Timneu22 10:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found Template:WPB. Timneu22 10:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image at Catherine Willows - replaceable??[edit]

How is an image of a fictional character replaceable? All images of fictional characters are copyrighted by the intellectual property owner (in this case CBS/Jerry Bruckheimer). Let me repeat that THERE IS NO WAY to get a free content image of Catherine Willows, as all screenshots, promo material, images from DVD covers etc are copyrighted. Editus Reloaded 09:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

==Category:Category:Film without speech==[edit]

Hi. Excuse me but you've renamed the category to: Category:Category:Film without speech. Shouldn't that just be: Category:Film without speech? Why the redundant "Category"? thanks, Shawn in Montreal 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, indeed it should. Fixed. That was a fun error at WP:CFDW. --Cyde Weys 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PRODs[edit]

I PMd the user, but you're right that I should of left a summary for other users. Cheers for the heads up, I'll do my best to remember. Matthew 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN[edit]

Yeah, I admit to being lazy in the attribs, but I'm trying to pin down attribs quickly. Here's how:

  1. Look up page history of BJAODN page
  2. Go to relevant dates in pages being referred to - many BJAODN entries, perhaps most, stem from the time period of the edit to BJAODN, which makes it easier to locate the edits in question.
  3. Copy and paste the URL of the edits.

Admittedly, yeah, some of 'em are going to have to be deleted, and I found one that was the result of three separate edits, separated reversions in a revert war. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

wheels[edit]

good. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You realize you've just volunteered to be a Clerk now, don't you? :) Newyorkbrad 17:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Heavens no! --Cyde Weys 11:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins[edit]

I'm not a sysop. I'm presuming that the items involved are from the deleted pages involved. I'm forking the job of attributing deleted-page edits over to the admins, since they are capable of doing that. Sorry. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I didn't realize you weren't an admin. It's not really going to be possible for you to properly do the attribution work then. --Cyde Weys 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Multi-licenses[edit]

With regard to the multi-licenses you deleted as being non com only, respectfully, they are allowed. A person can multi-license something under the GFDL *and* an NC CC license (since the two are incompatible, multi-licensing in this manner actually makes re-use easier). As long as the item is properly licensed under at least one free license it is acceptable. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_5#Creative_Commons_non-commercial_licenses and COMMONS:Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. -N 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooof, how is it at TFD from June 5? It didn't have any TFD notice on it when I deleted it (I had no way of knowing about the TFD). If it had, I wouldn't have deleted. --Cyde Weys 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please restore it. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-11t19:04z
I note you have not undeleted despite indicating you disagree with the speedy deletion now. Please? -N 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot's CFD list[edit]

Can Cydebot do reports? For example, on the number of articles on its CFD list? I would be interested in finding out the maximum number the list has ever reached, the average, and the percent of time it has been over X entries, that kind of thing.

A dump of the figures into a spreadsheet would be fine (at 288 entries a day, 6 months' data would be 52704 data points, which would be helpful for trends etc). Split up across namespaces if possible, but that's not so important.

If it can't do this sort of thing now, do you think there's any way it could? Sorry if any of these questions come across as stupidly simple or way too much to ask, I'm not knowledgable at all with what bots can and can't do. Neil â•¦ 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007[edit]

The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot and "dinosaurs of XXXX" categories[edit]

Hello, Cyde; I'm with WP:DINO, and we were wondering if we could get Cydebot to change our geographic categorization from "XXXX dinosaurs" to "dinosaurs of XXXX", per standarization (there are six such categories: Category:African dinosaurs, Category:Antarctic dinosaurs, Category:Asian dinosaurs, Category:European dinosaurs, Category:North American dinosaurs, and Category:South American dinosaurs). If these are not the proper channels, please let me know. J. Spencer 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Cyde Weys 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! J. Spencer 17:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for getting right on that! Sheep81 10:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

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

Stubs
Pyrokinesis
Two-Gun Kid
Otto Binder
Justice League Task Force (comics)
Bob Haney
General Wade Eiling
David Michelinie
1990s in comics
Spider-Woman
1997 in comics
Ultimate Fantastic Four
Doctor Moon
Demolition Man (comics)
Tony Daniel
List of first appearances in Marvel Comics publications
Precognition
Lightning Lass
Ravager (comics)
1944 in comics
Cleanup
Giantess
Ken Steacy
Lady Shiva
Merge
Wildcats (comics)
Fang the Sniper
Captain 148
Add Sources
Scarlet Witch
Dick Grayson
John Broome (writer)
Wikify
Sandro Angiolini
Risk for infection
Biju Viswanath
Expand
Royal Roy
Havok
Nova (comics)

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion[edit]

