User talk:Cyde/Archive016

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

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the whole PatPeter thing. I also have no clue what his (is agenda the right word?) agenda is. I was about to write something on his talk but removed it after taking another look; that's probably not the most constructive thing to do at this point. Skult of Caro (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated death information

An editor has posted that state senator of South Carolina Bill Mescher died, but I checked google and found nothing about his alleged death. I'm afraid another Sinbad would happen, so can you please take a look at it and revert if needed? Thanks! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[1] This one appears legit. NoSeptember 22:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Hello, I am asking for your assistance in regard to an individual named User:Virgil Vaduva who continues to censor information listed as 'criticism' in the article about Rob Bell. He has broken the three revert rule as I and another individual reported here, and has extended his reign. He has experienced temporary bans before - he'll just come back to continue under other registered names like Armothe. If that weren't enough, he has now deemed fit to invade my personal user discussion with moral judgments. Aside from appearing to be an unbalanced individual on his personal website, I believe his aggression on Wikipedia will not end unless he is dealt with accordingly. As evidenced by reporting me, he is a typical example of those seeking to use technological savvy to oppress opposing opinions. It is the nature of "redefined Church" followers (like Rob Bell) to be heavy computer users, so an example must be made of Virgil to set example of what will happen to other members of 'modern Church' who use their tech-knowhow to silence criticism. One additional note - he has sought aide from another admin who has been previous sympathetic with his religious views, claiming I have threatened him by noting on-the-job bandwidth waste while appealing for upholding the censorship of criticism on the Rob Bell article. Here you can see where another user noted his antics. Please help! Thank you so much.

I find it interesting that you find time to research my personal life or call me "unbalanced" but you don't find time to discuss contributions to an article in a constructive manner in the discussion section of the article, which is meant for that purpose. I trust that Cyde can judge the situation for himself and see past your ad-hominem attacks. --Virgil Vaduva 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joebengo

Hello Cyde! I've replied your comment, please check and update. Thank you! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, can you specify which provision of Erik's former views are changed, and why they are wrong? Thanks. I personally do agree with that "m:Avoid copyright paranoia" page that a picture painted hundreds of years ago is not copyrighted, and the other views posted by him at that time, like the one sentence copyright, seem legit. I don't understand if there is any wrong in "avoiding copyright paranoia". In a reasonable sense, any paranoia isn't something good. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, generally paranoia may be "bad", but surely you see the logical flaw in calling something paranoia and then saying it is bad because it is paranoia, when the actual underlying behavior isn't paranoid. You've cherry-picked some of the good things from that essay. There are also many bad things. Wikipedia is first and foremost a freely redistributable free content encyclopedia. The WMF isn't going to be around forever, but thanks to the GFDL, the content always will be, and you will be guaranteed to always have the freedoms to modify it and redistribute it under the terms of the license. I wouldn't call worrying about these legitimate concerns "paranoia". We do have to watch about non free content slipping into the encyclopedia and basically corrupting it, making it less free and non-redistributable. --Cyde Weys 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What exactly constitute "paranoia" is vague and open to interpretation. In my view labeling Leonardo da Vinci or Raphael's painting "copyrighted" is copyright paranoia while deleting a clearly copyrighted modern picture is not copyright paranoia. Of course, GFDL helps a lot in maintaining our encyclopedia free, we should thank Richard Stallman for that. Cheers! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion

Cydebot seems to have stopped running, as the list is two hours out of date. --Coredesat 04:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a week out of date and Cyde's notice to us about it has already been archived. NoSeptember 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've brought the bot up and running again. Hopefully it should be fixed. If it stops running at this point, let me know. --Cyde Weys 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On endorsements

Hi. While I appreciate your concern, I've got to wonder why you haven't left similarly outraged messages on the talk pages of everyone who has labeled Kelly's suggestion as "simply ridiculous", "a joke", "shrubbery", etc. Now you've been here long enough to know that to propose a change to the RfA process such as requiring WikiProject endorsement, the usual way to do things is not to post a "Neutral" on every possible RfA until someone notices but rather to engage discussions on the Village Pump or something of that form. RfAs should stick to the evaluation of a candidate and Kelly is transforming them into soapboxes for her proposed endorsement system. Pascal.Tesson 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not responding to the merits of any of the points you have bring up, you have still not shown how Kelly is purposefully disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. She isn't. So don't accuse people of things they aren't guilty of. If you don't agree with her methods of trying to modify the procedure then you can say so, but it's unaccpetable to accuse her of violating some policy that she hasn't. It's like accusing someone of vandalism when their intent wasn't to vandalize (e.g. they just messed up); you simply don't do it. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mayybe, he is saying that because Kelly appears to have taken this stance so as to bring about a some kind of change, which she wants in the community as a whole, or the RFA process. A much better way of proceeding with this idea, she should have proposed some changes on the appropriate venues of discourse, like the Village Pump. But equally astounding is the fact that a neutral stance by another user, which is not really a cause of disruption would attract so much pettifoggery. A better response would have been, even if they presumed for once that Kelly's ideas were unworthy of consideration, they should have left her on her own, which might have forced her, somehow, to consider her stance. --Zamkudi 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Creationism

You're an administrator, and I think childish vandalism is not what is expected of you. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw c'mon, that's from seven months ago, and was reverted almost immediately. Why is this being brought up now? --Cyde Weys 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not just vandalism, it's also egregious POV-pushing. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider science to be a "point of view"; rather, the way the world is. --Cyde Weys 13:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure nearly half of the Americans don't believe in Darwinism, and no one has proved Darwinian theories either. Let's face it, we all don't know where we come from, there is no need to be patronizing like this. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because reality is really affected by what stupid people believe in. And you have an incredibly warped perception of science. --Cyde Weys 13:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you know what, that's not fair. You're young and you simply haven't gotten the truth from whatever biased people are around you warping your education. So here's a chance to learn some real facts. Check out the evidence for evolution as well as the index to creationist claims. Get reading. It includes answers to the fallacious claims that "a lot of people don't believe it, thus it is false" as well as the claim about "we don't know" — because the fossils don't lie. --Cyde Weys 13:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cyde, I will read the website you give me. It's kind of you. However, I'd clarify that I never said I believe in creationism, and I consider the "young earth theory" (the theory that says earth is only several thousand years old) to be totally pointless. The only thing is I can't really be convinced of evolution, due to the reported lack of "intermediate" fossil. So you can say I'm agnostic about this issue. When my biology teacher taught evolution in my freshman year I found it extremely boring, probably because I'm more of a history and literature person than a scientific one. Cheers! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Johnny the Vandal sockpuppets

We had some of these on wikibooks today, using a different IP than the one you identified... your bot created Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Johnny the Vandal, so are you "in charge" of this case? The IP in question has a history of vandalizing "according to pattern" here on wikipedia. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're really confusing something here. Cydebot modified over a hundred sockpuppet categories. It was the result of a huge blanket WP:CFD. I am in no way, shape, or form maintaining these things. If you'd like to do so, by my guest. --Cyde Weys 22:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no thanks :). We just have another IP for him... I'll talk to one of the local CUs about it. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 09:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

SProtect

Hi there Cyde. Due to vandalism, I've semi-protected your talkpage. Feel free to unprotect it at your convenience. Orane (talk • cont.) 01:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User ID

You mention on your userpage that your user ID is 6511, and I guessed it means you're the 6511th person to make an account, (I'm 1482496th) but does it serve any other purpose? I don't think 'crats use it when renaming/changing the rights of users and I can't find any policies/guidelines/help pages that even mention it. Do you know if it is used for anything? Thanks, James086^{Talk | Email} 10:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's what's used internally in the database to link up all of your contribs and everything else with you. All of your edits and such are indexed with your user ID, and then there's a separate users table that actually indexes up all of the IDs with the usernames. --Cyde Weys 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered about that but logs display changes by name so I guessed it used the usernames. Thanks. James086^{Talk | Email} 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RfD process/purpose

Cyde. I think that there is a contradiction at RfD between the heading and the guiding principles. As you were key in changing this from deletion to discussion, can you please check out what I have posted at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Discussion vs. Deletion and comment if/as you see fit? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot blocked

Hi Cyde,

I just blocked your bot. In edits like this, not only is the edit summary referring to a redlinked CFD reason, but the bot also moves the AFD category from the top (where it will be subsequently deleted when the AFD is closed) to the wrong location at the bottom (where it will probably be ignored). Please fix these issues and unblock your bot. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the deletion noticed substed? .. It's very user unfriendly to have a pile of code right at the top of the article. In any case, Enwiki WP:MOS requires that categories be at the bottom. Other languages are different, but thats the requirement on enwiki. The correct solution is to not subst deletion notices. --Gmaxwell 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

{{afd}} does not work unless subst'ed, though, so that may be "correct" but won't fix the problem. Kusma (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh, it doesn't work unless substed for silly reasons. Time to fix that. :) --Gmaxwell 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the issue with the edit summary; someone put underscores in the per-day links on the working page for some reason and Cydebot wasn't expecting that. It can handle it now. As for the AFD stuff — I really would like to see those AFD templates cleaned up. --Cyde Weys 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Er... [2] Did you fix only your local copy? The bot that's running still seems to have the red link in the edit summary. Kusma (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have gone offline, so I blocked the bot again. Kusma (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still online, and I just squashed the process. Apparently I had an old process running in the background doing CFD from before I fixed it. So when I unblocked it, it just continued on its merry way. --Cyde Weys 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot

