User talk:Cyde/Archive014

NO SPAMMING

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

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

hello

I am a legitamte new user and i would just like to point out that some very bad people are using wikipedia to push an anti-american sedisous POV and they should be blocked before homeland security is forced to stop wikipedia's sedition and evality--Bob the nob wence fan 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please delete

• Template:GUS UBX to Rfrisbie^talk 19:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User zodiac:Virgo (2 protected pages) Rfrisbie^talk 02:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Chinese zodiac:Snake (1 protected page) Rfrisbie^talk 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Chinese zodiac:Horse Rfrisbie^talk 03:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Chinese zodiac:Sheep Rfrisbie^talk 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Chinese zodiac:Monkey Rfrisbie^talk 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Siggy?

Your signature is a bit annoying. If you could make the color a bit less bright and maybe unbold it, it would be great. Meybe something like Cyde⇔Weys (when you sign it, the Weys won't be bold)... SoaP 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, what I have now is fine. Besides, yours is too ... pink. I'm going for light red with my sig. --Cyde Weys 02:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the official designation of color FF66FF is "Light faded magenta." I certainly don't see light red. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FF6666 would be light red, though, if I'm not mistaken. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FF6666 is Light faded red. To play with different color combinations, go to [1] and click on the colors in the chart. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I don't know the official designations, I was just guessing based on how the hex code would probably look. syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could at least get rid of the bolding... SoaP 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you have any right to complain. My signature is less than half the size of yours. --Cyde Weys 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If they would let us transclude signatures there would be no problem. But I'm talking about the fact that it's irritating to look at a bright pink signature on white background. Especially bolded!

And look, I just made it even shorter ... Cyde Weys 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicer, but why the bolding? Does it hold any significance other than to annoy the hell out of me? :) SoaP 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, bold text is just tacky for a sig. BigNate37_(T) 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Down with bolding! SoaP 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BigNate37. Way too tacky. —Mira 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking you could go for a minimalist signature, like me. How about ⇔? Or, even better, include a link to your talk page with ←→? SoaP 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I had actually considered at one point in time going with a minimalist signature exactly like what you suggested (except light red instead of orange), but I was persuaded not to do it after an ArbCom case was pointed out to me wherein an editor was sanctioned for having an avant garde sig. --Cyde Weys 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion vs. Redirects for Deletion

Hi, wanted to let you know that I strongly oppose your renaming of the RfD process. Listing my reasons here would be redundant, as I have already posted them on the RfD talk page. In short I think this is a major, possibly harmful change that at least needs real discussion. Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I interpret your lack of response here or on the talk page to mean you have no desire to discuss your unilateral, misguided, and harmful renaming of an important process. I can see from other comments on your talk page that you have a history of major, controversial changes without consensus, and by your user page that you are proud of this. I would change the name back myself if I could, but the page is move protected. If you simply no longer care about this I will gladly contact another admin to change it back. If not, please respond. Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been engaged in debating this on the project talk page. I'm really concerned about your overly confrontational and dismissive tone, though. --Cyde Weys 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think my tone is overly confrontational, but what I really care about is what do you think about the points I raised?--Nscheffey^(T/C) 04:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know where to put this and for some reason it says I'm banned so I can't change it. On Roosevelt Brown's bio it says he played "right tackle" which is a myth. I contacted the Pro Football Hall of Fame's website (where this information likely came from) and they said I was right and they changed it on their website. So please, if I cannot post can you or someone else change the "right tackle" to "left tackle" before this NFL myth grows any more? Thank you.

Please do notice:

Someone is deleting a page that you'd endorsed, in February, '006.

Thank You.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pneumonic_devices&oldid=70185500 >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pneumonic_devices&action=history >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2006_August_17&action=edit >.

Hopiakuta 08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, you'd written supportively,

now, it's nearly gone.