I want to know why you deleted this page there seems to be no logical reason why one would delete it --Java7837 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't understand your rationale for deleting Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. Would you please explain "No official repository for non-template space T1 templates"? --DieWeisseRose 07:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site — it isn't the place for championing causes or promoting religion (or lack thereof). MySpace is over thatta way. --Cyde Weys 08:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Myspace? I think a better example would be Livejournal. --MichaelLinnear 08:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's a good suggestion as well. --Cyde Weys 13:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Livejournal has more petty and pointless drama and more politics, so it would be more apt. --MichaelLinnear 04:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Not a social networking site"? That page was in userspace. The general consensus has been to allow userboxes and userbox archives in userspace. If you want to delete something, drag it to MFD first. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with User:UBX is that it's becoming another userbox central repository, and many of its subpages are being linked from templates used at Wikipedia:Userboxes and other pages that are making it all look just too official. I deleted this repository to help continue to make it crystal clear that Wikipedia does not endorse any religions, nor does it endorse users grouping together by religion. Here we are all editors. You leave this stuff outside Wikipedia. Proclaiming your religion on your userpage is problematic and has led to tremendous assumptions of bad faith in the past (e.g. a Muslim attacking a self-identified Jew for various Middle East edits, or vice-versa). --Cyde Weys 01:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't want it to look official, you could have just deleted the links to it. In case you've got a problem with the content, why are you not deleting the boxes themselves? Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, I shall start deleting more of the boxes themselves. --Cyde Weys 03:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, are you even gonna delete religious humor like {{User:Xaosflux/UBX/User religion flying spaghetti monster not really}}, {{User:UBX/googlism}} and {{User:UBX/EAC}}? On an extension, are you even planning to delete non-religious humor like {{User:Suriel1981/Userboxes/Penguin}}? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You're inventing a slippery slope that isn't there. The penguin joke has nothing to do with being divisive and inflammatory. --Cyde Weys 02:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I know, I was just trying to see if any of the boxes I'm using are to be deleted. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You know Cyde, I briefly wondered if I should contest the deletion of that page on DRV. Then I came to my senses - why do I even bother? The powers that be will do what they want believe that is right anyway, and my opinion counts zip. So I won't anymore. CharonX/talk 10:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: deletion of Template:User against censorship[edit]

Hiya. Sorry to add to the plate of noisy complaints (trust me-- I know it can totally be a pain), but it seemed a little strange to me that Template:User against censorship suffered the same fate as the poly-tics templates. I mean, I totally understand yanking T1-class templates, especially when they're subconsciously hinted to take controversial sides in any given debate (e.g., "Democrat" connotes one idea while "Republican" connotes another). This I totally understand, hence why I never added any of those templates or anything seemingly controversial to my user:page. However, it seemed like the "finds censorship offensive" was in concordance with WP:CENSOR in a fun and pseudo-cabal-ish way. Yet, without taking another breath, I can completely understand that the strong wording of the template could be very good cause for concern, even more so when expectedly "unbiased" representatives--a trait John Q. Public might ascribe to administrators, regardless of its validity-- display it in their User:* pages. It does definitely give a strongly opinionated view.

Therefore, I understand good reasons that could be given for yanking the template. But, whenever you get a chance, I would honestly like to know the "official" (or at least, demi/semi/quasi/your/no-so-much/whatever) reasoning behind this, just so that I know for future reference. Again, sorry for adding more headache, and of course, it pretty much goes without saying: keep up the great work, and cheers. =) --slakr 09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:UBM, this is an excellent example of a userbox that should not be in templatespace. Now there aren't too many people who will openly admit to being in favor of censorship, but they are out there, and this userbox was divisive and inflammatory. It was a very strong, polemic statement, as you pointed out. --Cyde Weys 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


  • "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site — it isn't the place for championing causes or promoting religion (or lack thereof). MySpace is over thatta way. --Cyde Weys 08:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)"

I agree so we have to delet all the user pages because they aren't encyclopedic...... don't you think so ? So why do they exist. "That page was in userspace. The general consensus has been to allow userboxes and userbox archives in userspace." Deleting templates as Template:User against censorship is at the opposite of wikipedia idea (look at Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China). To say that this template is "was divisive and inflammatory" is also irrelevant. Following this idea you will have to delet sport templates as Template:I love Manchester United because others like AC Milan and cannot stand seeing "I love MU"............

I prefectly agree there is some template which are divisive and inflammatory (religious templates ;)) but Template:User against censorship or User:UBX/EU Switzerland are no more inflammatory that User:UBX/Greedo or User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/User non-smoker. Can you prove that there was any dispute about these templates ?

Please, please if you want to delete templates like that drag them to "Templates for deletion" first. So we can discuss about that.

--Mrpouetpouet 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    • "his is in regards to your recent message to me..."

Yep, sorry for that it's because I'm used to write in french so sometimes I can't express my idea with the best terms ;) Anyway I'll take care of this next time. Thanks for your answer ;) --Mrpouetpouet 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy Rate[edit]

The accuracy rate is 98%? Yeah, right. You might want to reduce that to at least 70%. It reverts edits by keywords. --unsigned anon

If you're talking about AntiVandalBot, well, it's a lot more complicated than just a keyword analysis. And the accuracy figure of 98% refers to union less its Type I error rate, not its Type II error rate. You're right, it doesn't come close to catching 98% of all vandalism edits. --Cyde Weys 01:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted userboxes[edit]