Just letting you know I blocked the bot, as it seems to be malfunctioning. It made this edit to my page, messing up the entire format, and also appears to be removing more categories than are noted in the edit summaries, as here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not that Cyde needs my defending, but it looks like the edit you are refering to was made before the fix noted above. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage really isn't formatted by the coding standards of how categories are supposed to be used, hence the mess-up. Also, that was a user category and it shouldn't have been listed in the article category working page; I've moved it to the right place. Also, I don't see what's wrong with the second edit you linked at all; it looks like it did exactly what it was supposed to do. Oh, and Cydebot was already blocked in the interim between these edits and now, but for a different reason; this new block was rather unnecessary. --Cyde Weys 02:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't look like the same fix necessarily (the earlier one had to do with CSDs), so given that, just wanted to be sure. I don't know why Cyde would need "defending", it was intended as a precaution, not an attack. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait, what CSDs? And what is wrong in the second edit you linked, besides the edit summary? I'm terribly confused. --Cyde Weys 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the fact that the previous fix looked to be for a totally separate issue, so wasn't sure if this had been fixed or not. In the second edit, the edit removes an interwiki link ([[de:User:Tdmalone]]) in addition to Category:Wikipedian programmers. If it's supposed to do that it should probably be mentioned in the edit summary, else it's a bug. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, it moved it. Still somewhat odd, and wondering why it didn't handle the category correctly. What was wrong with mine anyway? I can certainly get them fixed if it makes it easier. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • "Didn't handle the category correctly" Huh? The category was being deleted. It removed it. --Gmaxwell 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Have a look at the first edit. Yes, it removed the category, but it also completely reformatted the page so that everything was moved to a small box on the right. (It's not supposed to look like that!) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Your categories should be grouped at the bottom of the article, not scattered throughout the wiki source of your userpage like they are now. Just look at any article, basically, and do your categories that way. --Cyde Weys 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I also got one of Cydebot's edits re Category:Wikipedian programmers. Nothing mangled, thankfully, but I can't seem to find the referenced CFD discussion, despite searching the logs for all the 2007 discussions. I don't suppose you could help with that? Ddawson 06:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it either. My advice would be to go through the page history of WP:CFDW and find the person who inserted it there, and then ask him. If this person made a mistake, he needs to be made aware of it. --129.2.122.203 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way is to check the backlink. You can find the discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/April 2007#Category:Wikipedian programmers. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like it actually correctly went through the UCFD process rather than the CFD process, but for some bizarre reason, was then listed on the wrong working page. --Cyde Weys 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I finally found it after using my brain and reading the notice on CFDW. Out of curiosity, could the mislisting have caused the 'Month 0' glitch, or is that a separate bug? Ddawson 03:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The month listing glitch was something else. Someone put underscores in the per-day listings links, something which Cydebot had never seen in months of CFDW work, and was thus not expecting. I've since updated his regexes a bit to keep an eye out for that too, so that will no longer be a problem. --Cyde Weys 03:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of requested articles. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 69.140.164.142 05:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

CyberNations.net Page

Ok, I'm not sure if this was deleted, needs a restore, or what, but the page for the CyberNations game now redirects to Micronations. Is there any way to resolve this?

Quadrius 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of subpage

Hello Cyde. I am stunned by your decision to delete one of my user subpages (User:Husond/Userboxes/BasqueCountry) on the grounds of WP:CSD#T1. Not only this page is not on Template space, as I also strongly contest that it can be considered "divisive and inflammatory". Please have a second look at this situation. I shall take this to WP:DRV if it is not restored. Thank you. Best regards, Húsönd 15:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Be prepared to take it to DRV then. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone understands me :-D Cyde Weys 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Trust me I'm not the only one. There's a person I know who goes by FYI (without the I) who most certainly does. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  19:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Husond/Userboxes/BasqueCountry. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Húsönd 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Do you know what an operating system is?"

Perhaps you could try to be a little less insulting. I'm surprised that I have to remind an admin about our policy on comments like that. AlistairMcMillan 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a legitimate question. Most people think they know, but they do not. --Cyde Weys 16:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Review my article please...

Hey, would you please review Salaam bin Said Al Shaksy. I've kind of been waiting for quite a while for an admin to have a look at it after it was put up for "speedy deletion". I've made a few fixes but still no admin reviews of the page so it's still up for "speedy deletion". Thanks A.wikian 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

CydeBot

Just a quick head's up that your bot seems to be editing much faster than its approved rate. --165.124.124.52 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot is currently running above the developers' recommended minimum repetition interval of waiting one operation's length in-between each operation. --Cyde Weys 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Question of curiosity

Can your bot(s) tag categories for deletion? There are several dozen (likely several hundred) User categories which I would like to tag for several group nominations. Most for deletion, but some for renaming. - jc37 09:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you just give me a wikified list of everything to be tagged broken down by group-CFD-link. Oh, and I'd have to agree with the deletions too. --Cyde Weys 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, none of these are "speedy" deletions, so no worries there. I'll work on making a list on a sub-page of my talk page. As an additional question, someone suggested that it was possible to make a list of all the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians, tiered by subcat. Do you know if it's possible, and if so, how I would go about requesting it? - jc37 12:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Userboxes

Hi Cyde, long time no see.
I have noticed you have recently deleted some userboxes in userspace, amongst which the User:Husond/Userboxes/BasqueCountry does stick out as most worrysome to me (I don't have seen the contents of the Anti-ALCU ones, so I honestly don't know what they are about, I'll believe here that they were something as offensive as "This users proposes all ALCUs to be hanged and quartered because they are horrible stupid assholes", whatever ALCUs are). Still, you might understand, this is worrysome to me, as it brings back quite a few bad memories. So I just wanted to drop by and make see that we are still good on WP:UBM, right? Best whishes. CharonX/talk 00:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are still some userboxes that are a lot more trouble than they are worth, and I've been deleting them as I run across them (though I haven't been actively searching any down). --Cyde Weys 00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, fair enough (WP:IAR trumps everything anyway), though I do have to disagree with you on that particular case - Let's wait and see what the DRV says. I have to admit I'm quite glad - I don't think I could stand another round of horrible Userbox Wikidrama... :) CharonX/talk 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your bot has been blocked

Your bot has been blocked as a malfunctioning bot. Your bot was editing in excess of 50 edits/min, in violation of the Bot policy. Bot accounts typically should run at up to 6 edits/min, unless performing tasks deemed "urgent", when a top rate of 15 edits/min has been approved. As blocks are not meant to be punitive and you are an administrator, please feel free to remove this block and resume bot edits once you have adjusted your bot's edit rate. You should also feel free to immediately remove any autoblocks or other collateral damage related blocks hit as a result of this block. If feel you must edit at this rate, please talk page me and we can bring this to a forum where more community input can be gathered. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

To prevent a meatball:ForestFire I've replied on my talk to other comments on this at User_talk:Xaosflux#Cydebot_Block. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you keep it down to 15ppm max please, until such time there's clear approval to go faster? --kingboyk 14:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I already approved the slower of 1 edit per second or one operation delay per operation, so it's all good. Cheers. --Gmaxwell 18:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And you are... Mediawiki dev? Board member? BAG member? Arbitrator? Your page doesn't seem to say and I can't be expected to know everybody... --kingboyk 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot policy does not provide for this type of approval; 15epm should be the cap until this is resolved. (Long thread at WP:BOWN. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

En Wikipedia policy provides no basis for your authority over this matter.. ::shrugs:: I've approved the rate, and you've provided no reasonable basis for your complaint. --Gmaxwell 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Approved under what capacity? --kingboyk 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Greg is CRO; the approval in question was the result of a consultation with several developers combined with Greg's not insignificant knowledge of the technical capacities and limitations of the Wikimedia server farm. The 15 edit per minute rate that the Bot Approval Group claims is "policy" has no rational basis and is an arbitrary limit imposed by them without community consensus; it reflects their efforts to set a "policy" to protect server resources without actually speaking to the developers who would know what the limits of those resources are. Greg is more knowledgeable of those limits--and has better access to the technical people who manage them--than the entire BAG put together (with the possible exception of VoiceOfAll), and his sole word means more on such matters than the unanimous consent of the entire BAG. You should assume good faith and accept Greg's statement as a respected Wikipedian and Wikimedian, rather than playing silly hierarchy games. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

F*ck me, I merely asked. Politely, I thought. --kingboyk 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree here, now that we know the devs are ok with the edit rate, let the bot go. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. --kingboyk 22:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Cyde, I have an IRC spy you know ;) Wikidrama indeed! No hard feelings, eh, you and I have always got along reasonably well and I'd like to keep it that way. Cheers. --kingboyk 22:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a judgmental statement or anything. This is objectively wikidrama, hence the "WIKIDRAMA!!!" is justifed :-P Cyde Weys 22:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep! --kingboyk 22:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me start a page about Steve Degler Please go to Reading Phillies.com--Mason789 04:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)\Broadcasts.htm for info

Category pages edit history

Hi Cyde. Would you have time to have a look at the thread here? Any input there, or at the bugzilla thread would be much appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 21:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert edits to Sandbox!

