User talk:Cyde/Archive002

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

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

Nomination for Adminship

Your RfA

As someone who has seen you around, I must say I was going to probably oppose your RfA. It has nothing to do with your politics, userboxes, or anything big like that. It was a matter of your civility. I won't oppose at this time, because I think you would make a good admin. However, I would encourage you to keep trying to remain calm and cool under fire. Also, keep up the constant use of your edit summaries. Good luck with your RfA, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And yeah, while techincally not violating WP:CIVIL, some of my past edits may have been a bit on the harsh side. I'm working to improve on that aspect, and I assure you that with the added responsibility of admin I would act in a much kinder manner. I already do that to a pretty big degree in my mediation cabal cases. --Cyde Weys 03:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you seem like a decent enough editor that I just couldn't oppose, but I can't support either. I just thought you'd appreciate a little feedback. I'm sure you'll do wonderfully as admin and wish you all the best. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We disagreed on some things, but it's pretty clear you have nothing but the best intentions for WikiPolicy and the Wikipedia itself. Best of luck on your RfA. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that in the end I went with neutral but I just can't see my way clear to support yet. However you have my best wishes and every assurance of support should your nomination reach positive consensus whichever side of the fence I fall on... ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How would you handle the developing controversy regarding the Charmmy Kitty article? Do you think it's Al Qaida or Fiona Apple? What should we do? As an admin, what would you do? --DanielCD 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, that's great. I do find the idea of one cat having another cat as a pet hilarious. Just remember it is Wikipedia's job, as an encylopedia, to report neutrally on these issues of meta-cat-ownership. --Cyde Weys 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks. A little sense of humor was what I wanted to see as a capstone to my support for your adminship. An admin needs lots of it! Good luck. --DanielCD 20:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still kind of disappointed I didn't get an extreme lesbian support, though. --Cyde Weys 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I'd rather just edit this than start an entire new section... I wanted to say, I'm sorry for voting oppose. Reviewing my vote, it seems incorrect on my part. However, I just wanted to say (despite its 'funniness'), that you gave me the userbox for supporting your RfA... should I use it? --Nomader^Talk 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh he can't answer that! That's an opinion about a userbox. You'll have to make your own decision about that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! I meant 'box' then... (not related to 'userboxes' in any way at all)

Nomader^Talk 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Clyde

Appreciate your attention at my User page. Have a good one. Terryeo 20:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

....

                          w   W   w                            
                           \  |  /                             
                            \.|./                              
                              |                                
                              |                                
   o            .:.:.:.       |   DAMN HUMANS ALWAYS TRYING TO IMPERSONATE GOD
                wwWWWww      //                                
        ((c     ))"""((     //|                                
o      /\/\((  (( 6 6 ))   // |                                
      (d d  ((  )))^(((   //  |                                
 o    /   / c((-(((')))-.//   |                                
     /===/ `) (( )))(( ,_/    |                                
    /o o/  / c((( (()) |      |                                
    ` `^  / c (((  ))  |      |                                
         /c  c(((  (   |      |                                
        /  c  (((  .   |      |                                
       / c   c ((^^^^^^`\     |                                
      |c  c c  c((^^^ ^^^`\   |                                
       \ c   c   c(^^^^^^^^`\ |                                
        `\ c   c  c;`\^^^^^./ |                                
          `\c c  c  ;/^^^^^/  |                                
            `\ c  c /^^^^/'   |                                
              `;c   |^^/'     o                                
         .-.  ,' c c//^\\                                      
        ( @ `.`c  -///^\\\                                     
         \ -` c__/|/     \|jgs                                 
          `---'   '       '

It said to gang up on you, i dont know what for but i figured I'd leave you a picture of neptune god of the sea. Gastrich will probably try to RfC me for this though as it is blastomphy! Mike _{(T C)} 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, I honestly don't know what to say. --Cyde Weys 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Blatant lie!

I did not say Maryland was named after Saint Mary. Maryland was named after Mary, Queen of Scots--the mother of King James you fucking asshole! The Calvert and Stuart families were very close and the Calvert family partook in the Rising of the North, which was to unseat Elizabeth Tudor for Mary Stuart. How dare you libel me so inconsiderately, buffoon?! 68.110.9.62 05:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• LMAO -- 05:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

About your abstain vote

File:Microphone and cord.jpg

This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned.

I read your comment on your abstain vote, and wanted to drop by and share with you my belief that if this proposal passes, it will make edit wars much worse. Here is why,

• it will drag admins into the business of deciding what are good and bad userboxes, which are editorial issues
• it will deprive editors of a valuable communication tool used to signal positions in a concise way
• it will be harder to find others with similar perspectives to help build consensus and find resources
• it will lessen the expectation that Wikipedia is a highly-diverse community
• it will institutionalize a highly-flawed notion of NPOV
• it will encourage organization of voting-blocks off-site, where there will be much less transparency

As you like userboxes, I thought I'd share my latest one with you below. I did it over the last few days in part as an example of how such a box should be used. If this proposal passes, there will be no central place to find it (it is listed in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs), and no list of like-minded people to explore. Recently, rogue admins have been deleting dozens of categories and templates on the assumption that this would pass. The damage to Wikipedia's culture will be irreparable.

Please consider changing your vote to Oppose.

StrangerInParadise

I don't know what you're talking about with this "abstain" business, but if you knew anything about my past involvement with this issue, you'd know that you shouldn't be wasting your time trying to lobby me :-P 18:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

New Pro-cannabis userbox

This user is pro-cannabis, and opposes the prejudice and oppression suffered by cannabis users.

If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add {{user pro-cannabis}} to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type {{user pro-cannabis|stamp|right}}

Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you found me to lobby on this issue, but I'm hardly a sympathetic person to your userbox plight. If you'll check out my user page you'll see there are no userboxes there whatsoever. -- 18:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but have you seen this? It looks... like questionable behavior... possibly a short, hirsute, large nosed... there's a name for this... Troll?

thanks!

For reverting that one edit to my userpage ... by an IP user ... from Spain ... who apparently came to Wikipedia just to delete a photo from my userpage ... and then vanished ... never to edit again.

I guess I'll have to file that one under "life's mysteries"

Cheers! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're doing some weird linking stuff there :-O 21:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I think its brilliant! I did that on a talk page once, and no one got it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Assistance with AfD

Hey Cyde, I seem to have screwed up the AfD creation for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrizia_Norelli-Bachelet (and see today's log page also) and can't seem to unscrew it up. Help would be appreciated. Thanks, JoshuaZ 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Disregard above. Got assistance. JoshuaZ 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Conanobrien.jpg

This image is not usable in the Conan O'Brien article. (1) One of the criteria at WP:FUC is that there is no free alternative. Replacing a free photo with a fair use image is a copyright violation. (2) This image has no source or licensing info. It's a obviously from a premiere or other event, taken by a photo agency (also a violation of WP:FUC) which are not a fair use.--Fallout boy 00:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrmmm, then we'll have to find a better photo then that we can use. -- 00:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Underage

I reinserted "underage" to the Bairam Khan article, since the reason Khan served as Regent to Akbar, as I understand it, was because Akbar was 13, and not yet old enough to control the Empire. Khan was dismissed as regent once Akbar was 18. Anyways, if my history is wrong, by all means argue with me, I admit I'm very, very fallible. :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, I understand now, I didn't realize it had something to do with the prose narrative (and wasn't just a sort of backwards ad hominem thrown in for good measure). -- 01:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Depth of field

Hi Cyde. Re your question on WP:FPC about controlling depth of field, have a look at this brief tutorial. I'm not knowledgeable about camers either, but I remember someone posting a link to these digital photography tutorials on WP:FPC not long go, and they are all superb. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Hey Cyde, I finaly got around to tracking down the wiki policy on signatures that I had briefly mentioned on Guys talk page. You can find the official policy here. The take home message can be summarized with the following two statements.