I am disappointed that you deleted Template:User against censorship and Template:User anti-gun. Just because you don't feel they don't have a place in Wikipedia, doesn't mean that others feel that way. Obviously, you don't agree with political userboxes and don’t put them on your userpage. And you don't have too, but I like being able to put those kinds of userboxes on my userpage. Also, it’s not like these userboxes are extremely radical and offensive. I don't know too many people who are pro-gun or pro-censorship. But if I did, they should be able to put a userbox saying so on their userpage. I would ask that you restore these userboxes as well as the other ones you deleted because people should be able to chose whether or not they want have these userboxes on their userpages, not find that they have been suddenly deleted. Eddyy 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're arguing from the wrong null hypothesis here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, thus the burden of keeping something around tips the opposite direction. You're trying to frame the issue as "it's not terribly bad, so we should keep it," when the issue is actually "it's not terribly good, so we shouldn't keep it." The default action for any non-encyclopedic content is for it to be deleted — you must prove that it is somehow worthy for it to stay. And you're not going to be able to prove that divisive and inflammatory userboxes (so-called T1 templates) are worthy. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not, since so far as I remember seeing there was no discussion of the matter at least where the deletion of the Userboxes/Politics directory was concerned. Did this page meet WP:CSD? You may or may not have a point about politics and religion templates being irrelevant, but it would have been nice to see some conversation about it. For example, I think that if someone has a userbox that says he's a practicing Hindu that it might help me decide whether an unsourced statement he makes about a temple to Shiva or even the use of Ayurvedic medicine is likely to be "common knowledge" from his perspective. And while you're at it, why don't you delete Userboxes/Zodiac and Userboxes/Sports? The first is even more irrelevant, while the second is even more divisive, if you go by the number of riots at least. Mike Serfas 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Cyde Weys, if you think that that Wikipedia is exclusively an encyclopaedia, then why don't you delete every userbox and userpage because encyclopaedias aren't supposed to have micosites for users who want them? Also, when making a major change such as deleting a template that will affect thousands of users, isn't there supposed to be some kind of discussion and consensus? Also how could an anti-censorship userbox offend or inflame anyone? Isn't Wikipedia against censorship? See WP:CENSOR. The same goes with the anti-gun template. In my entire life, I have never met a person who said they supported guns, so obviously an anti-gun userbox isn't divisive or inflammatory at all. Obviously people aren't “pro-gun”; just the term just sounds absurd. Finally, people can't just go around deleting things without discussion because they don't agree with them. If everyone did, then every article on a controversial topic would constantly be deleted. Please restore the userboxes so I and everyone else can have them on their userpage. Eddyy 19:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot Request, if possible[edit]

"Hey there. I'm a moderator (called admins here) on a wiki called Bionicle Sector 01 Wiki (for, as the name suggests, info about BIONICLE, the toy line). I've tried in the past to talk to some programmers about creating a bot, or just copying the code for one of Wikipedia's anti-vandalism bots and giving a quick crash course on how to operate it, but had no avail (folks didn't respond after a while). Well, our wiki is still concerned about vandals coming in at night when no one else is really on, so thusly I'm attempting to have a bot created for our wiki again. Would it be possibly to request one here for another wiki, or can anyone respond with how I can perhaps get one for another wiki? I'll try the makers of the AVB to see if they can help out at all. ~U"

This is what I asked for on the Request a Bot page, in hopes that possibly one of the coders for the AVB could help out (or know of someone who can help out)?

Thanks,

~U

Would it at least be possible for you to reply Cyde? :-( It's be nice to at least get a response as if you can help me or not. ~U

Sorry, I haven't done any work with the anti-vandalism bot in many months now. You'd have to ask someone who is running an active clone. Though might I suggest that one good way to limit vandalism is to restrict editing to logged-in users. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. I was redirected over to Martin23 anyway -- let's hope he responds to me. As for your advice -- we do do that, but the real "dedicated" ones will make an account to vandalize or use proxy servers anyway. >_< ~U

Template:User against censorship[edit]

Why did you delete this userbox?--SefringleTalk 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see three sections up. In the future, you might want to read other people's talk pages before duplicating a section. --Cyde Weys 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "Why use Tor" comments[edit]

I thought that your comments here were very good. Actually, I was wondering why the hell I couldn't access some youtubes...I think we probably have the same ISP. I didn't realize that it was my ISP doing it. I've only had this for about 6 months, and when I first got it I noticed some content (on various sites) that I could access on my old ISP was unavailable, but I didn't think much of it. After reading your comments, I fired up Tor and got on youtube and could see the videos on the blocked servers. Now I wonder what other content is blocked? Do you have any idea?

To get back on topic of the points you aptly expressed, there are a lot of good reasons to use Tor and it's unfortunate that it has somehow been equated with mischief. If I were at all motivated, I would write WP:Tor_is_not_evil. :-)

Anyways, sorry for the long note but this is sort of a thanks, because as dumb as it may seem, I didn't realize I couldn't access these videos because of my ISP and Tor saved the day. Take care, daveh4h 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I can help. There are two main reasons these connection glitches pop up, one of them sinister and one of them not (though don't ever underestimate how sinister a mega-corporation can be when it thinks it's getting away with it). The unexciting explanation is that the Internet isn't perfect, and maybe there's some sort of a glitch in YouTube's routing system such that a few of their servers can't send traffic to some parts of the Internet (in particular, note that each video is hosted on one server, so to the end user this looks like it's just a few videos that aren't working).

The other explanation, the one I'm partial to, is that the ISP is being evil. For instance, my ISP is Comcast Cable. They sell cable television as well as video-on-demand services, both of which are facing extreme competition from YouTube, which is free! We know ISPs have wanted to dump network neutrality for awhile now, and they could already be implementing a lower tier for sites like YouTube to degrade performance, and thus, the user experience. It's pretty evil, but I wouldn't put it past them. I also blogged this awhile ago, though luckily the speed issues have improved since then. --Cyde Weys 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, same ISP here. When I read your comments, I decided to try Tor, and amazingly the videos worked. Interesting thing is that running through Comcast, they don't seem want to load at all, and believe it or not it is usually one of the first search results, which made it seem like the unexciting explanation. But then they load pretty quickly when using Tor, so I'm rather baffled. Add to that the glitches with accessing content on sites (that I can't even remember) when I first started with this ISP, and it really makes me wonder.
I had verizon until about late December though, and do not remember any problems like this. I started Comcast in January, so maybe both ISPs started doing this. It really is evil :()
Take care, and thanks for the response, daveh4h 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:User against censorship. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Willy turner 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to prevent deletion of images[edit]