Your bot is broken if it puts vandal warnings on user pages when they've edited the sandbox. That's what the sandbox is for. -Amatulic 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I got confused between Sandbox and Wikipedia:Sandbox. Other users seem confused also. -Amatulic 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I consider you detractive to the project, Cyde, and I considered your opposition to Jeff spurious at best. I haven't called anyone a "troll" and dude, I'll decide who I do or don't call one if I feel the need. One of the ways you detract from this project is that you have the belief you make the rules around here. But you are just one guy. I actually said the guy trolling me was trolling me. I have no idea what the general quality of his contribution is because I've never encountered him before. What was he adding to the discussion? I consider it not "civil" to do what he did. Your mileage may vary, but do me a favour, next time, keep your view to yourself. It is a massive overstatement that suggesting that someone should stop trolling me and do something useful is doing a "great disservice" to Wikipedia. My chief problem with you, Cyde, is that you allow your enjoyment of hyperbole to lead you into saying and doing damaging things. Trying to get a bit of perspective wouldn't do you any harm. And dude, "hate" is a very big word. I don't think about you enough even to dislike you, yet alone hate you. Grace Note 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Next time, keep your view to yourself" — that's all that I'm asking in regards to you. It's not helpful at all to accuse anyone of "trolling you", especially when they aren't. --Cyde Weys 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

None of what you said was true, Cyde, and you know it. I agree 100% with Grace Note. Kudos. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So you'll support folks taking a position on RFA entirely because someone they dislike voted the other way? O_o. Have you actually read Cyde's opposition? I think it's reasonable and raises some good points. You say that "none of what [cyde] said was true", but it's pretty easy to see that there is some incontestable truth in Cyde's objection. --Gmaxwell 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I read his opposition and replied to it. Thank you very much. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. All you look at in that log is the blocks. Look at the unblocks, and their reason. 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You can take a position in an RfA for any reason you choose. And I'd never support someone only because Cyde doesn't like them! As I suggested, I felt the quality of the opposition was poor and it didn't convince me to oppose an editor who would be unlikely to abuse the tools. Grace Note 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You can take any position you want in RFA, but that doesn't make it valid. The last person whose reasoning was "doing the opposite of Cyde" had their vote explicitly disqualified by the bureaucrats. --Cyde Weys 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The bureaucrats don't always do the right thing, Cyde. Grace Note 05:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. So your definition of "the right thing" is anytime they agree with you. --Cyde Weys 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image of Amy Lee

Greetings Cyde, I noticed you just deleted File:Amy Lee singing.jpg, saying this image was stolen from someone else and a fake license used. Why was this issue not brought up on it's talk page, or at least some notice placed somewhere? Not trying to debate the point, but I'd enjoy knowing what evidence led you to this deletion. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because all those user's image uploads were stolen pictures. That is, he took the pictures from somewhere else and falsely claimed they were his pictures by trying to say he was the photographer and that he was releasing them under the GFDL. Since he wasn't the photographer, of course he couldn't do that, and the images had to be deleted, because, at the very minimum, to claim fair-use exemptions and use non-free photographs on Wikipedia we must have the source information. The only "source" information we had with these photographs was the liar who claimed he had taken them, and without proper source information, they must be deleted. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's all I needed to know, that the user had a history of uploading such images. I'm well familiar with the policies, just didn't know about the particular user. Thanks for the notice. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, twice in the past few days I have seen instances of users posting multiple images which I felt were uploaded with false tags. In both cases, I posted these to WP:PUI. The group that I listed for April 23 were deleted quickly and the group that I listed for April 21 still remain. I'm not asking for you to take any action here, but I would like to know if I did the right thing by posting them at PUI or if there would be a more appropriate course of action for me to follow in the future. In my limited experience, PUI seems to be more equipped to handle research issues than for what I would consider to be more obvious cases like these. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I just cleared out all of the images from the 21st and blocked the user. You did the right thing in reporting them to WP:PUI even though they are pretty obvious. I don't know of a better place offhand (maybe someone can correct me though). Since you aren't an admin, you can only flag the images; you can't delete them. However, since I am an admin, I don't need to bother with reporting or processes or anything; I can just take care of it myself and be done with it. If you are ever become an admin you'll be afforded that luxury too. --Cyde Weys 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to get you some extra soap for your mop after all the cleaning you did on that. LOL --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Soap? Heavens no. I use undiluted bleach. --Cyde Weys 05:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Work

		The Cleaner of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, After Midnight, award you this Cleaner of the Wiki Barnstar to refill your bucket for those heavy duty cleaning tasks. --After Midnight 0001 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot idea / request

What would you think about a bot to handle some of the image deletion queues? Orphaned non-free images and orphaned images with no source/copyright status or that have the auto-replaceable tag on them can be done blindly and there's no need to take an admin's time to go through them. With the loss of a few of the admins that did a lot of work with image issues, there is a real need for some relief there. I know that the last attempt to have an adminbot was unsuccessful, but with people being more open to new RFA ideas now, it may be worth trying again. Would you have any interest in pursuing getting a bit for Cydebot for that task? --BigDT 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can we be sure it's done right though? There might be no license tag there because no one ever specified one, or, because a vandal removed it. It might be orphaned legitimately, or, because a vandal removed it from an article. These kinds of things need to be checked by humans prior to deletion. I don't see how a bot can do it. --Cyde Weys 22:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well ... in the case of missing tags, the bot can check the history and see if the tag was ever there to begin with - it could just decline to delete anything that has more than one edit (in the case of the "I found this on some website" tag) or more than two edits (anything tagged manually). Anything in use obviously needs to be checked ... but if it only handles orphaned images, I don't know how big of a deal that is. As far as images that were made orphans by vandals, I really wish there were a way to check and see if an image was ever in use. Frequently, I notice where someone will replace an image with a non-free or unsourced one. Then, this image gets deleted for the obvious reasons, but the image that was originally there doesn't get put back. Image memory would be a nice thing ... but there are ways around it. For example, the bot could check each image every day and only delete ones that were orphans for the entire week.

I think as long as it is a sufficiently restrictive set of images that there is a high confidence are safe to delete, it would be fine. That way, administrators would only have to examine the ones where there is a potential decision to make. --BigDT 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

windows-software-screenshot

Your bot added a "Screenshot of Windows software" category to all 200-some images of Microsoft Windows. There is no good justification for this; screenshots of Windows itself are not screenshots of software for Windows. I'd appreciate if you'd fix that. Everything is already properly categorised under Category:Screenshots of Microsoft Windows, so starting from there should make it easy to identify which articles need the extra category removed. Thanks. -/- Warren 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The old template that was used, {{Windows-software-screenshot}} included all of the images in the category already anyways. All the bot did was upmerge the templates and break out the categories that were already there. It appears there is something here to fix, but I am not the one who broke it. Still, I'll look into how one might do category intersection and subtraction. --Cyde Weys 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot still mucking up noinclude/includeonly tags

See [3]. I've reported this before after the video game naming changes. Would it be possible for you to just do a simple text replacement when editing stuff in the template space? --- RockMFR 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I'll have a look at the bot automagically using the -inplace option on template and userspace. Any other places? --Cyde Weys 04:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar.... for your deletion review comments

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this gem of a comment about The Game (game) on Wikipedia:Deletion review: Endorse deletion and stop bringing this up here: anytime you do, we all lose the game. Enjoy this barnstar!! Whoever next brings the Game up on deletion review has lost it already... SunStar Net talk 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot issues

hello I realize that Seraphimblade brought up a similar problem earlier, but this is more of an issue. Basically, your bot totally ruined the page's formatting by removing bits of table syntax here and there. Also, it refactored the page in a way that I don't particularly like, and in a way not mandated by WP:MOS as has been claimed. Further, this was all done under an edit summary that claimed it was only removing a deleted category. Please make sure your bot is actually repaired before unleashing it on any other pages. Silas Snider (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot works perfectly on articles that have categories formatted correctly. It only ever "mangles" pages that use non-standard category formatting. This isn't just a Cydebot "limitation", it's a pyWikipediaBot "limitation", in that anyone running pyWikipediaBot would get the same results. The best solution is to correctly format the categories on your userpage in the same style that they are used everywhere else: all in a list, one per line, at the bottom of the edit text. Your accusation that Cydebot removed bits of table syntax is false. --Cyde Weys 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim that a particular way off using categories is 'incorrect', but realize that we will probably never agree on this matter, so I would appreciate it if you would keep your bot off of my userpage -- leave me a note on my talk page if a category needs to be removed. As for the removal of table syntax, on second look it indeed seems that the bot did not remove the table syntax, but it did mung it suffciently as to make it display incorrectly. Silas Snider (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN. You do not own your userpage, and by putting sitewide categories on it you are opening your page up to being edited if any of those categories are ever renamed or deleted. That's simply the way the MediaWiki engine works. --Cyde Weys 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Repairing_damage. I have notified you that your bot is damaging pages. I have also asked you to fix it (I would also note that you admitted that your bot is broken). In return, you have claimed that I am incorrectly formatting the page in question. I can, however, find nothing in WP:MOS or any policy that states that your assertion about positioning of categories is correct. Please either fix your bot, or link to the policy that backs up your category formatting requirements. Good day. Silas Snider (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You were looking in the wrong place. The MoS is mostly about how prose is written, not how wiki syntax stuff is done. You need to see the category-specific guideline, which is located here. --Cyde Weys 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to toss in another note on this matter. Please check out this diff by Cydebot. I don't think the framework you're using is any reason to consider this edit acceptable. It just required the removal of one tag, so how is the reorganization necessary? I like the idea of Cydebot leaving the userpage alone and dropping a note on the user's talk page instead, since users may appreciate this notifcation anyway. Thoughts? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 03:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Graphics