Someone else had created it.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:PhoenixPinion

Hi Cyde! I wonder if you'd mind taking another look at the indef block of PhoenixPinion? The user, and the one s/he attacked, both say it was a pre-arranged (if not very funny) joke. Even if you don't want to unblock, giving a decline reason would help keep the unblock cat clear! Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot Approval

I asked you yesterday, but the message appears to have been buried in this page. I've found all of Cydebot's approvals from WP:BRFA. You have two approved actions:

• Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals/Archive2#Cydebot, you are approved to tag indefinitely blocked usernames.
• Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals/Archive2#Cydebot_II, you are approved to substitute "talk page message templates that have been identified by the community as templates that should be substituted".

When you requested approval to substitute userboxes (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals/Archive2#Userboxbot), your proposal was rejected by the community. I have been unable to find any further approvals on WP:BRFA (other than Antivandalbot). Per WP:BRFA#Organization, you must "list requests for approval for new tasks for your existing bot ". Are there further approvals that I am missing?

Yesterday, a member of WP:NYCS spent several hours reverting your bot's unauthorized actions. Whether or not requesting on WP:BRFA is purely buerocracy, it still seems necessary to request approval beyond some userpage and usertalk edits. It would also seem imperitive to discuss large changes like this before putting them into effect. I'd appreciate your comment on this situation. alphaChimp ^laudare 11:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you're saying that technically I don't have approval to run a vandalbot or handle CFD, huh? I guess the technically part is wrong then. --Cyde Weys 13:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying you don't have approval to run the vandalbot. Have you been approved to handle CFD? (And, if so, can you provide a link?) alphaChimp ^laudare 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, technically I guess I don't have "approval" to handle CFD, though Cydebot has been the primary bot clearing up CFD backlogs for months. --Cyde Weys 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that you aren't doing a useful job. I'm just saying that your bot is not approved to do that job. alphaChimp ^laudare 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, whatever. --Cyde Weys 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's really not a way to dismiss this. Do you plan on requesting approval for your bot's tasks? alphaChimp ^laudare 13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you really know how this works. --Cyde Weys 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain how it works to me, then? alphaChimp ^laudare 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. This bot approval process isn't nearly as rigorous as you seem to think it is. --Cyde Weys 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Sceptre/love.

CSS works weird sometimes and Show Preview doesn't work in some cases. That said, delete the page. I don't want it. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 13:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 15:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

In case you were unaware of policy on the matter, "insertion of POV" is not a reason for removing information. See The ArbCom's past decisions page.

If you feel any one of my edits to Choice and sexual orientation changed the article from (A) being neutral (which is what we all want), into (B) being biased, unbalanced or otherwise failing to conform to NPOV policy -- then please explain why. --Uncle Ed 14:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I was actually working on explaining on the talk page when you reverted me. Also, you munged up the grammar in one of the sentences. --Cyde Weys 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, did I? Sorry! And I really like your rewrite of the intro (please see diff). I struggled over that wording endlessly and was decidedly unsatisfied with it, as it over-emphasized the minority POV. You've given it superb balance! :-) --Uncle Ed 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I reverted you by the way, I guess I over-reacted a little bit. I should've just edited the article the way I did in the first place. --Cyde Weys 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Me, too. I wish I had waited to see what you had in mind, rather than making a "knee-jerk" assumption. Um, when I 'assume' I make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'. :-(

I've read extensively on this subject, and there might be a terminology problem. In talk (and in a new article paragraph) I mentioned that the word "choice" is being used two different ways:

1. a decision to "have the desires"
2. a decision to accept these desires or make efforts to change them

The scientific mainstream says that efforts to change one's sexual orientation will be fruitless (and could be harmful, so don't try!)

A handful of scientists (tiny minority like NARTH and Cohen) say there's no harm in trying and it might "work"

However, I don't recall anyone on the "orientation can be changed" side who ever asserted that people choose their sexual orientation. Specifically, Richard Cohen (therapist) says, "No one chooses to be gay."