"Avoid using page transclusion or templates for signatures"

"Transcluded signatures require extra processing and, whenever you do change your signature source, all talk pages you've posted on must be re-cached. One can imagine the impact if these kinds of signatures were in common use."

Sorry to wreck your fun :-( David D. (Talk) 19:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Good thing I'm not using templates or transclusion then! And by the way, that page is guideline, not policy. I'm going to stick with my friend Adrian on this one. Show us it's against the rules and we'll stop. By all means, if you think this is an important issue, propose a policy that bans the use of templates, categories, and images in signatures. I'd even go ahead and support it. I just think rules should be rules, period, not selectively enforced suggestions. -- 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, i'm not trying to force you to stop just pointing out some guidelines that have previously been discussed. While technically you are correct, in that it is not transclusion or a template, I am sure you agree that the results are similar. I have a pretty fast connection here and the download of your signature is always delayed enough to see it pop up a second later than the text. David D. (Talk) 20:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, Cyde, I liked the old one better, for several reasons. The image is hard to read. One cannot use the jscript tool to go to anything about you, because its a png with a redirect. I strongly prefer the old sig, with Cyde piped to your userpage and Weys piped to your talkpage. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ack, you bring up a good point, it DOES break popups. I just didn't realize because I don't ever have much of a purpose to use Popups on myself. I'm reverting back to the old style. By the way I think you're imagining things, because Weys never did link to my talk page :-P Cyde Weys 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what, "brevity ... is wit", so here ya go, my all new sig. --Cyde 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea was the old sig, only this time have Weys link to your talk page. :P

Like so: CydeWeys except the only way I know how to do that is to put the font inside the brackets, as I've done here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, except it broke! Hrm... KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

well, darnit, put back Weys anyway, its clever and you're in an Rfa under that name. :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It didn't break, it's just bolding the Weys rather than link it because it's linking to the current page. --Cyde 01:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• That is frightfully ugly-looking. Exactly what I'm talkin' about! --Cyde Weys 01:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk Page

No, it was an accident. I copied it over, but forgot to replace the redirect. I didn't do it purposely. haha. Thanks for your concern though. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Hi Cyde,

I hope you're well.

I'm writing a couple of Wiki users because I feel that I may have offended some people. I apologize if my past contributions made you upset. I see that you value making contributions to Wikipedia (although I don't agree with them) and that you have a passion for this place and getting your input into various entries.

The recent explosion in revert wars by "apparent Jason Gastrich sock puppets or impersonators" has not been my doing. Although I disagree with your viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong, I haven't been contributing under the huge number of impersonators we have seen, lately.

Please consider reconciling with me. It could do us some good. I wish had something tangible to offer you, but I don't. All I can do is apologize for the past edits that were deemed inappropriate by you, although I still strongly disagree, and forgive you for the misdeeds I feel you have done. For what it's worth, I see this place as hostile to what I believe in, and even the truth in general, causing me to have serious reservations about even inviting others here and certainly about promoting this place in any way.

My most important goal is to glorify God and to lead others into a relationship with Him. I've been working hard and doing this online, although some may not see these efforts reflected on Wikipedia. Therefore, I need to go where I'm needed the most, because that is where the fruit is at.

Thanks for your consideration and God bless you.

Sincerely, Jason Gastrich 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't be offended that I'm sending a similar message to a handful of others. I feel the same way and wanted to say the same thing to them, too.

Deletionist

Maybe it was someone else's name I saw in AfD's and such? I sure hope I'm not wrong again! I am making a severe fool of myself. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am striking out all of my prior comments after going over and analyzing your votes. Sorry for being such a douche. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful admin bid, and disregard my previous comments. Эйрон Кинни (t) 22:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

New userbox

While I don't know if you're deaf of not, I wanted to make you aware of a relatively new userbox you might find interesting. Cheers!--Esprit15d 16:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do I keep getting these :-( Is it bitter irony? The exact same activity that I was against userboxes for in the first place is attacking me now that I've moved on from the issue? --Cyde Weys 21:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I'm going door-to-door for the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Userboxen. Can I interest you in some literature and userboxes for your ... *runs away quickly*

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

rofl, that was great, Adrian. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, and thanks for your great efforts on Amin al-Husseini! It looks like we are converging on compromise with the only issue being discussed is whether his collaboration with the Nazis before WWII should be mentioned in the intro or not, but that's peanuts compared to what it was. Now, will you be able to deal with something even more challenging? I filed this request for mediation back in february and still got no response. I will appreciate if you look into this issue. Many thanks and cheers, Pecher ^Talk 14:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help you as soon as this RFA is over (whichever way it goes). I'm just kind of distracted right now :-P Cyde Weys 19:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll withhold my congratulations with your adminship for awhile :) Pecher ^Talk 19:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Rfa

Two more votes for, and you will have hit the minor notoriety list. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, and it would be the more controversial decisions on that list, too. I'd just like to sincerely thank everyone who's voted for me thus far. --Cyde Weys 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

It was a tough Job but you navigated us through. I think we are 99% done so let's call it a 100%. Zeq 21:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the hundred club :-)

WP:100 has a place in the sun for you, I'd say. I reckon it would have been many more if we'd followed Plan A ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm very honored to be amongst those other people there. At the same time, maybe the volatility of my RFA has led to more support votes than a runaway success. Some voters made comments to the effect of, "I initially ignored this, assuming it wouldn't be a problem at all, but now that I see it's struggling I feel strongly compelled to have my say." Others, on both oppose and support sides, even came out of Wikibreak. I guess I lead to strong opinions :-/ Cyde Weys 23:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the closeness of the vote has increased response. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm making myself involved. --Cyde Weys 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA

Looks like closing time has hit on your RfA and it's very close, so it's up to the 'crat now. Although I was on the oppose side, it was only about the userboxes issue, a topic that's been hard on a lot of the community. If you don't pass, try to keep level about them and I'd be a support voter in as little as a month. If you do pass, then early congrat's! Hopefully a good userbox policy will get passed soon, and it can be the end of The Great Userbox War of 2006. -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you made it, welcome to the fold. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 03:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! A suspensful, memorable RfA, too! CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You say that as if it's a good thing. Meanwhile I've been living on frayed nerves for a week. --Cyde Weys 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a long week, isn't it? Never mind, when the personal attacks start rolling in from users you've blocked, or because of pages you've protected, or articles you've deleted, you'll look back wistfully to the golden days of only having frayed nerves for a week. Congratulations. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

When I checked if his nerves were holding up, he put on a good front, so of course he received absolutely no moral support from me, because I thought he was doing so well. Sheesh. :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, glad to see you made it. VegaDark 05:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! (and I just wanted to indent more!) --Syrthiss 14:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I know you will be a good administrator. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 10:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations. If you've been mentioned on wikipedia review, you must be doing something right. I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. good luck and keep up the good work.--Alhutch 13:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on your RfA. JoshuaZ 03:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats - Guettarda 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

negative influence

I was inspired to change the term "negative influence" to "influence" on your user page after reading that it was "open for editing by everyone." Then it occurred to me that you might not appreciate that. What's your take? ... aa:talk 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, negative influence is entirely accurate. --Cyde Weys 04:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

106 votes in favor

That puts you on WP:100. Congratulations. ... aa:talk 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Bummer. I was going to add it myself, but somebody beat me. ... aa:talk 04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You made it to #8 on Zzyzx11's list and #6 on my list. Congrats :-). NoSeptember ^talk 10:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Glad to see you made it. --Go for it! 04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is ironic. Congrats ;p Moe ε 04:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Nice userbox, although I should point out I opposed you (weakly). And congrats on making it, take care of those buttons. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:48 UTC (2006-03-09)