Could you look at Image:Am graphic.jpg and tell me if Cydebot is doing the right thing? You reverted its edits, but then it came by again and redid it. 24.177.128.131 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are actually an entire series of graphics that I watch that Cydebot has edited. Which templates are correct, the "fair use" or "non-free fair use"? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Cydebot is doing the right thing. I thought he had broken something and hastily went back to revert a bunch of stuff, but on second look, everything was still looking fine, so I made the edits again. I only really reverted on about 50 pages, so it wasn't a big deal. As for Chris' question: the "Non-free" names are the ones that you should be using from now on out. --Cyde Weys 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Category: Logos

I've discovered that your bot has taken to putting images in the subcategories of above category and the parent category after I've put the images in only certain subcategories, therefore, putting too many entries in the titular category. Look at the history of images under the subcategory Category: Radio logos for plenty of examples. - N. Harmonik 18:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review on Template:User WikiProject Southern California

I've asked for a deletion review of Template:User WikiProject Southern California. Since you deleted this template, you may want to participate in the deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   11:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: "Canceling out" other people's votes

Although I was slightly offended by your implication that I wasn't aware of WP:POINT, I accept the validity of your other remarks, but I don't believe I was disrupting Wikipedia or the RfA process. According to WP:POINT, the activities covered under that policy ...are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the "proof". I wasn't intending to do anything like that. Obviously, if the closing bureaucrat considers my rationale to be frivolous or inadequate, they are free to ignore it. But (with respect to Ms. Martin) I find her reasons for opposing to generally be unfair to the candidates. Having controversial userboxes or a WikiDefCon template is not a good reason why someone should not pass RfA. I'm not saying all her reasons for opposing are bad; for instance, here she made a very good point. Nor do I have a problem with her personally, and I accept that she's acting in good faith. But the thing with RfA is that, unlike XfDs or other Wikipedia processes, it is a judgment on a person, which can have a real impact on someone's actual life, hence why it should be taken more seriously than any other part of Wikipedia. So I hope that explains why I've been acting as I have; I wasn't intending to pick a fight with anyone, or acting in bad faith. I'm just sympathetic to RfA candidates (I know how it feels, having just passed RfA on my second attempt). Anyway, I hope you won't think less of me because of this. Walton ^{Need some help?} 15:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As per your concerns, I've also clarified my reasons for supporting one of the recent RfAs. In retrospect, you're right that my original comments looked a little combative. Walton ^{Need some help?} 15:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

bots

how can I start my own bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylonhunter (talk • contribs)

First you need to learn how to sign talk page comments. --Cyde Weys 17:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Disavian/Userboxes/Anti-ACLU

I wasn't aware that not supporting an organization was inflammatory; to what extent does CSD T1 apply to userspace? I was under the impression that it did not, especially given WP:GUS. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We simply don't need to be getting into big pointless stupid arguments over this kind of stuff. It distracts from writing the encyclopedia and foments conflict. Also, "Anti-ACLU" is a bit different than merely not supporting the ACLU. There's thousands of organizations I don't support, but I don't bother to explicitly state that I am "anti-" them. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone; it's an article-writing zone. --Cyde Weys 13:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ugly Betty

Hello, Cyde. It appears that User:Robert Moore has added many of the articles that Cydebot removed from the deleted Category:Ugly Betty cast to Category:Ugly Betty as you can see here Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Ugly_Betty. Do you think that I can revert all these, or does this need to be discussed somewhere? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would guess that they should be deleted, as a bunch of actors don't need to be in the category for a fictional TV series just because they played a role in it. Generally, we're moving away from categorizing real-life actors by the works they've been in, because the average actor has done dozens of things and the category system gets rather overloaded. Plus, there's this useless tendency to add actors who've only been in a single episode as a guest star or cameo. That's how you end up with "cast members" categories that are hundreds large, which is absolutely silly. --Cyde Weys 14:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'll clean it up shortly. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use <Foo> posters

Hello Cyde. You added 3 categories at WP:CFD/W for fair use images. I'm not quite clear on what we're supposed to do next. There is only one template now, so should we merge everything into a single Category:Poster images (or Category:Non-free poster images, or something?). Or should we go with categorising the images separate from the template. Or maybe this a job for a template wizard who knows how to code the categorisation based on whether {{Non-free poster}} was called directly or through one of the redirects? Paint me confused! I've moved them to the manual subpage for now. Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved them back because they can be done by bot. I've updated all of the category tags contained within the templates; they only appear to be in the old category name because of job queue lag. However, at some point someone may have substed the template, so when the lagged ones clear out the few remaining bare categories will be bot-doable. --Cyde Weys 00:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense! Thanks for the explanation, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Licenses

Removing invalid license tags. If an image is automatically going to be deleted upon being uploaded, don't bother.

Deleted automatically? How? — Alex^(T|C|E) 01:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All the ones I removed automatically put a speedy deletion template right on the image's description page. So they just end up being deleted. It's a waste of time for everyone involved. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I got confused, I thought there was some sort of add-in that automatically deleted images without a license. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 01:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think there is a bot somewhere that flags all images that aren't tagged with valid licenses, but none that delete them automatically. --Cyde Weys 01:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Cyde. I've raised a concern at MediaWiki talk:Licenses. Also, would you bypass the double redirect at Template:Fairusein? --Iamunknown 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hildegarde of Bingen infobox

No disagreement about the content of the infobox already being in the article. But I don't know, based on admittedly limited experience, that the infobox is supposed to include anything that isn't already in the article. And, for what it's worth, there was a prior argument over which infobox to use, and the last one was an agreed upon compromise. I grant you that the infobox is probably not an absolute requirement, but I would welcome any input in how to perhaps find and or include an infobox with enough info to prevent such removal again. I want you to know that I am in no way questioning your removal of the infobox, simply wondering how to change it so that it no longer merits removal. Thank you for your indulgence. John Carter 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are infoboxes necessary at all? This one really doesn't add anything. It encourages a sort of bite-size information culture where people don't even bother reading the article; rather, they glimpse at a few distilled facts in a nicely-formatted box. In short, I removed the infobox because the article is better without it. --Cyde Weys 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

By that argument, you will be pretty busy; info. boxes are everywhere. Unless there is something specific about the use of one here, I can't see that there is any reason for this article to be treated differently. I know some people don't like info. boxes, for some of the reasons you've stated, and fair enough. But there are forums for those broader discussions. — scribblingwoman 02:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes are a per-article decision. There's no global rule saying that either every article has to have them or that none should. It's on a case-by-case basis. This article is better without one. Also, that there are dozens of different infoboxes, and several that could apply to this particular article, should tell you something. --Cyde Weys 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thread on WP:ANI

Just wanted to point out that a conversation has been started concerning a recent block you have made. --OnoremDil 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already unblocked R.D.H. and was reading in another window before coming here, but the thread still stands as stated above. You are not an uninvolved user and your stated reason for blocking does not fall under our blocking policy (we don't block users indefinitely for threatening to leave, or deleting comments once). -- nae'blis 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand Cyde's block to be a result of RDH's threat.. rather RDH said he had left and that he would only return to attack the project, and based on RDH's contribs it would appear that he has made good on his promise. Do we not block people who edit with a stated goal of causing harm or creating disruption? Perhaps I'm missing some important positive aspect of RDH's contributions, but otherwise I think the user should remain blocked. --Gmaxwell 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm placing any responses on the subject of the block itself on the thread at ANI, to avoid duplication/fragmentation. If Cyde wants to discuss here outside that 'official' context, I am more than willing to do so. Cheers. -- nae'blis 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that's it on ANI, we might as well not fragment the conversation (more people will see it there anyway). Although anything on wiki is "official", really, per ArbCom precedent. Hell, even some things off-wiki are "official", whatever that means. --Cyde Weys 17:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page for response to the potential errors in unblocking. If you'd rather talk here, just say the word, but we both seem to be able to handle dual-threaded conversations. -- nae'blis 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to be admin without knowing how to handle forest fires :-P Cyde Weys 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Category: Screenshots of video games

Recently, you've changed all the images in the subcategories of the titular category and made it so they'd appear in the parent category as well as their respective subcategories. Frankly, it's gotten the parent category even more stuffed than before. Could you please undo it and/or perhaps make it so that it won't happen again? - N. Harmonik 18:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please give me some example diffs so I know exactly what you're talking about? I'm still a bit unclear. --Cyde Weys 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, it was your bot that's been doing it. My mistake! Still, here's an example: [4] - N. Harmonik 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In that edit Cydebot did exactly what it was supposed to do. I suppose your complaint is that the new {{Non-free game screenshot}} template also categories everything it is put on into Category:Screenshots of video games. I think this is a valid complaint. Image licensing tags (which is what "Non-free game screenshot" is) probably shouldn't be categorizing images by what they are. I think you should post a comment to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/templates asking others if they agree that the added categories on the licensing templates should be removed. --Cyde Weys 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh Cyde

I wish you and I had met in happpier times, I think we could have been friends. "Incontinent" has several meanings the most often used outside the medical context is "Not restrained; uncontrolled: incontinent rage" as described here [5]. Giano 22:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Incontinent rage" is giving me the funniest/disturbingest mental image right now. --Cyde Weys 23:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Aww, shit, fellas, don't be mad.  ;-) Friday (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DownDaRoad

I posted this to you some months ago but you never replied, I really need to discuss you blocking this account with you please. Can you let me know when you have five minutes so I can put my side of the story across as your blocking of that account is constantly being used against me to discredit my contributions. I believe that if you look at WP:CANVAS you will see that my use of the alternate user name was acceptable under that policy as because it was "Accepted due to - Limited posting AND Neutral AND Bipartisan"

If you look at the contributions you will see that approximately 50 messages. All of the messages were the same like this which is neutral in tone and content.