Sorry if this is on your talk page; we can move it to the article talk page; I just didn't want to risk an edit conflict there, because you said your writing a comment. --Uncle Ed 14:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I know lots of people who say that people choose to be gay. They're all fundamentalists I believe. They don't just say that they choose to act on desires they can't control; they say they choose all of it. They seem to think that some people just wake up one day, and because they're evil, say to themselves, "You know what, from now on I'm going to be gay and sleep with members of the same gender." --Cyde Weys 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, that's just the clarification which the article needs. I will google up some fundamentalists who make that claim. I'll start with the notorious Pat Robertson, he's always good for an outlandish statement! --Uncle Ed 14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ... it's not going too well. Let's continue this discussion at Talk:Choice and sexual orientation. --Uncle Ed 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pleae read my above messages. Thank You.

Hopiakuta 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care one way or the other ... "pnemonic devices" is potentially a confusing homonym. --Cyde Weys 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Question for a Cydeweys perspective

Who's a Peach, Cyde?

• Considering his continued odd behavior along with things like this, can we agree that something is amiss here? --InShaneee 23:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

question about "Wikipedian radioheads"

A category in the Wikipedian radioheads nomination seem to have vanished in the Cydebot transfer, category:User NPR. That is, there's no sign of the category it was supposed to become either. Am I jumping the gun, or is there a problem?--Mike Selinker 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:PhoenixPinion

A discussion about a block of yours is ongoing here. I'd appreciate your input. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User OS:Gentoo and the Gentoo logo

I noticed you removed the Gentoo logo from that template, since it's a fair use image. However, the talk page for the template reveals that the license the Gentoo logo is released under allows for the use of the logo in the template. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 00:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde nearly always makes changes without justifying them, so I understand your motivation for pointing this out. However, policy often supports his actions, such as in this case. From WP:FU (emphasis added),

All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page).

So you see you would need to establish broad consensus (i.e. outside the scope of editors who work on the articles related to this template for sure) before this could be considered as an exception. BigNate37_(T) 06:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that would explain it. That's understandable in that case. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 08:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit to GUS template

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that you made a typo in your edit to Template:User GUS UBX to. You put in "after the userbox has bene moved into userspace." "Bene" should, of course, be "been." Thanks. —Mira 01:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Carmen Chamelion's RFCU?

Hey Cyde,

You indef blocked User:Carmen Chamelion, accoding to the block log, due to confirmed RFCU evidence. Could you give me the link to the appropriate RFCU case page? Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't done on RFCU. --Cyde Weys 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, non-RFCU CheckUser. Never mind. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, just your everyday backroom CheckUser. It's still no less valid, of course. --Cyde Weys 05:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

attacker

Found this on the new users' log, thought you might like it: User:C Y D E W A N K E R ! ! ! ! My my, we are popular, aren't we? :p — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 03:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism to your userpage

I assume it's not supposed to say "JEWS DID WTC." Newyorkbrad 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New userboxes

Thank you for you message, i'm not quite sure what you mean about the fair use policy with the image, would you be able to explain please as the some of the Oxford colleges use thier own college crest on userboxes? Thanks very muchAlexD 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples of these userboxes with those images in then? --Cyde Weys 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation --Hattusili 20:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/University_of_Oxford_college_templates and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United_Kingdom use the crests of colleges and universities. AlexD 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of those templates do not have images (most likely for licensing reasons). The ones that do have freely usable images that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. --Cyde Weys 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that to me.=) AlexD 10:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability

you deleted Notability. I think I edited this page in August. By which policy did you delete the stub/article? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Notability Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a stub/article, it was nothing more than a cross-namespace redirect, which we don't allow per WP:ASR. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I think I edited this and at this time it was not a simple redirect. Can I turn any page in a cross name space redirect and then ask for deletion? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability has been nominated for deletion here. Please vote. -- ADNghiem501 02:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your changes to date formats

May I ask that you review the WP:MoS guidelines on date formats and then undo all your reverts of my careful work? The longer this goes uncorrected, the more edits will be made by subsequent editors and the difficulty of the task will increase beyond trivial reversion. I must also ask that you discuss matters before wasting your time and mine in edit warring. Often other editors will be able to furnish you with guidance, if asked. --Jumbo 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No no no, it's the other way around. You stop making those edits that go against the MOS or you will be blocked. I was merely reverting your bad edits. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I quote from the Manual of Style:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