I noticed that three images I uploaded are on your CSD list. I am truly struggling to get through the procedure of image use, it seems very cumbersome to me as a relatively uninitiated user. When I try to find out what I need to do to save or justify the use of an image, I seem to keep finding explanations that lead to other explanations, requirements with other prerequisite requirements, etc. I suspect it isn't all that hard to the expert, but I am not an expert. The images in question are the three images linked from Charleston furniture warehouse fire, they are Image:CharlestonFire1.jpg, Image:CharlestonFire1.jpg and Image:CharlestonFire1.jpg. I have explicit permission from the owner of the photos to use them on Wikipedia only. What else can I do to prove or justify their use? Help for this non-expert appreciated very much. Fjbfour 01:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, use on Wikipedia only is not sufficient. We are writing a freely redistributable encyclopedia that is used in many places outside of Wikipedia, so that license is unacceptable. Try contacting the person you got the images from and ask if they can release them under the GFDL — then we would be able to use them. --Cyde Weys 01:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the quick reply. Can you elaborate slightly on that process? I mean, I can't exactly send him an email that says, "Hey Chief, can you release your photos under the GFDL?", that would not make sense to him. What do I tell him to do, exactly? I am removing the photos from the article for now so there are no gaping holes in it while I work this out. Thanks again. Fjbfour 01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You could use one of the example letters at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. --Cyde Weys 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User box[edit]

Hi Cyde, in your opinion is this user box a reasonable candidate for speedy deletion: User:Sefringle/Opposes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? My concern isn't so much the reversal of Ahmadinejad's comments about Israel, more the implication that firing a nuclear missile in his general direction would be a good idea. Addhoc 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Addhoc 19:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Man, it's really a shame how badly people are abusing Wikipedia these days. I blame the userbox culture for this brand of nonsense. How anyone could possibly think this kind of stuff is useful and helps write the encyclopedia is beyond me. --Cyde Weys 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

You'd previously attempted to correct this editors behaviour and I've now opened an RFC. If you would like to give any input please do so Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mark_Kim.--Crossmr 04:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot renaming image templates[edit]

I noticed that User:Cydebot is renaming image templates. I noticed this on Image:Ishinomaki, Miyagi Symbol.svg where Template:Insignia was replaced with Template:Non-free logo. In the edit history, though, the bot references Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates where there is no mention of the {{Insignia}} template.

Also I don't know if this is related, but User:N has made a comment on the bot's talk page (it's the message below the linked one; the brackets in the section heading won't allow me to make the link) that it has also been doing the same with Template:Nintendo-screenshot. I'm guessing that the page User:N mentions is the same one.

I actually did need to delete the image, though, seeing as I'm now uploading those to the Commons, so thanks for the unintentional reminder. Best of luck in sorting this out. Oh, and if the {{Insignia}} template is in fact being phased out, please leave a link to the page on my talk page. Thanks!

-Nameneko 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:East Jerusalem[edit]

Hi. I think you should check the user talk page of the closing admin before sending the bot out to depopulate a category. To see if there is an appeal. The closing admin talk page in this case is User talk:Kbdank71. I am not accusing you of bad faith. I am suggesting that you wait for the appeal process before sending out the bot army. :)

Because I don't know how difficult it is for you to reverse what the bots have done. If the appeal is won, and the category is recreated, then is it possible for the bot to repair the damage? I saved the category page before it was deleted. I count around 29 entries in the category. I can send it to you to help repair the damage automatically or manually. I think you should fix any problems since you may have created the problems. Assuming the appeal to the closing admin is successful, or the deletion review overturns the decision.

Category:East Jerusalem closing admin decision was to delete it. Incorrectly, I believe. Category:East Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine#Category:East Jerusalem closing admin decision to delete. I left a message at the user talk page of the closing admin. The deletion discussion took place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 11#Category:East Jerusalem. The deletion was incorrect in my opinion due to this: From Wikipedia:Deletion process#Categories for Discussion page {emphasis added): "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the category is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion." I count 8 keeps and 19 deletes from non-anonymous users. The "oppose" is a keep vote, and I counted it in the 8 keeps. Most of the deletes were from users who did not enter into discussion. I see no consensus, and not even rough consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says to ask the closing admin politely to correct possible mistakes in closing: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion. 1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look."--Timeshifter 08:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no way I'm going to be able to check the talk page of every closing admin before running the bot. That would be a lot of extra work. CFDs are closed by lots of different people, and the closing admins aren't even listed on WP:CFDW, so I'd have to go back through all of the per-day listings to puzzle it out. Since the error rate on these kinds of things is so low, it's just easier to recreate the category as necessary if the decision is overturned. In the mean time, though, it is a proper closure, and so the bot run wasn't wrong, per se. --Cyde Weys 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can the bot recreate the category? If not, then it is not easy to repopulate the category. I suggest instituting a standard waiting period of say, 2 days, before running the bot. I still haven't heard from the closing admin. I left a message on their user talk page. I don't see any great need to rush these things. Maybe a notice can be created for contested category deletions. Same as for contested speedy deletions of images. What happens if an official deletion review is started? Are you notified? Do you delete in spite of an official deletion review? That would really be wrong. I appreciate what you do. You need to appreciate my efforts, too, in my opinion.
See Template:Db-reason. One can remove the speedy-delete template if the reason does not apply. Or one can add {{hangon}}. We need some kind of "hang on" tag that creates a "hang-on" list of contested category deletions. That along with a 2-day waiting period should solve the problem. --Timeshifter 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing about the hang-on template is that it is for speedy deletions — it's not really applicable in the case of a CFD, which has been reviewed and closed by an admin. If you disagree with the result of the CFD, I don't think you can really put a stop to it, as if we were as efficient as possible, the robot work would be done within moments of the category being closed. WP:DRV is really the place to have the discussion. Anyway, here's the full list of articles that used to be in the East Jerusalem category, so if it ends up being recreated, just add it to all of these pages and we're back where we started:

--Cyde Weys 06:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. So I assume there is no current programming for the bot to add the category back to the pages. I would think that it would be possible to create such programming. Since to remove category text from pages is similar to adding category text to pages. Some categories are populated by hundreds of pages. Imagine having to add back categories manually.
And you did not answer my question about the 2-day waiting period. Is there any reason you could not wait? And from your answer, I gather that categories are depopulated in spite of ongoing WP:DRV discussions. That needs to be fixed. I don't see why a "hang on" category deletion tag could not be created. In fact, I suggest making it a category itself. For example: Category:Hang on. Do not delete category.--Timeshifter 06:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Unprotection[edit]

Please unprotect List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. The issue over non-free images appears to have been settled and I believe that others, myself included, would like to make new contributions to the page. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by ScorpSt (talkcontribs)

Done. Thanks for bringing it up; I had totally forgotten about it, and you're right, being protected for over a month and a half was entirely too long. --Cyde Weys 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

(1) Since you had asked me to let you know, there's a trash tourney this Sunday at Jimenez hall. (2) Comments like this do not help your cause. Raul654 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I was being inaccurate there. One of the articles that xe deleted contained unsupported accusations of bigamy. That's defamatory content, and could easily get Wikipedia in serious trouble. I would call that dangerous, and a reckless abuse of admin tools. As for the tourney — when is it? --Cyde Weys 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

REQUESTING CAT MOVE[edit]

Hi, I want you to move everything from Category:Inca 2 Category:Inca Empire, the last one has a more specific name for the civilization & "inca" alone doesn't seem to be a proper term,(easy to notice just by looking at articles categorized between them) thanks --Andersmusician $ 21:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You should be requesting this through the WP:CFD process, not asking Cyde directly. --tjstrf talk 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion[edit]

Hi. You deleted the page User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion with a deletion summary of "No official repository for non-template space T1 templates."

I would like to make three points in response. First, most of those templates don't qualify for deletion under T1. Second, I recently tried to get all "Wikipedians by religion" categories deleted, but the nomination seems to be heading for a "no consensus" result (see WP:UCFD#June 16). So, your deletion indirectly goes against an XfD consensus. Third, though I understand the sentiment behind what you're trying to do, I don't think an out-of-process speedy deletion will help matters at all ... it will only make people dig in their heels.

Please restore the page. I think I would be justified to do it myself, but I'd rather not get into a conflict over a page I view to be pointless. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic, the only heels digging in I see are from you, someone who would like to see this stuff deleted. So stop following the rules for the rules' sake and do what's right for the encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 08:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there'll be no digging from me. However, just to clarify, I view out-of-process actions to be determinal for the encyclopedia, as they undermine trust in administrators and in the rules and often result in more bureaucracy. I also notice that the deletions have now been contested ... not surprising given the resulting redlink in the navigation box. An MfD nomination takes only a few minutes, but is almost always better for controversial cases. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, deleting the organisation page while the userboxes still exist makes it harder to identify and nominate for deletion potentially problematic userpages. I don't care about the userboxes themselves, but I'll again ask that you restore the two organisation pages: User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DRVs[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:UBX/Communist. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 84.145.231.10 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 84.145.231.10 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Recategorisation[edit]

Hi. Before turning your bot loose, could you please ensure that any categories to which it is reasigning articles actually exist first? You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Pyrope 17:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the way pyWikipediaBot is written. It moves all of the pages over and then the category page. Does it really bother you that much? Even in a really long run, it's only going to remain redlinked for a few minutes. --Cyde Weys 21:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Stub tags[edit]

Have you noticed that Cydebot is moving stub tags, from below the categories to a strange place between the DEFAULTSORT statement and the categories? (for example, see this diff).

Is there any way that the bot could be persuaded not to do this? Apart from the fact that it's a weird place in itself (DEFAULTSORT relates to the categs, so the two should be adjacent), it's different to how AWB's general fixes places stub tags, so it'll lead to the stub tags being moved around unnecessarily. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Categories are supposed to be at the very bottom of the article, because that is where they display. Stub tags display above the category listing, hence they should be above the categories. It sounds like AWB is doing it wrong. pyWikipediaBot has been around longer and it's always been that way. As for the DEFAULTSORT magic word, I wasn't previously aware of it. I'll look into it. --Cyde Weys 16:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hilary Duff[edit]

Hello, I know the category was previously deleted but there is enough content in other articles for Hilary Duff to have her own category. I am kindly asking you if it's okay to re-created this category once more. QuasyBoy 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Userbox[edit]