Finally the bipartisan issue half I sent the message to users who should a history of having differing views on the subject, if you look at there contributions this can be borne out and the proof is in the pudding - some of the people I sent it so disagreed and some agreed with the proposal. See here for the vote.

I am happy to have a tag put on the User:DownDaRoad user page to state that I own it but the away it stands now make me look terrible and sinister, my reason for using a different editor name to to this one were entirely genuine as I did not want the people I sent the message to to be swayed by my vote and to see it with fresh eyes.--Vintagekits 13:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just point people to the diff of this message if they keep trying to use your blocked account against you: let it go. It's past. I personally don't consider it to be a huge deal, so stop hounding him over his past indiscretions. --Cyde Weys 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rhinos

Hi, thanks to your bot for moving Category:Rhinos to Category:Rhinoceroses per this discussion [6]. However, it didn't move the subcats that were in the same nomination (Category:Prehistoric rhinos, Category:Famous rhinos, and Category:Fictional rhinos). Can you move them to the appropriate rhinoceros-named categories? Thanks. Lesnail 17:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me just verify that the following three moves are correct:

• Category:Prehistoric rhinos to Category:Prehistoric rhinoceroses
• Category:Famous rhinos to Category:Famous rhinoceroses
• Category:Fictional rhinos to Category:Fictional rhinoceroses

These sound good? If they are, I'll feed them to the bot. --Cyde Weys 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Lesnail 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list criteria

I reverted your edit to Wikipedia:Featured list criteria because any changes should be proposed and discussed at the talk page first. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle --Iamunknown 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've had BOLD and revert, so time to discuss. :-) Seriously though, as I stated at WP:AN, the criterai do not encourage tge use of copyrighted images. The key phrase is that the images must have "accpetable copyright status". (As per WP:FAIR). If they don't, they cannot become FLs. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's we I like that essay, because it allows you to be bold but then it also helps foster discussion and consensus as well. (-: (Kind of noble, ain't it?) --Iamunknown 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What an enlightening discussion that was. I love [t]elevision is a visual medium, visual identification does things words alone can not. These legal scholars deserve to be on SCOTUS. Oh, wait, maybe people cluelessly spouting off about what the law permits would be a step up over this or this. Guettarda 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh so much wiki-drama (not you Guettarda, just the whole fair-use-in-lists in general) --Iamunknown 21:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, agree there. Please add your supprt to my propoasl at the bottom. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as I explained at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Simpsons (season 8)... episode lists with screenshots for every episode never get through anyway. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. --Iamunknown 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of X-Men episodes

What basis did you have to protect this article? I noticed that not all of the other lists were protected after the images were removed, why did you choose to do this? The Placebo Effect 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the protection log entry unclear? And most of the lists were not protected because nobody edit-warred over the images on them. Protecting the list is a kinder action than blocking the person re-inserting the violation images, wouldn't you think? --Cyde Weys 21:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That was not an edit war yet, in my opinion, you should have waited untill the second time. It could be viewed, as I veiwed it, as using admin powers to enforce your views. The Placebo Effect 21:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you seeen the history??? Umpteen reverts form multiple editors is an edit war in my books. Tompw (talk) (review) 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was only one revert by one person on the day that this happened! How is that an edit war? The Placebo Effect 15:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

:) Free TV episodes for everyone! --Gmaxwell 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay~ Then we could endlessly illustrate lists! (Has anyone actually tried to contact production studios? You don't know that they won't GFDL-license a few screenshots if you don't try.) --Iamunknown 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, any screenshot that they GFDLed would open up whatever likenesses were in that screenshot to any sort of modification possible. I don't think they'd go for such freedom. --Cyde Weys 21:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whaat about Creative Commons licences? Free distribution, no modification? Tompw (talk) (review) 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, they might, but those would still be non-free according to the new foundation resolution which is based upon freedomdefined.org. --Iamunknown 22:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How come Commons allows such licenses then? (Generally seen in images sourced form Flickr). Tompw (talk) (review) 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There exist quite a few Creative Commons licenses which are "free" to various extents. For more information about what is permitted on Commons (and what is considered "free" on every Wikimedia project), see commons:Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. --Iamunknown 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just what I was looking for - thanks for that :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Creative Commons is also known as "Creating Confusion" around these parts. Free content is not their central tenet. Their central tent is simply to make it easier for the average Joe to take advantage of copyright and license his works under it (in the same way that corporations do routinely). Two of the CC licenses (CC-by and CC-by-sa) happen to be "free" in the same sense of the word as what is used in the free software movement, and are compatible with Wikipedia's goals. The rest of the licenses aren't. Heck, there's even one license that boils down to "All rights reserved". --Cyde Weys 13:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What's all that about, I was being serious because the way I viewed it, he used admin powers in a way that, if the debate weren't happening, would have been viewed as abusing them. The Placebo Effect 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to see relevant discussion regarding allegations of admin abuse at WP:AN. I personally don't think it was admin abuse in this or the other case; it is apparent that others disagree. --Iamunknown 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy

"You know why I have to explain it? Because you don't get it. "

I want that tattooed on my back. Best two-sentence summation ever.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:O^O posting HDV code

Can you check out User:O^O. He keeps creating new articles which appear to have the HD-DVD code. I've deleted these new article but, per a comment on my talk page [7], he's denying that's what the articles are. If they aren't the code, the articles are patent nonsense. You can see the pages I deleted at [8] and at (code removed). Just want to get a second opinion on what I'm doing. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This guy has a long history of disruption. I've blocked him for a week. It's obvious what he's doing here. --Cyde Weys 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I figured I'd get a second opinion before blocking him myself. Thanks, --Alabamaboy 17:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

reminder

I just wanted to let you know that I could use your intervention as soon as you could spare it. Tewfik^Talk 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Errr, to what are you referring? --Cyde Weys 01:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I sent you an email, but I can reproduce it here if you can't find it. Tewfik^Talk 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free historic images

Hey Cyde, wondering what's up with this edit -- [9]. Now all non-free historic images are in Special:Uncategorizedimages :-( --Iamunknown 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh lots from Template:Non-free comic as well. What do you think a better name for that category would be? (Non-free comic media maybe?) --Iamunknown 02:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Non-free historic image thing was a mistake. I thought I was removing something else. I've reverted it. As for the comics, sure, that sounds fine, but "image" is probably more specific than "media", because I don't think anything but images count as comics. --Cyde Weys 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. --Iamunknown 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Premature closing of deletion review?

Per the Deletion review comment which you removed [10], to echo your comment, I'm not sure what part of "five days" you don't understand. What is the correct venue to complain when an AFD is closed out of process and the history is removed, then the deletion review is closed out of process. The rules for deletion review say it should stay up for 5 days, and this one was closed after 13 hours, with the vast majority of editors opposed to the speedy deletion and removal of all traces of the AFD. If you don't want people appending comments to the "closed" deletion review, then don't allow people to close it 13 hours after it is opened, when their viewpint is losing. Allow editors such as myself a chance to add our views. Did the owner of the Super Secret Number the Wikipedia Foundation and demand that all traces of it be removed? Did the Wikipedia legal counsel ask that oversight be applied? Is there any log to show when oversight actions are taken? Do you feel that when oversight removes something a comment to the effect should be added to the discussion page for the affected AFD? I am just checking to see if there is a process and that it is being followed. Thanks. Edison 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this thread to get an idea of what's going on. Long story short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an activism zone, publishing the key exposes us to danger, and there's no encyclopedic merit in doing so anyway. --Cyde Weys 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(I happened to notice this because your talk page is on my watchlist) I think it should also be noted that, although it appears to have come out after that discussion, there is advice from the EFF at this point stating that their interpretation of the DMCA points to the publication of the key being illegal and the safe harbor provision being inapplicable; in other words, we can't just wait for a notice. --Philosophus ^T 12:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of the Office saying anything, I'd much rather listen to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for my advice on this issue than some self-styled legal "buff" on WP:ANI. The EFF employs real lawyers. The people saying it's okay on ANI are not, and are just speaking from an amateur (and potentially very harmful) understanding of law. --Cyde Weys 20:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Library of Congress

Template:Library of Congress has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Abu badali ^(talk) 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Clydebot