I also opposed (no hard feelings, I just need a little distance from the userbox shit). And while I try really hard to not be overly sensitive, I find it to be in pretty bad taste to make that "userbox" thanks. There is no need to rub salt in wounds you were recently inflaming. (even if you profess to have moved further away) Please show me (and the rest of the community) that you have moved on, by distancing yourself from the userbox fracas. I've been trying to. I look forward to editing with you in the future ... aa:talk 04:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps you mistook this - humor is an asset, it is not "rubbing salt in wounds." KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I second the murderous small dog. It's not a wikicrime to have a sense of humour. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the userbox, and good luck!! Mike _{(T C)} 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, folks. I understand the effort. I just don't appreciate it. I'm allowed to find something distasteful, even if you find it to be (pardon the, er, humor) cat's meow. ... aa:talk 05:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This happened with Kelly Martin back when, its a good joke, not rubbing salt in the wounds, if anything hes poking fun of himself!!! Mike _{(T C)} 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the userbox, although my comment was neutral. I guess I'm with those that can see why others might find leaving a userbox funny but who don't themselves find it so. Sometimes making light is a good way to defuse divisive issues, and sometimes... sometimes it is not... I wish you all the best in your future endeavours in any case. ++Lar: t/c 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Very Witty

Wonderful sense of humor, which you will need as an Admin.

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

• Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
• Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do.
• Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
• Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
• Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
• and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm very glad I didn't know about this until the RFA was over, I might've lost it :-O Cyde Weys 05:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, I a) think you were somewhat in the wrong on the Userbox thing b) think that doesn't matter much c) think your backing away was very well done anyways d) think you showed remarkable self-restraint during your RfA, f) was and, so far, still am, happy to support you in your RfA, g) think you had a very clever and amusing way of thanking those who voted for you and h) look forward to working with you in the future. Now about that vandal on the evolution page.... JoshuaZ 05:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was slightly prescient there, first vandal after Cyde's adminship, 5 minutes after my joke. JoshuaZ 05:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

-Congratulations, I'll probably be coming back to you with one of those in a few hours so we can newb up the admins' noticeboard together :) --Obli (Talk)^? 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh hell yeah, you're on! Sounds like a plan! --Cyde Weys 05:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

מזל טוב ... and welcome to the Cabal. Remember tho, don't ever cross me, cuz dammit I ARE TEH CABAL! Tomer^talk 06:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

semi-protect of Evolution

there was what I thought was a consensus here [1] not to semi-protect the evolution page unless subject to massive vandalism. Two little comments hardly seems to qualify. JoshuaZ 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Cyde Weys 05:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Wikibreak couldn't hold me back from voting on your RFA. (It's not often that one gets to revert a speedy deletion tag, so one tends to remember the person who placed it.) I think that it's awesome that you got admin-fied, even though we were on opposite sides in the userbox "war". Your level-headedness and (there's no better word for it) humility is something that an awful lot of admins (and non-admins) could learn from. Again, congratulations galore. I'm really happy that the community valued contributions over controversy and supported you. (And, by the way, you had just about the coolest thanks-for-voting message ever. Very nicely done.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. Sorry I missed your RFA, I'd have voted support if I had known you had requested. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! You deserve this! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

What's the meaning of this [2]? You sent it out to everyone who opposed your adminship as well as supported. Did you not realize that? Or is this some sort of jab at the people who opposed? Because that's what it looks like. --Ben 06:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the text of it very carefully. And yes, I did send it to everyone who voted on my RFA (and some who didn't), because, in a way, everyone did help me, either by providing constructive criticism or simply by drawing in more votes. I wouldn't have made it on WP:100 if there hadn't been such fierce opposition. And yes, it is a joke, it's funny, laugh! --Cyde Weys 06:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Cyde, on a successful RfA. While I thank you for the note of thanks, I do think putting it in the form of a userbox could be seen as "rubbing their face in it". Also, you did put "...that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RfA..." (emphasis added), which can be taken poorly by those who opposed. "Thanks for voicing your opinion on.." may have been better, but the cat's out of the bag now; no sense making 130 more edits!

That being said, and although I supported you, I encourage you strongly (<strong>, get it?) to use moderation in administering your powers these first few days/weeks. It's a common sentiment that "training" for a job only prepares you to discover what you didn't know about how to do it before you were hired. I feel the same may apply here, and believe you should take your nominator's paradoxical words of wisdom to heart above; you more than most may draw flak for any borderline decisions you make in the near future, since your RfA was so contentious. Remember not to panic, and get someone else to weigh in on your decisions in all cases but dire emergencies (and really, they're mostly not that dire, are they?), and I'm sure you'll do fine. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cyde congratulations on your successful RfA. I did not vote although i did watch the progress. While I think you will be a good admin I do worry that you tend to rush in headlong without considering the opinion of others. I would urge you to temper your comments. As an admin your actions will be under even more scrutiny. What you find funny others may find offensive, as you see above. Be especially carefull with regard to your views on religion. This is a tinderbox issue, as you know, so even the hint of a flame can set the whole thing off and undo many weeks of consensus building. JPlease take these comments as some friendly advice that i didn't want to leave on the RfA in case it encouraged a more negative views than you were already receiving. For the record, i agree with many of your opinions it is how you express them that can cause the problems. David D. (Talk) 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for putting it right on my userpage, and using the {{user box}} template! :) Jude(talk,contribs) 08:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Your vandalism of my talk page only serves to prove me correct. Any further edits will be reverted unread. Cynical 09:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What in the hell are you talking about? You can't just come out with a strong accusation like that and provide absolutely no evidence. I'm checking your talk page history now and I don't see any vandalism, let alone vandalism that could be attributable to me. --Cyde Weys 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:VAND for a definition on what vandalism is. It is bad form (and possibly a violation of WP:CIVIL) to accuse other editors of vandalism for acts which are clearly not vandalism. I don't see how a thank you note for voting in an RFA could possibly be considered vandalism. I don't know why you're taking this tone; it's almost like you want some sort of antagonism. I've already put the past behind me and I urge you to do the same. We're both editors on Wikipedia and we may have to work together in the future. That's not going to work if you stick by your current statement of refusing to listen to anything I say on that grounds that it is "vandalism". --Cyde Weys 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:VAND quote: 'Attention-seeking vandalism [line break] Adding insults'. It may be a matter of interpretation (like so much of policy), but I consider questioning the motives of my vote to be an insult. However I accept that threatening to revert any messages you left me was unconstructive and excessive, and I apologise for that. Cynical 09:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How was I questioning the motives of your vote? I copied the exact same thing onto 130 different user talk pages (believe me, it took awhile). I decided to "be different" and thank everyone who voted, not just those who voted Support. --Cyde Weys 09:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Which sig looks better? --Cyde Weys 10:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hrrrm, I think I like this one better. --Cyde Weys 10:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout combining these two into Cyde Weys? Plus, "Weys" should definitely link to your talk page. And thanks for the UBX, btw. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! And Cynical, don't be a dick. Cyde was clearly making a joke, and while it was open to minsinterpretation it's clearly not open to being grounds for refusing to have any contact with a respected editor and now administrator. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't just me - see above for other complaints. Attacking the motives of opponents is never acceptable on Wikipedia, administrator or not Cynical 08:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_Nazi

I just closed the TFD-debate as speedy kept per WP:POINT nomination, then I saw that you had already deleted this template. _→AzaToth 11:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't even realize it was up for TfD (it didn't say so on the template like it should've). And I didn't know anything about the WP:POINT of it, either. I still contend that the deletion was totally, 100% valid. --Cyde Weys 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Per the history, Myselfalso removed the Tfd on 04:18, 7 March 2006 per history. You want to give a little information about removing Tfd notices to Myselfalso, or shall I? Registered in Dec 2005, 595 edits, looks like newbie unfamiliarity rather than anything more overt. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've said so on ANI, but I'll be a bit more detailed here: this was a not the best way to handle this.