Using this as a guide, I suggest that your changes to the King Edward VIII article were insufficiently considered, to be polite. They were not reversion of bad edits. They were directly against WP:MoS. --Jumbo 00:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The guideline also says to not change the formatting of stuff that's already written (the same goes for US/UK spelling). Don't make edits that solely change US/UK formats. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this guideline. May I quote from the relevant section:

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

Changes to existing formats are allowable if there is a substantial reason for doing so. My reason for changing date formats is that in articles relating to countries where International Dating rather than American Dating is in use, the use of American Dating is inappropriate, in exactly the same way that the use of American English in an explicitly British article is inappropriate. This is a matter of consensus, implicitly backed up by an important ArbCom decision. --Jumbo 00:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Morton devonshire sockpuppet (again)

22:35, 3 May 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) blocked "Morton devonshire (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (AfD vote-stacking, don't do it again)[2]

Please see: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Morton_devonshire#.5B.5BUser:Morton_devonshire.5D.5D

Signed: Travb (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has since admitted they were in error. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep sorry to bother you Cyde Travb (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, it appears the block was later lifted due to a misrepresentation? I don't know the details:

• 16:54, May 3, 2006 Jtdirl (Talk | contribs) unblocked Morton devonshire (contribs) (mispresentation of WP policy by blocker)

• 15:35, May 3, 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) blocked "Morton devonshire (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (AfD vote-stacking, don't do it again)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log"--Tbeatty 04:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A misrepresentation? Yeah fucking right. Here are a few diffs demonstrating his egregious vote-stacking. I could show you more, but I ran out of words to pipe through in that last sentence. --Cyde Weys 04:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice on Persecution of Falun Gong edit war

Hi, I'm posting here just because you're an admin I've seen around a lot. I'm pretty new on wikipedia and wanted some advice on the best way to handle a content dispute.

There is an edit war on the Persecution of Falun Gong page. history. Everyone seems to be trying to stick to less than 3 edits a day. But all that's really happening with the article is that they revert each other's edits, but this seems to have been going on for weeks. Entrenched positions and no discussion to attempt to reach a consensus.

It seems pretty venomous and part of an ongoing multi-article dispute on all things Falun Gong. There's a request for mediation template on the page that's 10 days old, but there doesn't seem to be any movement on the request page. So I would try spreading my wings a bit and asking all parties to calm down. But my instinct is that this might do more harm than good. (By the way, I'm not involved. Haven't edited the article and don't particularly want to. I was just looking for some good info after reading an article about the organ harvesting claims.)

Should I just follow standard dispute resolution with this? Leave it alone? Something more creative? Any advice appreciated --SiobhanHansa 01:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess that works! I thought I had to go through some big process to ask one of you to do that. Thanks. --SiobhanHansa 03:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A question

Could you tell me please what is rapresenting the photo on your user page. Cannot click on it and it looks very interesting...cheers--TheFEARgod 14:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

See Falkirk Wheel. --Cyde Weys 16:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox query

This user participates in
WikiProject Animal rights.

Cyde, can you help me with a userbox query? I've created the one above for WikiProject Animal Rights. My understanding is that this counts as encyclopedic, and therefore is allowed in template space, is that right? I'd like to know so that I can tell the others how it should be written. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The best location for WikiProject-related userboxes is not out there in the wild of template space but in projectspace; this is instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal Rights/Userbox. --Cyde Weys 18:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm very confused about when to transclude and when not. I would like to be able to change it centrally so that when we change a color or image, we don't have to individually edit each one. So I would like it to be a template, as all the others are that I've seen. Sorry if I'm being dense, but I have very little experience of the userbox issues (I'm glad to say). :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You can transclude every page on Wikipedia, so everything is a "template" in that regard. Whether it's actually located in Template: space or elsewhere doesn't matter. So, rather than using {{User WikiProject Animal Rights}} on your userpage you'd just use {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal Rights/Userbox}}. --Cyde Weys 20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyde. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