Hello Cyde. I noticed that you are against the practice of userboxes, but at the same time, you made the userbox generator. Is this a bit hypocritical? It's like someone telling people not to smoke while himself is making cigarettes. WooyiTalk to me? 17:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You totally missed all of the substantive issues of the debate if you think I hate userboxes. That's not it at all. I couldn't care less about words in boxes. What I don't like is when they are used for recruitment and inciting groups against each other. We are trying to write a neutral encyclopedia here, so it's never good when a reader clicks through an edit in the history of an article on a contentious issue and they run smack dab into a userpage full of contentious claims they might not agree with. That's not good. Please read Wikipedia:Jimbo on Userboxes for more. I also didn't like the abuse of the template namespace that userboxes were causing. In comparison, my userbox generator (which I wrote for April Fools Day 2006, something you clearly haven't noticed) is purely for fun, doesn't cause any divisiveness, and it also only writes raw code that goes directly onto userpages. I'm not manufacturing cigarettes, merely little cardboard boxes. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of non-free images in licensing templates[edit]

MZMcBride requested I solicit your input at Template talk:MultiLicenceWithCC-By-All-IntEng. The issue is using non-free logos and other images to identify license status, specifically the Creative Commons logo and buttons. Creative Commons's policy in regards to copyrights says that most of the content of the site is under cc-by-3.0 (and probably earlier as 3.0 is rather new..) except those things listed under the trademark section. The images and buttons are listed under the trademark section. Thus, the logo and buttons are not licensed according to the previous statement which means they are non-free. As such, their usage is subject to our policies on the use of non-free content which prohibits the use of non-free content outside of the main namespace. Image:Somerights20.png and Image:Somerights.png has already been replaced with Image:CC some rights reserved.svg in many license templates, but a few were missed. Any templates or other non-article usages of Image:Ccl logo.gif, Image:CC-logo.svg, or other offical logos should be removed or replaced with Image:CC some rights reserved.svg or such. The specific buttons should probably be replaced with Image:CC BY.png, Image:CC ND.png, Image:CC NC.png, and Image:CC SA.png as appropriate. Kotepho 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot adding @@[edit]

Cydebot added @@ to an article [6], mentioned at Wikipedia:Help_desk#@@. PrimeHunter 04:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Has Cydebot done this anywhere else? Does anyone have any sort of clue how this might have happened? --Cyde Weys 17:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of ack-ack attacks, but at-ats !!?? - Maybe it's been watching Star Wars recently? :p --Alf melmac 17:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I had not seen it before but I just looked at around 20 edits before and after and found 2 others: [7][8]. In all 3 cases Cydebot removed the only category specified with [[Category:...]] (there were also template generated categories). All the other edits I examined had other categories specified with [[Category:...]] and Cydebot did not add @@ in any of those edits. PrimeHunter 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at a few recent Cydebot edits and it's still adding @@: [9][10][11][12][13]. It's still the exactly same pattern: @@ is added if and only if Cydebot removed the only category which had been added with [[Category:...]]. I have removed @@ in those 5 cases but given Cydebot's high activity, there might be thousands of other cases (4 of the 5 were added by Cydebot in the same minute). PrimeHunter 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I was hoping it was a one-off bug; it's not. Cydebot won't be doing any more CFD work until I track down the bug and fix it. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. I found and fixed a few more which also followed the pattern: [14][15][16]. I also examined some old edits from mid-May and the problem was not there: [17][18][19]. My speculation about the possibility of thousands was probably very exaggerated. It's rare to only have one category and relatively few of Cydebot's numerous edits are removing a category. PrimeHunter 03:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins open to recall[edit]

Hey ... I noticed in my watchlist your bot moving the recall category to Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall. Why "Wikipedian" instead of "Wikipedia", matching Category:Wikipedia administrators? (I'm not that picky one way or another and I don't really pay much attention to our category naming conventions ... I just thought it sounded a little odd.) --BigDT 02:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects[edit]

What's the reason for the double redirects that are protected for testing purposes? -Mike Payne 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it on the double redirects special page? What am I missing? --Cyde Weys 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I can see it :P -N 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Me too... It says:
      • So... it's still there on the double redirects page... and I never heard back from you. What's up with this? -Mike Payne 20:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
# User:Cyde/Double redirect (Edit) →‎ User:Cyde/Single redirect →‎ User talk:Cyde 

-Mike Payne 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidents at SF parks[edit]

Thank you for preventing the looming revert war from escalating. Regarding the three WP policies you mentioned, here are my thoughts:

  • WP:BLP -- the victim's name is mentioned as part of the incident, not as a completely separate page. All incidents that are listed contain victims names when available. The three-sentence paragraph discussing the incident does not focus on the victim and her role in the accident.
  • WP:V and WP:CITE -- the info came directly from the parents in their own released statment.