• Just talking about the deletion process, whenever you speedy delete something, you must look at the history and what links there. Both showed that this had gone to tfd.
• The deletion decision was also not the best. The text was humourous, and the above check of "what links here" would have shown that this wasn't being used on anyone's page. User:Myselfalso has it as a plain link, that's it.

Considering that userboxes were a big issue in your RfA, and there is some indication that you forswore involvement in them, I don't see how this action was justified. You would have been much wiser to simply send it to TfD again. I'm contantly being called a deletionist vandal, but we should only hit the "delete" tab when we are absoultely 100% certain that there is no other option but to do so. The fact that you had to put "sorry" in the deletion summary should have given you pause.

I've redacted this slightly from a sterner version, but I really think that you need to think more carefully next time, ok?

brenneman^{T}{L} 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

oh sure, he gets a lecture - where is my lecture? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Last time I looked, I couldn't find a single action of yours to complain about... but maybe I'd better look harder! ^_^
brenneman^{T}{L} 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, you're "constantly called a deletionist vandal" by people who LIKE you... ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Ha, ha.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, congratulations on your adminship. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cydebox

I'll wear it proudly.

Your Jeffersonian reticence may have cost you support; I would have been persuaded by your statements, had it not been for the blustering and misconstructions of your friends. Septentrionalis 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol, awesome. -- Jbamb 17:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As one of the blustering friends, I'd like to mention that, as my personal opinion only, to not support someone for Admin because of what other supporters say is... well, idiocy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Not supporting a proposal on the grounds that the arguments presented in its favor are invalid seems to me common sense. But let the dead bury its dead. I congratulate Cyde on his promotion. Septentrionalis 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the userbox, and congrats on your adminship. Pecher ^Talk 17:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I'm leaving this macrophage, a particularly hungry white blood cell on your talk page, I just finished a rewrite of its article and realized they're not so different from administrators, as they keep their surroundings clean, doing away with anything that's not supposed to be there...
Anyway, with that short lecture on cell biology done with, I'd like to thank you for your vote on my RfA, which passed with (49/2/0), I'll do my best to not let you down, and if you see me heading towards a common newbie mistake, please nudge me in the right direction :)

--Obli (Talk)^? 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

Hall Monitor

Congratulations on your recent success, I'm confident you will prove to be an excellent addition to the team.

And for you. Hall Monitor 22:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam's RfA

Thank you! Cyde/Archive002, thank you for the message of support you left on my talk page regarding my RfA: it passed with a final tally of 55/1/2. I also wanted to say congratulations again. I'd left a congrats message for you on my talk page, but after leaving 57 thank-you messages just now, I realize that the odds that you checked up on all of those pages to see whether you got a reply is pretty slim—especially as you had nearly twice as many people to say thanks to! If you want a hand with anything, please gimme a shout. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Best wish!--Jusjih 08:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

dates

You may wish to copy: User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. Caveat emptor. Regards bobblewik 22:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you get it working. bobblewik 06:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I removed a picture from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article because it was irrelevant to the article and at the same time potentially offensive. However, on the article's talk page, you didn't address that concern and instead implied that I was a vandal and that I consistently deleted images on the basis that they were offensive. I am requesting that you respond to the issue I brought up. joturner 01:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

you're an admin now, so....

Can you please make a page move for me? Marin Catholic should be at Marin Catholic High School, its official name, but the latter is currently a redirect. (ref:official site). Thanks! - Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 02:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I lied. Never mind. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 02:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Been kicked upstairs

Been nominated to be a Admin myself. Any advice ? Martial Law 05:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Poly Prep Country Day School

Hello, Cyde! I saw your message on Danny's page - you may wish to read my comment above, asking for clarification as well. Here Danny seems to indicate that all pages except Jack Thompson (attorney) under WP:OFFICE may be unprotected, and the page was no longer protected (having been unprotected by Geni) when I removed the tag. Just FYI... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care which way it goes, I just think the notice should be consistent with the page protection. Once we have confirmation either way the notice should either stay or be removed accordingly. --Cyde Weys 21:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't either; I'm just trying to follow Danny's wishes. Now that we've both asked for clarification, I'm sure a few more hours of protection won't hurt. (I removed the tag only because the page had been unprotected then and Danny's comments at WP:OFFICE seemed to support that.) Just FYI... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, the previous office-action notice wasn't marked correctly as a self-reference and would've been copied over to mirrors, so I fixed it into a proper {{selfref}}. --Cyde Weys 21:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing mediation

Hi Cyde,

I and Pecher have also had discussions regarding the dhimmi article. He reverted my edits for several times without even discussing them. His logic is that “I am twisting the sourced material”. I think Pecher's edits have 3 problems (though some of his edits are good):

1. He is assuming that whatever some particular scholars has said is a fact. Instead of writing them as the opinion of some scholar he writes them as a fact. "Lewis says X" will have more support than "X is so;” Especially the Humiliation of dhimmis part. [3] or 'Shi'a peculiarities' part [4]

2. Some of his quotes are clearly wrong to my mind. particularly the 'Shi'a peculiarities' part.

e.g. " Shi'a jurists deem non-Muslims to be ritually impure — najis" is quoted from somewhere and is incorrect. The fact is that shia believes that only polytheist are najis. Their belief is based on the quranic verse 9:28. "O ye who believe! Truly the Mushriks are unclean". Even if we assume that it refers to ritual impurity, the verse is only in the context of polytheists and not dhimmis. Anyway, there is a story behind this verse and how it was used to justify the ritual impurity of polytheist. As a shia, I am well aware of the ritually impure things.

Pecher send the website of Ali al-Sistani for me, saying that Kafirs are unclean. But the Kafirs are not Non-Muslims?!!! Some shia scholars consider Zoroastrians to be ritually unclean but nobody considers Jews or Christians to be ritually unclean. When Quran talks about the Kafirs, it is talking about Meccan Kafirs who were worshiping idols and NOT the Jews of Medina. People of the book are NOT kafirs.

I don't ask him to remove his edits in this place or other places. Just say "According to X, ...." I will come then and provide evidences against them.

3. He is adding irrelevant material to the article (e.g. The picture of Maimonides in the Dhimmi article.)

For more details please see [5]

What has made me unpleasant is that he was reverting my edits wholesale without providing good reasons and was insisting that instead of writing "According to X,.." one should write "X is so".

Could you please consider this as well in the "Ongoing mediation".

Thanks. --Aminz 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please rephrase this in a neutral light (i.e. not directed at me) and post it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-27 Dhimmi and Jizya where others may read it and comment on it? Thanks? --Cyde Weys 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you the Barnstar of Diligence for quickly spotting Template:Office and protecting it before it could be vandalized. (I spotted it ysterday and was actually going to ask someone to protect it, but you did it before I got around to it.) - Hbdragon88 05:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