New to Wiki

Hello I am a new user to Wikipedia. I like to edit articles about BELGIUM. Do you have any tips that will make my life easier on wikipedia???????????? EdYlC 18:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian Templates

Hello there,

A fellow user has notified me of the disappearance of some Ukrainian club templates, [3]. Since you were the one to delete them, I was wondering of your reasoning behind it, since the templates were actually warmly welcomed by all fellow users who make changes to Ukrainian football related articles. Do you have an issue with us replacing them? --Palffy 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, some of those templates were being used to gratuitously insert non-free logos wherever a team was mentioned. This is a violation of our fair use policy. Beyond that, there's no need to have a template to just insert a link to a team's name ... just use the Wikilink with the team's name. Templates should only be used when necessary (lik, say, infoboxes). When you're just displaying a normal Wikilink, just display the normal Wikilink. No need for templates. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you read my user-page closely, Ukrainian copyright laws actually allow free use of logos (this is really the only reason stopping the creation of similar templates for other world-wide clubs). Additionally, some of those templates have been used several times throughout WP, so making an easy to use template speeds up the process and allows for less mistakes in the code (this is the equivalent of using a 3RR tag, etc). --Palffy 23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian copyright law is utterly irrelevant. What matters is United States copyright law, but more importantly, Wikipedia's fair use policies (which are purposefully more restrictive than U.S. copyright law). Using logos like that was a violation of our policies. --Cyde Weys 01:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant? The logo's are not in the US domain and not a single one of these logos have been copyrighted by anyone in the world, including the clubs themselves. This has been discussed in WP fair use policy (I have a link to that as well in my profile) and no concensus has been reached on the issue. Others have tried to emulate the same templates, with copyright laws standing in the way. I thought you had deleted them for some reason, but this has been well-debated, and as far as I'm aware, will hold in a discussion on the fair-use board once again. --Palffy 02:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How in the hell is it even possible that the team logos aren't copyrighted by the clubs? That doesn't make any sense. I highly doubt that in the Ukraine you could start freely using those logos, for whatever reasons, without running into some sort of trouble. --Cyde Weys 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you swearing at me? Aren't you an admin?? It's possible under the Ukrainian copyright law, which states it clearly (there is a link to it in my user-page--please read it carefully if you don't believe me). The point that I was making is that these images don't even fit as fair-use images in the first place, because they do not abide by the same laws. --Palffy 02:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't swearing at you, merely expressing disbelief at what you said the copyright laws of the Ukraine were. Being an administrator doesn't have anything to do with what words one can say and one cannot say. Anyway, assuming that your interpretation of your laws is correct, and that these logos are not eligible for copyright, I still don't think having a template is necessary because we shouldn't be encouraging superfluous use of images. The logo of a team really only belongs on the article for that team ... it's not necessary to have it right next to the team's name on all of the other articles that talk about that team. --Cyde Weys 04:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well (I misunderstood you then). I understand your rationale about overusing images, but I happen to believe that by including logos, some information is easier to convey, such as that presented here. The logos are highly recognizable, and considering the fact that they're only 20px, I think they only enhance the experience and convey a good deal of information more easily, see [4] how certain teams jump out at you because of the logos. Either way, I think you and I will agree that these pages should be left the way they are right now, so if you believe they should be changed to your way, you're welcome to do it, but it is my personal belief that these templates do not harm anyone on WP nor certainly break any copyright/rules. --Palffy 04:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your (rather interesting) block

So you think Jimbo sucks? Wow, I can't wait to tell him that. User:High Templar

Re: State route naming conventions poll

Hi Cyde. You said here that "Some more natural method might be preferred, but given two options ... " Given that I also don't like the parentheses, I'm very curious what other "more natural method" you might have in mind. I think a lot of people involved in that discussion might be interested to have a third option. Powers ^T 12:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Something more natural along the lines of "State Route 15 in Washington" or "State Route 15, Washington" (assuming the highways in Washington are called "State Routes", I don't particularly know, you'd have to ask a roadie). --Cyde Weys 13:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I guess I see "Washington State Route 15" as more natural, but thanks for your input. =) Powers ^T 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