Concerning this: robot - Removing category Eponymous diseases per CFD. I consider it improper to delete a category without suggested replacement. Especially in the cases when the category is single and leaves article uncategorized. In this particular case, a supercategory Category:Diseases and disorders would have worked, at least initially. May I suggest you to improve the bot, at least to catch the cases where the article becomes uncategrrized? Mukadderat 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CFD. I just ran the bot that implemented the decision decided there. --Cyde Weys 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't argue that the decision was valid. What I am saying is that leaving an article totally uncategorized is probably not a good idea. And I may sussgest, if it is not difficult to implement, that if the article becomes uncategorized then put it into a higher category, e.g., using a parameter passed to bot. Just an idea of some additional smartness of the bot, not a complaint. Mukadderat 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Self-destructing email"

To whomever sent me the "self-destructing email" — I'm leaving a message here for you on the assumption that you know me through Wikipedia. I'm not really sure that you know me through Wikipedia (in which case this talk page comment is useless), though, because after reading only the first paragraph or so, which only managed to establish that my name is Ben, I clicked on the page and the damn thing "self-destructed". So, as a result, I have no idea what you tried to say to me. Choose a better method of communication next time, for God's sakes. Like, you know, regular email. --Cyde Weys 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you at least get to the point where it said, "This mail will self destruct in five seconds?" You should read quicker. Those things are dangerous. Cary Bass ^demandez 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, no, it didn't say that. It does apparently intercept all clicks anywhere on the page and take that as a cue to delete it, though. Pretty silly. I'm just naturally in the fidgeting habit of clicking around on blank areas and selecting text and such. Needless to say, this self-destructing message website is rather defective. So I have no idea what this guy was trying to say to me. Wonder if it was important? I'm thinking it must be, if he went through all the hassle of using this third-party service that offers self-destructing messages. --Cyde Weys 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of notices from WP:CN

Hi Cyde, I was the one who reinstaed the notices delted by User:Tony Sidaway - I guess I was wrong to do so. I had asked Durova if Tony's action was normal and she told it was not. Did I misinterpret her? I'm kind of surprised the notices are not being archived though- is there a reason for this? Sorry for all the questions I thought I was acting properly by reinstating the notices--Cailil ^talk 15:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't being deleted — they will always be available to read in the page history. One was a routine ban that I suppose could remain archived if I bothered enough to care to figure out how to use the closure templates, but the other was unsubstantiated whinging that was not leading up to a community ban. We should be routinely removing, not archiving, these, as they may be used unfairly in the future against someone. WP:CSN is not part of the dispute resolution process. If a ban is not going to be coming, and it's just devolved into pointless bickering, it needs to all be removed, and the participants told to shove off to WP:RFC or some other appropriate venue. --Cyde Weys 15:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining that - removal of pettiness makes perfect sense. I found the closure templates BTW. {{discussion top}}{{discussion bottom}}. 2 of the discussions Tony removed were started be me so I feel obliged to ask you to reconsider their inclusion. WP:CN#requested_site_ban_for_User:Anacapa & WP:CN#Disruption_by_User:Miaers - IMHO if they are to be closed they should be archived. Do you have a view on this?--Cailil ^talk 15:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh ... you can archive them if you really wish. There's not much of a point to it, though, because this link will always take you directly back to the discussion, no manual archiving necessary. --Cyde Weys 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, I noted your comments on the MFD/CSN page, and I suspect consensus is flowing that way (to keeping CSN and removing discussions that are approaching consensus to ban quickly). Now, I'm not a fan of templates and boxes, but I'm wondering if what CSN needs is something like this:

The discussion regarding UserX has been removed from this page because it is not approaching a consensus for sanction at this time. If you feel further action is necessary, please see our Dispute Resolution process.

I just grabbed the Caution template as an example, but a simple template could be made where a single parameter replaces UserX. As I say, I'm not a fan of such boxes, but the discussion template seems to generate its own drama so this might work better. I hope this is helpful. --InkSplotch 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks good. I approve. --Cyde Weys 22:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan and User:Bus stop

No disagreement about "pointless bickering". However, I do note that a lot of this "bickering", particularly from one side, involves regular insults, possibly at least bordering on personal attacks, by the party mentioned in the headline above. I have yet to see any of these assertions sourced, by the way. In the event, as seems likely, that the article for deletion discussion on the List of notable converts to Christianity results in a "keep" decision, is there any way to resolve this matter such that the above named user, whose persistance at least I find laudable, might no longer continue to post these insults and or unsubstantiated claims? I'm new here, and acknowledge up front that I am less than familiar with all the protocols involved in wikipedia. Thank you for your attention in this matter. John Carter 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest using the Dispute resolution process. It it was you're supposed to go to first. Banning is generally the last step, and only undertaken in rather extreme circumstances. --Cyde Weys 15:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For what little it might be worth, I remember contacting most (if not all, it's hard to remember at this stage) of the various "lower" level processes and being told each time to basically "try (X)". That was actually how it wound up where it did. But I can't see whether or not I requested a formal mediation. Maybe that would be the way to go. John Carter 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding 'dead' category

I recently noticed that [[Category:Fair use size reduction request]] has been deleted. Is there are AfD or something I missed? David Füchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD would be Articles for deletion, so no, you didn't miss an AFD. This was part of a goings-on regarding the renaming of templates. This category was either renamed or made redundant/unnecessary. I don't really remember which. There was a lot of work to do, put it that way. --Cyde Weys 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Endal (dog)

• Released under the GNU Free Documentation License added to bottom of the article at Helium, http://www.helium.com/user/show/21725, as you requested/suggested hope this makes things easier, at least a start in proving authenticity Endal and Allen 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• How long till result of PFD How long does the process go on for when an article is put forward for deletion. I would like to author up the page with the help of others but feel like we are stuck in the hangman's noose awaiting the fall!!! Endal and Allen 09:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Legiao3.jpg

As stated on the page, Renato Russo, the main character in that image, died ten years ago and no substitute can be produced. It is not an "image of living people". The origin is also clearly stated as coming from the website of one of the former band members, drummer Marcelo Bonfá. That tag is not apropriate. Macgreco 03:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Cyde. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. By the way, I've removed the userbox that caused your opposition. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor bot tweak

Cydebot is misspelling "fair use in" as "fair us in" in its edit summaries. Pagrashtak 13:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for letting me know. I think we can firmly attribute this one to human error rather than bot error ... Cyde Weys 14:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 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 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Random image

Just to spice up my talk page a little bit.

--Cyde Weys 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bots

Is this message from a bot [11] - something to do with you? If it is please discipline it and bring it under control. The image which I took myself is perfectly legitimate. Regards Giano 20:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that the bot was just changing language in an old subst'd template. Given that the problem with the image description seems to have been corrected some time ago, this seems unnecessary, but perhaps it's the template itself that should have been removed by now, as the bot has no way to distinguish. In any event, as I read it, no one is saying that as of now there's a problem with the image—correct? Newyorkbrad 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Giano, relax, it's just a template renaming. It's changing all of the old instructions of using {{Fairusein}} to the new instruction of using {{Non-free fair use in}}. --Cyde Weys 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please could you sort it out for me Cyde, I do not understand these things - I have uploaded so many images I cannot be expected to understand the ever changing requirements - but if I say I have taken a foto, I promise you it is very unlikely that anyone else will want to own it! Giano 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just a template renaming. You don't have to do anything besides relaxing. --Cyde Weys 20:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am always perfectly relaxed, almost comatose in fact, thank you Cyde, who is the other person "whatsisname" commenting on the image - is he a bot or a cyde-kick or does he truly exist? Giano 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Come again? Who is "whatsisname"? If he has a name, just come out and say it. --Cyde Weys 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll go and look it up - be patent. Giano 21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There User:Nv8200p who seems to be in some way connected or tangled with your bot - how can peole be expected to remember complicated names like that - sounds more like a licence plate that someone's name Giano 21:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean he's connected or tangled with my bot? I've never even heard of him before. I'm still unsure of what you're trying to say. --Cyde Weys 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am merely rtying to ascertain from you, why this man is signing messages from your bot? Giano 08:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He is?! That is very strange. Can you link me to a diff? --Cyde Weys 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here he is, your bot edits - he signs: [12] I am getting very confused, especually as my image information has always said who took the photograph - which is me! Giano 13:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Giano, he left a message on April 14. My bot came by later on May 6 and modified one of the templates used in his comment. He didn't sign Cydebot's edit; Cydebot merely came by much later and modified what he said. This is evident in the diff. The red text is the only thing that's changed. --Cyde Weys 13:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well now I'm even more confused, I don't know why Cydebot was interfering with other people's messages for - I thought it was only concerned with images I shall have to get my own bot up and working to solve these problems. Giano 18:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot is fixing templates. It fixes the templates everywhere, even inside of people's messages. It's not modifiying messages specifically. --Cyde Weys 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Giano, the bot was doing the equivalent of automated redirect-fixing. The template's name has been changed, so, since the bot, being a bot, is dumb, it's changing it even on outdated messages. You don't need to do anything about the image itself, it's not trying to send you a message, everything is (hopefully) fine :) Mak (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, that is the same message it left last month - I don't understand bots and I certainly don't trust them. Giano 08:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Relax, they're not Skynet or anything. I much more trust a bot than the average editor. --Cyde Weys 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cydebot being stupid

WTG. Kotepho 21:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeouch ... I didn't realize there was such a thing as {{Freefairusein}}. Luckily it doesn't seem to be widely used, and it would only get messed up on pages that also included a link to {{fairusein}}, which probably only affects a grand total of one page (the one you just pointed out). --Cyde Weys 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comic book covers: bot edit issues

[Cross-posted from Template talk:Non-free logo#Problem with comic cover template.]