I am looking for an explanation here because I'm genuinely confused. Template:User_Nazi and User:UBX/Communist were both up for deletion. Both were decided "kept" and yet only User Nazi was deleted. Care to explain why that happened? It would seem BOTH would be kept, but for some reason, that didn't happen. For the record, the note on Nazi was "The result of the debate was speedy kept per WP:POINT nomination." The communist note was: "The result of the debate was Keep pending any new userbox policy." (By the way, I'm neither nazi nor communist and only care about fairness.) I also realize someone created both just to "make a point" and both were created on the same day. They both should be deleted or kept. Or am I missing some unwritten Wikipedia policy on "-isms" here? Nhprman ^UserLists 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• For starters, I am hardly the best person to be asking to get involved in userboxes. And secondly, there's a huge difference between Nazism and Communism. Communism is a legitimate political party that is still around in many countries. Nazism refers to a specific instance of a fascist government that no longer exists. And, as we all know, Nazism was evil; modern Communists, not necessarily. But, of course, if I had my way, all userboxes would be gone, so I'm probably not a good person to ask. --Cyde Weys 06:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I can't believe you said this. Bias is not a good motivation for taking action here, is it? If I hate one thing, can I go and delete it now because I think it's "evil"? Frankly, both of these totalitarian systems are evil, and both of these hideous philosophies have very many adherents, but all that is beside the point. Either both go, or both stay. Until we get to that point, Wikipedia is a very flawed site with inherent bias. And I agree, ALL of thse boxes should go, just because of the bias you (freely) express here. Nhprman ^UserLists 14:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• You're still confused about the issues. First of all, Communism isn't a "totalitarian system", it's actually the opposite. And you're displaying your bias by calling them "hideous philosophies". Communism is a philosophy, I'll agree to that. But Nazism isn't. "Nazi" refers to the National Socialist German Workers Party, which is a specific government regime. The equivalent to the Nazi userbox would be, "This user is a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", not simply "This user is a Communist." I would be in favor of the deletion of "This user is a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", by the way, as just like the Nazi one, it has the potential to ruffle feathers and has absolutely no usefulness whatsoever as both of those political parties have been dead for awhile now. It'd be like trying to say "This user is a Neanderthal" - it's simply not even possible.

• That these "-isms" were both hideous, or were both dangerous political philosphies (both existing before they were 'regimes') wasn't even controversial just a few years ago. I'm sure we could have a wonderful discussion about the mass murderer Joe Stalin, forced collecivisation, labor camps, etc., but all that's not really relevant to this discussion. Your beliefs are not the point, nor are my supposed political biases. If someone wants to self-identify as a communist, nazi, socialist, conservative or theocrat, the real issue is: "Should you be saying such things HERE, on Wikipedia." I say no. You seem to say no. Therefore, ALL of these boxes should be eliminated, regardless of whether you or I make a judgement that someone can or cannot be termed a "Fascist" because there are technically no Fascist parties in power, right at this moment, or whether a formal party exists at all. Most assuredly, someone CAN be attracted to whatever philosophy they say they are attracted to. But again, what's the real issue? Nhprman ^UserLists 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's impossible to discuss this with someone who doesn't understand what Communism is and makes no attempt to learn. As for userboxes, yes, we are in agreement that they should go, and that is going to happen soon enough, though not by my doing. --Cyde Weys 21:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, in truth, perhaps we should actually *ask* someone who lived or lives under the brutal rule of Naziism or Communism to weigh in, rather than rely on folks who have no clue and see them as abstract, harmless philosophies to be debated on the relative safety of the Internet - I'm referring, of course, to those who "voted" to keep the box and those who created these silly things on a lark in the first place. Nhprman ^UserLists 05:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think we're done here, let's wait and see Jimbo's decision, kay? --Cyde Weys 05:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yup. Any idea when he'll be issuing a ruling? Nhprman ^UserLists 05:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

rfa

Hi. I see your rfa was successful. Glad to see you utilizing your tools well, and I hope you continue to assist the community as you are. Good luck! -Zero^Talk 06:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, and yeah, it's been fun so far. Not such a big deal, though ... I had previously run two MediaWikis before getting adminship on Wikipedia, so none of the buttons are really new to me. --Cyde Weys 06:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD closing - heads-up

Hi, I noticed that you are a new admin closing several afds, hence this heads-up. You must not close an afd unless it is five days old. You have closed several afds that were initiated on 10 March on the same day, which is considered as highly unacceptable. This is akin to closing an rfa within 3 or 5 days, instead of waiting for a week. This does not apply, of course, for speedy deletes. If you need to reply, do so on my talkpage. --Gurubrahma 10:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please see WP:SNOW. If an article is clearly non-noteworthy, borders on being speedyable, and has ten Delete votes in the first day of voting and no Keep votes, there's no point in wasting anyone's time further. --Cyde Weys 18:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Some controversial AFD's dont get enough attention as it is, partially because of all the uncontroversial ones that sit around clogging up space and process. If some can be closed early because of an obvious outcome, that's gravy. If a mistake has been made, you can either take it to WP:DRV, or wait a bit and re-nom an article, depending.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Thanks for your involvement. You may want to notify User:Tickle me who has been editing the article and the talk page of Dhimmi. Pecher ^Talk 17:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, a perspective from User:Tom harrison, who has been editing the talk page of Dhimmi, wouldn't hurt in the mediation process too? Pecher ^Talk 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm changing my stance a little bit: you can invite people to the mediation yourself :-P Cyde Weys 19:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do it :). Pecher ^Talk 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

HCOOP userbox

Hi Cyde.

I see that you removed the HCOOP userbox. It would have been nice if you had left me a message about this or at least some explanation of why you are deleting it. I'm not a big userbox fan, but if you're going to delete that userbox then you should minimally delete all the Dreamhost, ISP, and mail userboxes as well. NTK 01:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally didn't delete the HCOOP userbox. Although the rationale is pretty clear; it constituted the use of Wikipedia for advertisement purposes. And that company isn't even notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, by the way. --Cyde Weys 01:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is allowing cooperative members to use an HCOOP userbox any MORE of an advertisement than the long list of multinational corporations represented on Userboxes/Computing page? And where is the "notability" policy on userboxes? It would be much more indicative of advertising if I created an actual page on HCOOP—as one of the only public internet hosting cooperatives it is certainly more notable than many of the companies that have pages and certainly many of the userboxes (Crazy Frog ringtone preferences and such). NTK 01:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of those are going away, too. I guess we just have to start someplace. But let me reiterate: I did not delete your HCOOP userbox. The only userbox I've ever deleted was {{User Nazi}}. --Cyde Weys 20:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks! I think deleting them all is a fair and sensible solution, if I thought this was being done I would have removed it myself. But I do think that whichever admin speedy deleted it was out-of-line for not leaving any indication at all—I have no way of even finding out who did it. Not that I really care at this point. NTK 17:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on becoming an admin! I was hoping you could help with something. In deletion review (and the deletion process for that matter) and article was deleted that I believe should not have been. User:Tony Sidaway agrees. The article was deleted for notability, but the person in question was mentioned in about a dozen different mainstream media articles, included a recent front page article in the New York Times. Can you take a look and vote accordingly? The review is here. Wikipedia:Deletion Review#John Bambenek. Thanks. -- Alpha269 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

Hi, please respond on my talkpage or mention clearly on your talkpage that you'd reply here. Else, it is too difficult to keep track of conversations. WP:SNOW is not a policy or a guideline - so, do not quote it for this purpose. I'd be happy to support your closing if and when it becomes policy. I have seen several RfAs and AfDs turn around within a day/ two days - I know as I have rescued around 9 articles from deletion. So, please follow policy or work towards getting the policy changed. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 10:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This really intrigues me. Could you please link me to an AFD that turned around from 10 delete votes to 0 keep votes? Hearing about it is one thing; I'd rather see it with my own eyes though. And keep in mind, I didn't merely just close the AFD, I also evaluated the articles on their own merits - and they were borderline speedyable. --Cyde Weys 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if it is going to be deleted anyway, there is no harm done by allowing it to run the full five days. A few more days will not hurt WP, especially with the Afd tag right at the top of the article. Why rush the process? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

dates.js

Hi,

I saw that you made an improvement to your dates.js (removing 'Sun'). I incorporated it into mine. There are some improvement that I have done to mine that you haven't got. I like the idea of duplicate files, but can we synchronise? bobblewik 12:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I only duplicated yours instead of merely linking because I heard some whispering of deletion. Sure, let's synchronize. --Cyde Weys 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was also worried by those whispers. So I am glad that you have a duplicate. We may wish to diverge, of course.