Your insight is appreciated. SpikeJones 05:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the name is mentioned in the media; ethically, we shouldn't report it. It doesn't add anything to the article, and it's simply not right to brand this girl by name for the rest of her life in the world's most-read and most-copied encyclopedia as the girl who lost her feet. This is one unfortunate incident in an otherwise non-notable life, and we shouldn't be defining her by it. --Cyde Weys 05:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But BLP says that we can mention names if they're included in the citations. In the bigger picture, she may be the one who causes an entire set of rides to be torn out of parks across the country (hypothetical, future thinking). Or a change in ride regulations/inspections. 10 years from now, 20/20 might be doing a "where is she now" story about her rehabilitation, etc. To *not* say her name seems to be censorship when her name is being reported around the world in other reference media. SpikeJones 05:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"Censorship"? No, it's not censorship, it's ethics. I don't think you understand the purpose of WP:BLP. I would suggest carefully reading over this current arbitration case. --Cyde Weys 05:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I read the arbitration page
  • Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. Mentioning the victim's name doesn't have any legal or ethical implications. The victim's parents chose to release their own statement that identified the girl. The article is about a specific event that the girl is indelibly linked to.
  • must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects. There is no judgement, mocking, or otherwise. Merely a statement of what occured due to the accident. The paragraph is about the accident, the victim merely a passing reference.
  • ...do no harm.... a factual statement about the type of injuries that occurred to a specific person is not a disparaging remark.
Basically, I still don't see where the harm is in the mere mentioning of the victim's name in any of these incidents. The interesting thing is that in all the months that I've been editing the various "Incident" pages, nobody has ever questioned the formatting being used until this week. I have been diligent in sticking with NPOV, fact-based/cited paragraphs. This is the first time someone has really taken offense at an incident report (a three sentence one, at that.) SpikeJones 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The victim got mentioned in RS incidentally and passively. That does not make her inherently notable. Negative references on Wikipedia may have real-life repercussions. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, where's the negative reference? As a comparison, (I'm sure there are other similar statements scattered across WP that could be used) in the article Happiest Homecoming on Earth there is this sentence: The first person to enter the park that day was Madison Steigerwald, a 15-year old girl from Old Greenwich, CT. She and her grandmother, Mary Madison, began to line up at 3 p.m. the day before. This sentence had been removed and reverted a few times due to notability reasons, but it was left in for similar reasons that I believe all victim names (when available) should be listed on the Incidents pages. Namely that the people who were first were notable solely in reference to this particular event and not notable for anything beyond it. Being known as the person who stood in line for 18+ hours just to be first into a theme park is certainly less notable being the person who suffered a tragic accident due to what appears to be either park negligence or an Act of God and will likely have repercussions in changing how parks handle maintenance and safety in the future. SpikeJones 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There have been some changes in the BLP practices in the last few months, and I am sure there are many articles that were written before these changes. The current interpretation of BLP is that, for individuals with very limited notability, we should err in favor of more privacy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume everyone who has an opinion has already shared it by now. So.... you think I really have a chance of changing anybody's mind on this, or is pursuing what I believe to be appropriate on these pages a fool's errand? SpikeJones 02:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a fool's errand to realize you don't always get your way. That's life. --Cyde Weys 02:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't asking about whether I'd get my way or not; t'was about the size of the uphill battle it appears I'd be facing if I were to try to champion the concept in a bigger arena. (I do thank you for taking the time... and user talk space... to deal with this issue. At least I believe I've been reasonable compared to other differences discussions people have had with editing decisions) SpikeJones 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Princess Comet doesn't have a manga.[edit]

Can you please change the category for Princess Comet, because the anime series doesn't have a manga. Samantha Lim88 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is about one of the anime and manga genre moves. I'll explain it for her. --tjstrf talk 05:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects[edit]

This was never answered before it was archived, and the question still stands, since the redirects are still there...

What's the reason for the double redirects that are protected for testing purposes? -Mike Payne 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it on the double redirects special page? What am I missing? --Cyde Weys 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I can see it :P -N 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Me too... It says:
      • So... it's still there on the double redirects page... and I never heard back from you. What's up with this? -Mike Payne 20:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
# User:Cyde/Double redirect (Edit) →‎ User:Cyde/Single redirect →‎ User talk:Cyde 

-Mike Payne 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Kwik-E-Unlucky[edit]

You're welcome for the pic. That sucks your Kwik-E-Mart adventure didn't end in excitement, we got to buy a six-pack of buzz, a box of KrustyO's cereal, all-syrup Squishee's in Squishee cups, etc. It was worth the hype for us, in the shadow of the Space Needle, and within two-three blocks of every major local broadcast TV station so they could get their evening shots in front of it... That all the employees were south-asian immigrants in Apu's uniform was just bonus. SchmuckyTheCat

Oh, lucky! Ours didn't have any of the special merchandise in it - no Buzz Cola, no KrustyOs, no Squishee cups, no nothing. It was lame. What is the Buzz Cola really? Just Coke in a different can or something? --Cyde Weys 21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

cydebot //proposal[edit]

Hi!

Can ur bot (user:cydebot) look regularily at Category:Wikipedia category redirects? E. g. this list is too much work for a human (for my taste): Category:Arabic mathematics

Btw.: I like ur idea to mention PGP on the user page... Ur pubkey User:Cyde is somehow different from the pubkey the keyserver gives (but maybe that is normal)... A little test (no real information contained):

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD)