Cyde, your User:Cydebot has migrated everything that used to use Template:comiccover to Template:Non-free comic. This includes all the articles in Category:Comic book covers.

I understand that the purpose has to do with the revision of the copyright wording. Unfortunately, the new template is inappropriate, because it clearly claims that the art is the interior of a comic book. But these are comic book covers.

I don't want to edit the templates since it would interfere with your work. Any recommendations? Do we need a Template:Non-free comic cover? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need an additional template. Just modify Template:Non-free comic to be less specific so that it doesn't refer to images that are only on the interior of the comic book. As far as copyright law is concerned, it doesn't really matter whether the images come from the outside or inside of a published book; they're all still copyrighted to the same degree. --Cyde Weys 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget the difference between non-free tags and fair use rationale. The non-free tag just identifies the nature of the copyrighted source. The fair use rationale is what is necessary to make a claim of fair use. This is the part that could potentially differ depending on whether you are claiming fair use on a scanned interior strip or a cover scan. It's probably easier to claim fair use on a cover as being representative of a comic book in whole, for instance. --Cyde Weys 04:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I viewed a pre-redirect version of Template:comiccover and took its old text, and incorporated it into Template:Non-free comic. I think the new template is a bit long, but since it only appears on the image page that probably won't be a problem. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		{{{1}}}

Is there a developer's noticeboard, or feature request, or something else I can weigh in to support your request of putting in a maximum attempts/time feature? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, I don't think it's barnstar worthy. If you had seen Tubgirl in the sitenotice above the page title I'm sure you'd have done the same thing just as quickly. --Cyde Weys 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: a comment to Jiang

Re this,
Hanlon's razor. This comment just rubs salt into the wound. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, coming fresh off deleting Tubgirl from every page on Wikipedia didn't exactly leave me in a pleasant state of mind. I wouldn't make the comment quite so brusquely were I to make it now, now that the moment has passed. --Cyde Weys 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Clydebot editing talk pages.

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that Clydebot is changing template links on talk pages. See here: [13]. Note that this is also an archived talk page. I don't think this is appropriate. The bot should probably exclude the entire talk namespace. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 11:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Doesn't change the meaning of the archived message, and it helps spread the word that the template names have changed. --kingboyk 12:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Clydebot has nothing to do with me. --Cyde Weys 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Template_talk:Fairuse_rationale_needed#Before_4_May_2006.3F

Can you help out here Cyde? What's supposed to happen to fair use images with no rationale which were uploaded before May 06? --kingboyk 12:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PGP key

Good idea that you had. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
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=DnsX
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

May you excuse my l4m3ne$$ in this department, but what's this madness about? I thought you were exchanging keys, but instead, most of you are straight sending encrypted messages. What's the content? I might join this lunacy, were it not the fact that I don't quite get the protocol. Миша13 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, if we told you the content, there wouldn't be any point in the encryption, now would there? :-P Join the lunacy! Just download GPG — it's available for all systems. --Cyde Weys 21:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it is - I have (but not use) it for ages - just wondered if the content must be somehow special to satisfy the challenge protocol you're using apparently. Миша13 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we're really just composing haikus. --Cyde Weys 04:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you never sent me yours :P -- Avi 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyde could tell you, but then he'd have to desysop you >:). (Joke) -- Avi 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Self with disclaimers

Just curious - can you retag and image of your own - from self with disclaimers to self no disclaimers? Guettarda 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder of the image, then yes! And please do!  :) See Wikipedia:GFDL standardization for more info. --Iamunknown 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Cyde, my apologies for putting words in your mouth. I obviously misunderstood your comment, and I'm sorry for that. I do understand, and respect, your opinion that the sig I was using could present unexpected difficulties. I thank you for raising your concern about it. Pastordavid 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm an American. If I was offended every time I saw a crucifix I wouldn't be able to live here. I'm glad that you now understand that people may legitimately object to religious symbolism for reasons other than that they are personally offended. --Cyde Weys 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sig symbol

The symbol in my signature isn't a crucifix, it's a "Dagger (typography)". A dagger is a common typographical symbol used as an alternate to asterisks when linking to footnotes. I picked it for use as a link to my talk page because of its resemblance to the letter "T". Do you really think it's open to misinterpretation? -Will Beback · † · 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it is open to misinterpretation. See this comment: it's a guy justifying a real crucifix in a signature (which is unambiguous as the user in question is Pastordavid) by saying, "Oh look, Will Beback is doing it too." --Cyde Weys 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde here. I took it as an endorsement of Christianity in your signature as well as Pastordavid's, but it was not worth raising a stink over. -- nae'blis 22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So "Will be back · †" is not intended as a reference to the second coming? Dragons flight 22:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images and rationales

I appreciate your position about removing excess nonfree images, and I supported removing the screenshots attached to every episode in the episode lists. My position with respect to the one image at question on List of Lost episodes (Image:Lost101.jpg) is that, since it has a fair use rationale that is not completely bogus (if you assume good faith about it), everyone needs to work together to find a compromise. As long as fair use images are allowed here, and they still are, it doesn't make sense to set the bar for including them so high that they are allowed by policy but prohibited de facto. One image, along with commentary, seems like a reasonable compromise to me. CMummert · talk 15:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need to be at the List of Lost episodes article though? Doesn't it make more sense for it to be in the main article about the show? The list does not (and cannot, for length reasons) go into a lot of depth about any particular episode. --Cyde Weys 15:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the list article could be edited to make the image fit and meet the policies. One improvement would be to change the list of sesaons to make it more of an article and less of a list. That would provide a place to include critical commentary. I think (never having seen the show) that it started with the plane crash. If you put a caption below the image like "The first episode includes this scene of destruction and isolation after a plane crash on a remote tropical island" that would be a start. If I had actually seen the show I am sure I could do better. So I think it would not be so hard to compromise here. If you feel that no fair use images should be used, that's reasonable, but the policy needs to be changed to acheive that. Until then, we need to work together to find a compromise between too many fair use images and no fair use images. That compromise may include more fair use images than you would really like to see, but that's the nature of compromise. CMummert · talk 15:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"I think that the list article could be edited to make the image fit and meet the policies." — see, that's what I'm having a problem with. It means that the ultimate goal of the people involved is to have images on the article, and they'll do anything to meet that goal, including making up fair use rationale, refactoring the article, trying to change policy, etc. That's the opposite way to do things. Write the article as normal and then see if it can be helped by images later. If you actually write the list article normally and don't go into it with the preconceptions that you want to fit an image in there somehow, you'll see that the image really doesn't fit. --Cyde Weys 15:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the ultimate goal is to find a compromise so that everyone can go on with other things. That means working within policy to accommodate everyone's interests.

Apparently (speaking as someone who doesn't edit these articles) a lot of people do think that these articles should have images. There is a strong case that they shouldn't have very many images. But the policy does seem to support fair use images in limited cases. I don't think it's somehow devious to refactor the articles - I don't like lists much anyway, and would rather see text in prose form when that's reasonable. So if I wrote the list article normally, the seasons would already be in prose. I think fair use rationales are always made up - that's why they're called "rationales". The idea of a use must come before the rationale for the use.

I think you are saying that everything must be perfect before an image can be included, but I think that's too high a standard. If a poor reference in a BLP article can be improved, we don't always remove the fact rather than improving the reference. Similarly, I don't see why removing an image rather than fixing a rationale is always the right thing to do. CMummert · talk 15:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The other grand migration

Cyde,

When you finish "non-free"ing up the world, I wonder if your bot would tackle another tricky one.

Could you rename every use of {{GFDL}} to {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} (or similar) and then replace {{GFDL}} with {{GFDL}} and further update all the links?

Way back in the dawn of time, some well intentioned but misguided soul added "Subject to disclaimers" to the bottom of {{GFDL}}. For legal reasons having to do with the structure of the GFDL, this can never be removed from any image on which it appears aside from asking each copyright holder individually. Most wikis, except for EN, do not include the "disclaimers" in their GFDL tag which gives rise to a cross-project incompatibility (resulting in a special GFDL-en on Commons). Half the battle was creating {{GFDL}} and {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} and making these the default in our licensing drop down menu (more than a year ago in the former case) so that new images are not saddled "with disclaimers". The no-disclaimers version is the equivalent of Commons:Template:GFDL, and allows new images to be on equal footing with those on other projects, but the different template names are still potentially confusing.