I see that the only update you made was in the tab name and I wanted that improvement so I incorporated it. I now have all the changes you made. I will leave it up to you whether you want some or all of my changes. Thanks. bobblewik 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I also fixed the edit summary but I suppose you already saw that. I might look into fixing some of the bugs in the actual regexes, though. Can you tell me what regexes these are using? I'm used to Perl, so how much of a difference is there? --Cyde Weys 05:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the change to the edit summary, thanks. I do not know which form or regex it is. I do not know if it is even the same as used in AWB. I just use trial and error using stuff I see on the web. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I am now doing development regex on 'datestest' tab using datestest.js. That way, anyone that relies on dates.js will not be affected by my experiments. bobblewik 08:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

Sure, I'll do it soon. --Aminz 03:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Cyde, you may not know me, but congrats in your succesful Rfa! I like your userbox too, very innovative! Cheers and see you soon!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 03:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats/Info

Greetings, I'm writing to you because as a lurker following the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy I've noticed that you've made insightful comments on its talk page. In the last day there was a user named Irishpunktom who tried incessantly to add irrelevant information to that article and eventually there was a bit of a back and forth until Irishpunktom filed a 3RR violation report against Netscott. Well the first administrator didn't handle the report properly and only blocked Netscott despite the fact that Irishpunktom was in equal violation. I filed a 3RR violation report against Irishpunktom that finally saw him blocked as well. From looking at the comments on the reports of fellow editors it seems that Netscott didn't really merit a block... well to make a long story short I was just hoping to make you better aware of the situation as I imagine you'll continue to be involved with that article. Congrats on become an admin btw... I only wish you knew me better as that sounds a bit hollow coming from someone you don't know... take it easy CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 05:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much appreciated. And as a long time lurker of many various internet forums, I don't think it's hollow at all to hear congratulations come from a seemingly anonymous person. --Cyde Weys 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A Message in PGP

CIPHERTEXT REMOVED

-- Tawker 08:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for correcting me, Cyde. And sorry for being so ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CannonBallGuy (talk • contribs)

No problem. Also, you should sign your talk page messages with ~~~~, like so: Cyde Weys 22:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi Cyde, I have an admin task for you! Please register me, so I can use this: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser
--Go for it! 10:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome new admin!

Congrats on your adminship Cyde. I'm currently sending you and all recently made admins a quick request which will put your new admin powers into effect to assist in an important area: deleting images that have been tagged as having no source info after 7 days. The category is at Category:Images with unknown source. Most of the images have been removed from articles, but some may have been skipped. It would be fantastic if you could assist in this matter! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New regex

I have been testing a new regex in a file called 'datestest.js' (see my monobook). It has dramatically reduced two entire classes of false positives: ISO dates and dates that have the year at the left. It does have some 'misses' and some of these can be cured by running it twice (i.e. clicking on that 'datestest' tab a second or third time). Please let me know what you think. bobblewik 18:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll try that out. In the mean time, to solve the problem of necessitating running it multiple times, just put it in a for-loop of three iterations :-P Cyde Weys 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the regex again. It was not dealing with start/end of line and I could not work out why. User:Rich Farmbrough told me how to solve it. It does not need a loop anymore. I also changed the internal sequence to try and make it more efficient. I can't edit your version because I am not an admin. If you want to take a copy, be my guest. Feel free to test it at User:Bobblewik/sandbox and make edits there if you want. bobblewik 20:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker commiting serial offences within 12 hours of being unblocked

I logged all of Deathrock's offences on a page from my user page, so only myself and Admins can edit it. The link is here, [6]. I urge yew to look into this matter immediatly. Ley Shade 22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:-

The usage of the template says this

Usage

{{subst:-}}

Substitute this template after any floating elements and before elements you do not wish to float together with the first set.

The template may also be transcluded, but as the markup provided is unlikely to change or improve, there is little justification for transclusion overhead.

I also took Wikipedia:Template substitution advantages and disadvantages into account.

The template is a simple br tag, it doesn't affect the page sizes that I subst'd it on. I was just using the template in the way it says to use it on its template talk page. I don't know what I've done wrong to offend you. --Squilibob 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the template usage text says that. Anyway, this template is used on hundreds (thousands?) of articles, and it's not really worth it to go through and change it everywhere. Besides, {{-}} looks a lot nicer in the text than <br clear="all" />. And no, you haven't offended me, I just don't think it makes sense to go around and substitute this template everywhere it occurs. Most templates are intended to be used without substituting them, and I think this one fits that bill. --Cyde Weys 21:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't go around substituting the template on hundreds of pages. Only on a handful of pages, most of them Final Fantasy related. You said yourself I must admit, I really don't understand why you took it upon yourself to go out and subst {{-}} in a dozen articles. Well you didn't look at it from my point of view. It would've taken you 10 seconds to look at the template page and see why I used {{subst:-}} but you immediately assumed bad faith. I made sure what I was doing was correct at the time, researched the template talk page and the Wikipedia:Template substitution page. Why do I have to "get some kind of consensus" to change a few pages? We're encouraged to Be Bold. In fact you boldly went and changed the template talk page so that subst was no longer part of the usage. Is there some rule saying that administrators don't have to ask for consensus while I have to? It isn't fair how you have treated this matter. Why do I have to justify my edits and put up with a negatively toned message on my talk page? --Squilibob 03:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no sense in continuing if you're just going to attack me like that. I never attacked you; you're just getting way overly offended at having your actions questioned. --Cyde Weys 06:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to attack you so I apologize for that. I was just trying to use your edit on Template:- as an example of a similar instance of what I did in regards to usage of the template. I think I worded it badly. Now that it's clear not to use subst on that template I won't do it anymore. I got offended by the "get some kind of consensus" comment because I always do whenever I do something that I think requires it. You didn't know that the template talk page said to use {{subst:-}} and therefore asked me to justify my actions, which I did. I do believe that you could have avoided the entire situation but it is not my place to tell you how to handle things. Wikipedia functions by communication with each other and sometimes there is miscommunication and I think that this was a case of this. You're right, I was getting way overly offended at having my actions questioned, I'm not used to getting such messages on my talk page. It was a trivial matter and I'm past it now. I wish you well and congratulations on becoming an admin. --Squilibob 07:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I should apologize too, I didn't exactly give you my source of information. See, being part of the Wikipedia administrator "cabal" means you have close access to information from higher-ups. I heard from Brion, one of the WikiMedia devs with database access, that on the whole, templates add so little to processor overhead that it's essentially not worth worrying about. The way the databases are cached means that frequently-used templates (such as {{-}}) really don't add any noticeable processor overhead at all. Brion has even gone so far as to say that WP:AMT should be deprecated because the advantages of using real if-then statements make them more compatible than the CSS hiddenStructure hack that's all the rage these days. I merely updated the usage instructions on the template page to reflect this. Also, substituted templates are pretty much impossible to update. {{-}} was already updated once before to fix a bug, as hard to believe as that may sound, and it could possibly happen in the future again, especially with the advent of new browser features. So it's much better to not subst {{-}} and instead make all pages using it fixable by editing a single template page rather than having to search through the Wiki for all occurrences of the br clear code. I hope that explains things better. Thanks, Cyde Weys 18:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox voting

I really, really wish I could be certain you were wrong, or that we could just weight the voting (say, one vote per 500 article edits). But the former is probably me being overly optimistic, and the latter would just be seen as us "oppressive admins" gaming the system. (It still amazes me how "admin" has been used as an epithet in this debate.) I'm gonna still hold out for a miraculous, kumbaya moment, but also think you're right: top-down intervention could potentially go a long way toward getting this behind us. JDoorjam Talk 17:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing I don't like is that people are somehow insisting this should be a democracy, one person, one vote. That might work in the real world but Wikipedia isn't the real world. Some people on here literally put in orders of magnitude more work than other people, and it isn't right to say they should only get to have the same say as a random person who creates an account and only edits the encyclopedia rarely. Real life participation isn't optional; Wikipedia certainly is. --Cyde Weys 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading this thread

[7]

Benapgar (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been a constant source of personal attacks and disruption at the ID article, and it seems to be extending out to touch others, such as yourself now. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hah, wow, that sure was interesting. Thanks for letting me know. I guess I should be honored that creationist trolls are following me from talk.origins to Wikipedia? --Cyde Weys 18:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Some honor! We've been trying to minimize his disruption for something like 6 months now. Everytime he comes off a block for NPA he's right back to attacking others. FeloniousMonk 18:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

kent hovind

I don't know how to talk directly to you through this, but you told me not to leave pov in the hovind article. I was doing no such thing, the person who wrote that article was very slanted in the view point, leaving only their point of view, i was just trying to equal out the slanted and mis-leading points in the article. If you have any suggestions on how to correct incorrect information, without seeming to leave pov info on the page, i would be glad to hear it. This article has nothing to do with informing people about kent Hovind. However, it has everything to do with persuading peole that he is an illiterate quack.