hQJOAwv6Ls5XJHDqEAj/SYOLLyfVIhsJ4gQ4eXeY3sZbxgAPdvxQ/T3IrNeuZdZf
gLv7wfA+TJ7Fjl99zWlwFAGaH1wHJ0RfRPPBMIAraNKS7jpHT6do3L+uIc9/azC5
PdwUM5CMp9Rgh44pUs2rhaXQWi+RdBfaaPalEHudPf6yvv8Rb8/VnTy3C6w8n+qe
gc0JKXwFoKm055JfkhycgTx4t2/TDa/3CnllSVnREaHDiEjBVgzGJV5BS4Gf5kcp
9So/JlFbkvNsJYSzsvoCkn4bJorIxkE80voy1gLDDhZ8YyoVxjrY6LvOgp9gk762
zpelX/rFKMiEJjLMML1z8+8Od08gL1VozV5DynLFRrgHNNZbqf8uXd6JpmbWKsS3
hOLSh04O7cwuJ/0IZTqSCP0VR+7qcR1x5fBVYOB6AvmNx10GhijtKTqGmrMJB9L5
OmMcX88TP7hxNrIOPaRnp9LXO/vlUv/TdZ5TWTOlYIIelORr+SV0A9El48hOZCzs
CQQyAycHq8J5MyYFcYZyE+t0iDw3SUMky+pnwmCQlEL7HwQWdxwZUg64nSpcYEtH
OSvwvp95Ysb35NdW6AZb8Sc486S5B4xnzkKPV7HcJzJgVpcYaNBFYhaoGx73QC9l
jpFDtTa2MIoN8+DzLiAtVxBYY9KkVNiekU8HVPpvImFbf9krgqSZzaJXxfqR8bWs
cUrULM8948U+PalPnk/AFYpox0nR8IWbaF9rHW8r55KB7g/Omvt/9vE5p9VEmbrv
LDMQp9EUSXxgApFxmJjlc83SUgHzjnssm3oHiOYAhztRNV2tgi7KKvyPIs2i/YzF
zlQAQUUyXcJAWJbUFuDQDOFap7i10D5L8JGsISNk/T771arhYjfi4GJl9sH0Hnj2
iyN3CBw=
=pa6G
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

--Homer Landskirty 09:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at adding another task for Cydebot. And yes, I can read that PGP message just fine. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And did somebody wrongfully change ur pgp pub key on ur user page? Or is it somehow the same (maybe there r different encodings of the same information in PGP...)? --Homer Landskirty 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I figured it out. I've had more people sign my key since I originally posted it on my userpage; I've just updated my userpage to be current. Thus, what was on my userpage didn't have the full number of signatures in it, but what actually matters, the RSA public cryptographic key itself, is the same (though this can be hard to tell just by looking at the jumbled mass of characters). --Cyde Weys 14:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess another, less-confusing way to say it is that they were both the same key, they just had different metadata. --Cyde Weys 14:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


George Grande[edit]

I reverted some vandalism on this page, but that also undid something your bot did as well... LondonStatto 04:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Then please fix it? This is what Cydebot did, so just make the same change to the top revision. --Cyde Weys 05:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. OK, done. I didn't know whether the bot would be re-visiting or if it was a one-time-only thing. LondonStatto 06:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonnotice[edit]

Regarding your recent edit to MediaWiki:Anonnotice, would you please reconsider the appropriateness of submitting all of our millions of readers--very, very few of whom are eligible to partake in the election--to the confusion, frustration, and distraction of being harassed into visiting Special:Boardvote, where they find only a very unfriendly message about their ineligibility, to the benefit of gaining perhaps a handful of voters at best. The possible benefit gained by such a message is incredibly minuscule, and is dramatically outweighed by the distraction it causes to our readers who, quite frankly, don't give a damn about our internal processes and want only to use this site as an encyclopedia. This has been discussed at depth, and most, though not all, are opposed to the idea of spamming all of our anonymous readers with this message. I'm going to assume that you have simply not read the discussion and are not intending to edit war on a page in the MediaWiki namespace; however, that is very much so how it appears. Please do consider removing it and joining in the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Anonnotice. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel like opposing when the ol' joanna plays.[edit]

Matthew's oppose on Qst's RFA is the chorus "I Can't Decide" by the Scissor Sisters. Amusing, in-jokish, but I do agree it's weird to put on an RFA. Will (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Handicapped ISA image, again[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Handicapped ISA image, again

Another attempt at users trying to sneak the ISA image back on the Wiki. -- Ned Scott 23:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I need help[edit]

Hi, I created this account just to edit wikipedia, but it looks like another user named schonbrunn is reverting my edits and accussing me of being a sock and a vandal. In my defense, I say that there's nothing disruptive in my edits, I'm just contributing to the wikipedia, he has claimed to an admin named yamla to block me. This after seeing its contributions to see what he has edited and after seeing all this, he is more than a vandal than I.

I will appreciate your help before I become blocked, unfairly. Señorplayero 00:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Copa Airlines[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your message. The main problem with Copa Airlines is that there is a certain user called Cpzphantom who was blocked for copyright infringement and has been creating numerous sockpuppet accounts in order to go around his block. His latest sockpuppet, "Señorplayero", has been adding information that adds no value and he does not cite his information properly. In addition, he has added as his an obviously copyrighted image (which has already been taken down from the site), which means that he has not understood the policies regarding copyrights. I've tried to keep him at bay but he fails to understand.

I invite you to look at this page's history and you will see that, besides creating abusive sockpuppets, his edits lack quality and add no value.--Schonbrunn 15:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another evidence is the image he recently uploaded. It is clear that he took this image from airliners.net See the his edit history.--Schonbrunn 16:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007[edit]

The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection blocks[edit]

Please semi-protect the pages for Godsmack and Lamb of God (band) because un-registered users keep coming and reverting my edits to the infobox, This is anoying me because I am putting a (<!-[- -->) message in the infobox and they are not listening on Godsmack and on Lamb of God (band) un-rregistered users are adding genres unsourced and un-needed because of an on going genre edit war. Thank you for the help. Skeeker 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Anonnotice[edit]

Are you sure that this is working in IE6 for you? I am unable to click the link in IE6, and since IE6 is still an extremely popularly used browser it is imperative it works. Otherwise I agree, the floating version is much better, except for this accessibility concern. Prodego talk 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)