To finish normalizing the issue, I would like to move everything currently tagged with the "disclaimers" version of GFDL to a specific "GFDL-with-disclaimers" and then free up the space for returning {{GFDL}} to a "disclaimer"-free state the same as it appears on other projects. Dragons flight 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, can you just make sure there's consensus for this first? So I don't get into a heap of trouble? --Cyde Weys 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, go make an appropriate subpage somewhere in Wikipedia: space explaining this change so I can link to it in the edit summaries. --Cyde Weys 21:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And should this be done with {{GFDL-self}} and {{GFDL}} in an analogous fashion? --Cyde Weys 23:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've created Wikipedia:GFDL standardization to explain the issue, and what I hope to do about it. Time to do a little advertising. Dragons flight 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hurray! I'm glad this is finally going to happen. I saw your post on some talk page (don't remember which), Dragons flight, from ages ago, and I always wanted it to happen.  :-D --Iamunknown 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing {{GFDL}} to {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} now. Then I'll tackle {{GFDL-self}} to {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}. Then we let the dust settle and decide when we want to move the "with disclaimers" templates over to the bare templates. --Cyde Weys 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot could be a bit smarter in the block change from GFDL-self to GFDL-self-with-disclaimers, by checking with the uploader if that's the right thing to do? I've just had to change 16 of my images to GFDL-self-no-disclaimers by hand, which your bot could presumably do just as easily? Salinae 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this cannot be done automatically, for legal reasons. There are substantive reasons why "with disclaimers" is different than "no disclaimers", and one cannot simply run around tagging a bunch of images that were released with disclaimers as being released with no disclaimers. --Cyde Weys 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you can't just block retag the images - what you could do is have the bot ask the owners of lots of images if they could all be retagged without the disclaimers - and then retag them correctly if given permission. The effect of the bot for me is that I have to retag all the images by hand anyway, so there is no saving in my time. Salinae 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone involved in this process is to be commended for their efforts (and yet, I do have the feeling that if the disclaimers had just been quietly dropped, no one would have noticed :) ). Newyorkbrad 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of a chemistry editor

An editor who have edited chemistry-related articles and userbox creator User:PatPeter apparently has been banned for "suicide", what happened to him? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't actually commit suicide, he was just seeking attention in a most disruptive manner. We're better off without him around. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And according to banning policy, what happen to those chemical articles he made? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing special? He was banned for reasons that had nothing to do with his article writing. --Cyde Weys 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay I was just try to make sure he wasn't blocked for those articles. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Infoboxneeded. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --NE2 02:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello Cyde, your recent edit to Talk:Double Dragon 3: The Rosetta Stone does not make much sense to me. There is an infobox at the article already, and the template is obviously not showing up properly anyway. Could you double-check your edit and get back to me? Best regards. --Darkbane 03:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, now that the infobox shows up properly, I can see the reason for it. But shouldn't it be moved to the article page instead? --Darkbane 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am the one who added a proper infobox to the article, and in my assessment the infobox needed template no longer applies. --Darkbane 03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there consideration for deleting Template:infoboxneeded? Further, why do you think it doesn't belong on the article? This was discussed at WP:VP and agreed upon. Your comments and your quick changes to the contrary don't really make any sense. The bot (that was approved, by the way) that moved the tag to the article did the right thing. Much of the time, the infobox already existed on the article, so the bot simply removed the useless banner from the talk page. Timneu22 16:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This template absolutely does not belong on article pages. How could you possibly think it does?! Article pages are for the articles themselves, while the talk pages are for meta discussion (including of the "this needs an infobox" variety). We allow limited exceptions for templates to go on articles because they can be acted upon by the general reader and may help improve the encyclopedia. For instance, a template that says "This section should be expanded" or "This article needs to be cleaned up" can be acted upon by the average reader, who just has to go in and modify the article text. Infoboxes, however, cannot be made by at least 99.99% of our readers; the syntax is hideous, ugly, non-standard, and hard to learn. So we should not be putting these notices on the articles themselves. --Cyde Weys 16:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Very dodgy bot approval in the first place. I would have declined it if I hadn't resigned from BAG. Oh the irony :P --kingboyk 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC) PS I rolled back Timneu's removal of the tfd tag and got a load of ranting for my troubles. I've directed him to the template talk page and recommended he read the MFD again. --kingboyk 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, haha, you shouldn't have resigned :-P I'm seriously wondering how in the hell this bot was approved. I get grief for making necessary and vital edits that just so happen to be at a fast pace, but counter-productive, useless edits get approved so far as they're done relatively slowly. Harrumph. I'm just glad I have a master rollback tool. --Cyde Weys 17:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem mate was a lack of communication. If xaosflux knew what you were doing and that the dev's had okayed it, it wouldn't have escalated. Anyrode, water under the bridge. I now understand the purpose of the task (even that wasn't very well communicated at the time :)) and can see how useful it is. Can't say the same for the infobox task tho ;) --kingboyk 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, no hard feelings. I'm not bothered in the least by the length of Cydebot's block log anyhow. Now my own block log, on the other hand, does irk me. --Cyde Weys 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost as there is a reply above that seems to be directed at me... or maybe not. Originally the article did not have an infobox. As I added an infobox, I removed the tag from the article itself. Did I go wrong somewhere? --Darkbane 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this isn't directed at you, and yes, it sounds like you did what was intended. This argument is over whether the {{infoboxrequested}} template should be placed on the article itself or the article's talk page. For some bizarre reason people are claiming that it belongs on the article; I've outlined the reasons why this is a very bad idea above. --Cyde Weys 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a current discussion on WP:VP. Weigh in. Cyde, I really don't like your tone. If you had any source to cite for your strong beliefs, maybe I'd be a bit more "reasonable." However, you really are just citing your opinion. Please weigh in on the current Village Pump that is mentioned from Template talk:Infoboxrequested. Timneu22 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice use of scare quotes and bad logic (my opinions are invalid because they're opinions but yours are correct because ... they're also opinions?). Oh, and I can't find the discussion at Village Pump. Give me a more specific link, because "WP:VP" isn't cutting it. You do know that there are six different village pump pages, right? --Cyde Weys 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

This is getting ridiculous. DBachmann (sic) unblocks without discussion, (against blocking policy), despite what later showed to be overwhelming approval for the block, I get told to "review blocking policy" and accused of threatening a wheel war for claiming "if he's unblocked I'll PREVENTATIVELY reblock and report to AN/I for review" on my talk page, and now the unblocking "side" refuses to admit, to a man, that they've been wrong in any way. Let alone Ploutarchous (again, SIC, these names are from memory), leaves open-ended questions about "who's behind an open proxy?". This is absolutely insane. I would like to take you up on your request of helping formulate an ArbCom case. Due to the massive Florida wildfires/firestorm, I am stranded in orlando for an indefinite period of time. I've got nothing better to do. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. Send me your rough draft via email as soon as you're finished with it. --Cyde Weys 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an ArbCom case would be wildly premature at this point. Before today, the user has never been blocked more than 24 hours, the current one-week block for "repeated 3RR violations" is controversial, there have been no prior blocks and few warnings for civility issues, and I am not aware of any RfC or other prior attempts at dispute resolution. Newyorkbrad 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

k/K(i)B

Are you sure about that? (Kilobyte doesn't agree.) —Ruud 05:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wheee, I learned something new today. I didn't realize lowercase ks were used to represent 1,000 while uppercase Ks mean 1,024 (at least in some circles). Of course, this is entirely backwards, because K is the SI prefix for 10^3 so it should really mean 1,000 and then the lowercase k could be used to represent 1,024. As you can see, it's rather ambiguous, and the only solution is to use IEEE 1541. KiB and KB are not ambiguous, whereas kB and KB, which are not standardized, are. --Cyde Weys 13:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Cyde, thank you for your participation in my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday. In the end, I did change back to the default sig, in order to avoid any chance of disruptiveness. Thank you for raising your valid and reasonable concerns, and I hope we will have the opportunity to work together in the future. Pastordavid 16:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimediaplayer.js

I added a line to bail out when document.getElementById('file') doesn't exist, which is the case when a user is editing the image description page (and probably the same for history, delete, and protect tabs as well). Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Terribly sorry

I wasn't aware I was spamming I'm done regardless, but I invited everyone who was in the category of Wikipedian New York Giants fans to the project. I would think that's not really spamming but regardless it's done. I'm removing your message as I've read and understood it and also as I'm in very good standing on the project generally. Again my apologies.Quadzilla99 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not the best idea to remove the message just yet. Other people are going to see the spam and are going to go to your talk page and yell about it, whereas if they saw my comment, they probably wouldn't bother, as they'd know you're aware that this was a bad thing already. Anyway, I sense a hint of shame — you're a bit over-eager to remove any trace of your mistakes. Best get over that. You don't blank any other messages on your talk page, so you shouldn't blank the critical ones either. Just let it be archived as normal. --Cyde Weys 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically everyone I invited was a Giants fan I can't see in any possible way how they would be upset. That's the point of the invite template of all WikiProjects btw to invite potential members. I can't see how inviting Giants fans to the Giants project is spamming. I misread your userpage here User:Cyde/Oldboxen or I wouldn't have invited you (I thought you had your userboxes on a subpage). Also as you know users are allowed to delete messages from their talk pages. I know how things go here so I'm not really in need of boilerplate warnings. This whole conversation is a complete waste of time anyway, as I've got over 21,000 edits here and I've never done that before and don't foresee doing so in the future. I just started the subproject and thought I'd everyone who was in the category of Wikipedian Giants fan. Quadzilla99 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that subpage has confused many people in the past, I suppose. Most people in the category probably are Giants fans, though I am not; I was in that category because at one point, at a lark, I put every single userbox into a subpage in my userspace. As for boilerplate warnings, what I left you wasn't boilerplate at all. I can guarantee that was 100% personally written by me for you. And just because you're allowed to remove anything doesn't automatically make it the best course of action. But you're right, this is a waste of time, so I will understand if you do not reply further here. --Cyde Weys 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)