Isaac (personsaddress) personsaddress@gmail.com

Your edits are very POV though. You keep attacking "evolutionists" or what not. Have you ever met Kent Hovind in person? I have. And everything in that article is pretty much accurate as written. --Cyde Weys 08:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally in a general, not-pointing-at-any-article way, how does that work? Is that considered OR? There's a few articles I'd love to make edits to, having met the persons involved and such but wouldn't that be considered OR unless published and verifiable?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be original research. You can't just write an article on personally meeting someone. That said, I haven't contributed to the Kent Hovind article, though if I wanted to, I could find lots of verifiable sources that do show him to be exactly the snake oil salesman that he is. --Cyde Weys 08:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh please don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to accuse you of that. I was asking for my own clarification. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I know you weren't accusing me but I had to be perfectly clear to anyone else (*hint hint*) who may be reading. --Cyde Weys 09:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have, however, i think it just all comes down to the original argument of Evolution v. Creation. You believe that the information in the article is accurate, most likely because you believe in Evolution. This, however, is your point of view. I was trying to balance out the single point of view, and slanted, article. Personsaddress 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not everything has a valid controversy surrounding it. A good example would be flat-Earthers. Kent Hovind is that kind of person. He's a convicted tax evader and a slimy businessman all around. The "arguments" that he uses are all absurd and go way beyond the "creation vs. evolution controversy" and into "reality versus Kent Hovind". He doesn't understand anything scientific besides shooting rubber bands. If you want to see more, check out this site. Make sure not to miss this nice subpage. --Cyde Weys 08:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"They have come to the point where they cannot attack the message I bring against evolution so they wish to attack me personally instead. This is called an ad hominem argument. They mistakenly think that by belittling the man they have answered his points and won the debate. When the opponent in a debate begins using ad hominem attacks, it is an obvious signal that they are losing the debate on facts and must resort to other means to try to save face or divert attention."-- Kent Hovind. - The person who wrote the article, knows that he cannot face the facts, so he attacks the one presenting the facts. Any person claiming that evolution is a fact, or even a theory is either a lier, someone who has been lied to, or just plain dumb. Anyone who uses "The scientific Theory" accurately, knows that Evolution is a religion, the same as christianity. Also, Hovind has some pretty good ideas on the government, rather than just calling him a tax evader, maybe you should look at some of the reasons and explainations behind this "behaviour". I don't know, call me crazy, but someone who uses logic to back up their beliefs, just seems more credible than someone who tells you to believe it, just because they are smarter than you. (Evolutionist Professors) .... and btw... not concerning Hovind... what kinda programs have you programmed, i'm a c++ programmer. Currently I have a contract to design a POS system for a 3 store chain retailer in my area, and i actually like talking to other programmers. Personsaddress 08:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few points:

• Evolution is a fact AND a theory
• Evolution has millions of evidences backing it up
• Lots of evidence exists for macroevolution
• Evolution is not a religion

And as for Kent Hovind ... if you consider fearmongering over some hypothetical "New World Order" to be "good ideas", then yeah, he has "good ideas" on the government. --Cyde Weys 09:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to programming ... I'm still in school. The only programming I've done for pay was for the government. By the way, what is it with computer scientists and creationism? The same thing has been noted amongst engineers. --Cyde Weys 09:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

FIND BETTER ARTICLES, THESE ONES ARE WEAK 1st article talks about facts, it states, Fact: Life appeared on earth more than 2 billion years ago, it does this with several statements, but it gives no evidence that those statements are facts, it just starts with them, considering them as a given, however, Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. Second article is talking about how different fossils and such, fit on their "tree of life" which is also automatically considered a fact, even though it is just an unproven theory. 3rd article says that Creationists think that Evolution is a religion because it encompasses views of values and ultimate meanings. This is not true, I believe Evolution is a Religion because it is a view, that has not, and can not be proven on this world, but it is still taken be people as truth. They believe it on faith. Something which is not seen or heard, but is believed reguardless. I cannot prove, see or hear creation, but i can believe it, i believe it because i believe the bible, which i take to be the word of God of Faith. It's religion. Evolutionists have no proof of Evolution, but they believe it anyways. (Faith) They tell themselves that they have the proof so often, that they actually start to believe they have it, without having it at all. Any new evidence which comes up, Evolutionists neatly smash it up, until it fits into the little box that they want it to......about the Comp. Science, i'm still in school also, majoring in computer science, music composition, and Biology. I'm pretty much done with my computer science, and just working on my biology, and composition. However, maybe computer science and creation may be related because...... Telling someone to explain how the world came to be, but they can't use God as a possiblity, is like one computer talking to another computer, trying to figure out how they were made, but they can't use people as an explaination. It's absolutely preposterous, and impossible. (what school u go to?) Personsaddress 09:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, this isn't the best place to discuss this. There's a great newsgroup that was setup especially for this purpose, though. It's called talk.origins and you can find it here. All you need to do is setup a quick user account with Google and you'll be able to start posting. Put something like "ATTN:Cyde" in the subject of your first post so you get my attention and I learn your username. I'll see you there! --Cyde Weys 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, those articles aren't merely stating things as facts; if you saw the References section you'd see that they're citing specific papers from the scientific literature. But anyway, we can discuss these and other matters further on talk.origins. --Cyde Weys 09:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Alright, thanks for the words of wisdom. --GorillazFanAdam 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

hey

Check your email, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything? How old is this email? --Cyde Weys 02:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Nishikawa, Niigata Seru What Went Wrong Genesis Tree Why I Am Not a Muslim Nettie Mayersohn Gary Gulman Huemul Project Warcraft III World Editor Legend of Legaia Lavaka Ata 'Ulukalala Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) Gradualism Glentoran F.C. UN Security Council Resolution 1564 No Answers in Genesis Wing Hing Lui Wo Co. Ltd. National Security Directive Hypothesis

Cleanup Supreme Governor of the Church of England Characters in the Realm of the Elderlings Islamic creationism Merge John D. Rockefeller V Theology of Zwingli Biblical cosmology Add Sources Free speech zone ADV Films Cleavage (breasts) Wikify KPXB Kirk Thornton Annuity (European financial arrangements) Expand Edible salt Long Beach International Karate Championships Sacred clown

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). 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 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Radio tower articles

Are radio towers non notable? They are really, really tall, they can last for a long time (the article in question was about a radio tower that was more than 40 years old), and they are capable of transmitting information great distances. If there are dozens or hundreds of radio tower articles out there (along with a category and a specific type of stub), there is probably a good reason for keeping them (or are we the first to notice so many?). If you have a problem with so many radio tower articles, you might find it easier to bring up a mass deletion somewhere (you're an admin, you would know better than I) than deleting them one at a time. Anyway, that's just what I have to say in defence of radio towers.-PlasmaDragon 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That argument applies to buildings, too. Buildings can be very old (even historic), house many people, house many work environments, and cost millions of dollars to build. Yet should there really be hundreds of thousands of articles, one for each building? I don't think any random radio tower is especially notable. --Cyde Weys 20:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, not every building is notable. A house in the suburbs will cost less than a million to build, house only one family, and is probably not that old. Most houses are not notable. Radio towers are different. They are taller than most houses could every aspire to being. They affect more people than most houses ever will. If a building is historic or very expensive or affects many people then it deserves an article; if a radio tower is historic (not many fit this criteria, but there are probably a few) or very expensive (I admit I don't know how much radio towers cost) or affect many people (this fits most radio towers, if not virtually all of them) then it deserves an article.-PlasmaDragon 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about houses, I was talking about stuff like office buildings. Office buildings cost a lot more than radio towers and have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people living in them. Yet we don't have an article about every office building. --Cyde Weys 23:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

USAA

I didn't notice what went on lately with that page and missed that children's pictures were posted. I'm presuming that's what triggered the edit and the socks were subsequently banned.

Thanks very much for clearing up the archive.

--Mmx1 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We're still working on it, actually. Someone shoulda told us sooner :-O There's quite a few edits that need to be selectively deleted. --Cyde Weys 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)== USAA ==

Update: USAA was unprotected a few days ago and one of the sockpuppets slipped through: [8] --Mmx1 02:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Collective proper nouns

Hi and thanks for helping me reverting changes to band articles. Mike Garcia is now reverting all our reverts back to "are" and "were." I strongly suspect that 69.12.166.47 is a sockpuppet of Mike Garcia. Those two users have the same edit history and are doing the same thing. Please help solve this problem. Thanks! —RJN 00:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've given Mike Garcia a short 15 minute block to stop the edits in progress. I'm going to have him read up on collective nouns. --Cyde Weys 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins collective noun

Hi, just wanted to suggest you look at the links I provided on the talk page first. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 02:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal needs wacking

134.48.201.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Thanks. JoshuaZ 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Got it. --Cyde Weys 06:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. JoshuaZ 06:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich

The above arbitration case has been closed and the finall decision published.

For the arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Got it. --Cyde Weys 22:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anwar 2006 problem

Please see if the [[Anwar]] [[2004]] problem still exists. See my talk page. bobblewik 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

trolls

Since you commented that the "dont feed the trolls"-userbox was irrelevant, I simply wanted to you to know that a few good editors have stopped editing wikipedia because of continued personal attacks and other forms of "trolling" in articles connected to the cartoons controversy and that I only made the user box since I miss them.DanielDemaret 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't see how a little pastel box is going to prevent people from getting attacked by religious fanatics. Religious fanatics don't respect human life, let alone pastel boxes. --Cyde Weys 03:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:DATE

Which part of the MOS does the removal of year links in taxoboxes conform to? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This part right here:

If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links.

--Cyde Weys 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the dates in a taxobox are relevant to the article. They are the date the taxon was formalized. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

By that definition all dates are relevant because all dates are the date of which something regarding the article content happened. The date is relevant; being able to click on the date and see a list of irrelevant things isn't. There's nothing special about the taxobox that makes it exempt from WP:CONTEXT. Maybe if it was a link to Taxa formalized in 2004 or something then it'd be relevant, but just a general link to 2004 isn't. --Cyde Weys 19:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Okie dokie. I'm proposing something as such on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage. Come express your opinion please. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

Two things. One why don't you open the RFC. I'm not here to make enemies which is what SPUI would become if such an RFC were opened. And two on what basis would you block? And if you did block would such a block also be put on SPUI?JohnnyBGood 22:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not my issue, so one of you two would have to be the one to open the RFC. And I'd block on the basis of large-scale revert-warring. And SPUI has been blocked repeatedly over this, and yes, if I catch him doing it again I will block him. This thing needs to go to RFC. You can't continue warring with an entire state's worth of articles. --Cyde Weys 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That is why I request they all be put back where they were before March until a consensus has developed as should have been done in the first place. That's all my side is asking. I don't think that's unreasonable.JohnnyBGood 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about where they are now. It'll be solved by the RFC. --Cyde Weys 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then hopefully someone starts and RFC so this can get resolved.JohnnyBGood 23:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Would a Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads do the same thing? I filed for one a few weeks ago and we still have no mediatior since they are backed up... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a Mediator with the Cabal, I just wonder if I would be accepted by both sides as a neutral party at this point. --Cyde Weys 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just closed it... should I reopen it? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably a better idea than going for an RFC, anyway. Mediation makes more sense than a mere request for comment. --Cyde Weys 04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reopened for 2 days, but if a mediator isn't assigned by then a RFC will be filed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Questions

I responded to your questions in my RfA joturner 00:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond with fully thought out answers. It shows that you take this seriously. Some other people pretty much brushed off my questions; I couldn't support them. --Cyde Weys 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Decemberists

Sorry to bother you with this again. Can you weigh in some intelligence at the The Decemberists article's talk page regarding collective proper noun. This user keeps on reverting and is at his fourth revert for today already. I tried explaining and rationalize that the usage "is" is correct. Thanks! —RJN 17:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar, OTR & PUA Review

FYI. You may want to look and comment here: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. For your reference, the guidelines are referenced here: Barnstar Proposal Guidelines. Thanks -- evrik 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:213.121.151.142

Could you take a look at the last few edits to his talk pages and his contribs list? I'm not sure that his last few edits merited blocking. JoshuaZ 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, he definitely was vandalizing[9]. --Cyde Weys 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That was his previous set of edits on the 23rd. His most recent block was today on the 24th I think. JoshuaZ 22:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, apparently he also violated three reverts. JoshuaZ 22:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of viruses

Thanks for the helping hand. You're just in time, as I'm heading off to bed. Please be aware that User:Yoggga has been vandalizing this and associated articles using a number of different sockpuppets; User:Erin Elizabeth and User:68.11.236.86 have both been having fun with that article, as well as HIV, Adenovirus infection, and Adenoviridae. If he/she persists, semiprotection may become necessary for those articles. Thanks again! :) --Ashenai 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'll stoip vandalizing - it is too ridiculous

Please consider blocking this user

Hello Clyde This user User talk: 64.241.230.3 has been warned about vandalism without a block six times. It is an unfortunate situation becuase this user seems to make helpful contributions to comic book articles. Perhaps an adminstrator's touch will help. Thanks so much! Debivort 01:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

You should take a look at the last vandalism to your user page, it was some quality stuff. Someone clearly needs to get some form of life. JoshuaZ 03:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm doing a good job as admin when I attract this kind of attention :-P Cyde Weys 03:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich puppets

Weasel Finder (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - A new user who finds a problem with calling Louisiana Baptist University unaccredited. Doe, John (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - A new user quoting wikipedia policy. His only two edits are to revert the removal of a list of links to Christian schools.

The unblock tag

Why did you remove the unblock tag put by Bonaparte, or whoever put it there? Doesn't he have the right to request to be unblocked? That's what the tag is for, right? --Candide, or Optimism 05:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he has the right to request, and his request was looked at and denied. That template doesn't just stay up there indefinitely, you know. It only stays up until the request is reviewed, then it is removed. --Cyde Weys 05:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The tag was there for about 8 hours before you removed it. That's not a forever. Who looked at his request? I'm thinking that it should be the ArbCom, not just any admin. --Candide, or Optimism 05:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben Domenech

Great work on the footnote indexing on Ben Domenech. Wanted to do it myself. --CSTAR 05:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I try :-P Anyway, I didn't do it the best way possible, so there's still some room for someone else to go in there and clean it up the rest of the way. *Hint hint*  :-P Cyde Weys 05:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)