So in other words, if you don't like it or agree with it it should be removed? I won't reinstate the "No GFDL" one but I believe that there should be a template for users who do use Fair Use.--CyberGhostface 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:GUS. The main issue is that they shouldn't be created as templates. --Cyde Weys 14:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well instead of just deleting new user boxes why don't you advise the creators of the new policy? That's if it is a binding policy. If it isn't then what are doing deleting them? I've just created a user box and then wasted a considerable amount of time trying to get it to display on my user page. It was never going to because you promptly deleted it without advising me. Arcturus 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And which userbox was that? I have been advising people on the userboxes that are acceptable in userspace. --Cyde Weys 16:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The user box was Template:User Real Lancashire. I've now set up the equivalent in my userspace as described elsewhere - no problem. However, you should post a comment on a user's talk page advising them of the new policy and then let them sort it out for themselves, rather than just deleting something with no explanation. As for Jimbo's views on this matter, I find them somewhat perverse, but as valid as anyone else's view on the matter. He's not a Wiki-dictator (yet) is he? Cheers, Arcturus 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by perverse? And remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Jimbo has always been our "Wiki-dictator", albeit a benevolent one. Why do you think we call him God-king Jimbo? --Cyde Weys 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perverse - I think I'd go for one of the definitions from Dictionary.com - wrongly self-willed or stubborn. I don't know Jimbo, but I get the impression listening to interviews he's done, and reading some of his thoughts, that's he's "always right". Maybe I've misread him, but it does seem that way. I've never heard of God-king Jimbo. I've heard the description "benevolent Wiki-dictator" and it leaves me slightly uneasy. OK, Jimbo started the project, but it's now the Foundation, and there shouldn't really be a place for a dictator in this kind of project. Just a few thoughts! Arcturus 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

re: your comments

Please see the question on my talk page. --wayland 15:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aiman abmajid (talk · contribs · count) requsting unblock

Aiman abmajid (talk · contribs · count) has requested to be unblocked. While he has certainly cause quite a bit of disruption, it seems more due to lack of knoweldge of Wikipedia policy rather than purposeful vandalism. Perhaps a shorter block, and an intro on the related policies would be more appropriate? Wanted to see what you thought first, since you were the blocking admin. -- Natalya 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. He seems salvageable. He just needed to realize that there were consequences for just ignoring and blanking all warnings without actually dealing with them. --Cyde Weys 15:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor wording clarification?

Cyde: This is not a substantive point, just a minor suggestion regarding some wording. The opening of your RfAr posted today reads: "MyWikiBiz is admittedly writing articles on a for-pay basis. This was noticed and he was briefly blocked and then unblocked by Jimbo after he promised that he wasn't going to do anything bad. Well, it appears that he has. Here we see him voting delete in an AFD, saying the subject of the article should have employed him if they wanted an article that should be kept...." In a couple of spots, on first reading, the word "he" is ambiguous - you obviously mean to refer to MyWikiBiz, but at first blush "he" could refer to Jimbo. You might want to slightly edit the RfAr to replace a couple of "he"s with the name. Just a thought, for what it's worth, if anything. Newyorkbrad 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think it's ambiguous; everytime I am using "he" I am referring to the same person, and none of the things I talk about "him" doing could possibly apply to Jimbo. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, not a big deal. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bushtarion on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bushtarion. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Azzer007 17:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Help prevent Wikidrama

Unneccessary wikidrama is a big time-waster and has never improved an article. Help do your part to prevent it by not going out of your way to irritate other editors. Thanks! Friday (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but some things are so hysterical I find them hard to resist. If you look at my block log you may see a few other examples :-P Cyde Weys 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand, I just hate to see people picking on other editors, even if they did something you see as funny, or foolish. If you want to poke fun at people, surely it can be done in some chat room rather than on-wiki? Friday (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikivoter issues

Cyde - when you couldn't get wikivoter to work, the problem was that you didn't add yourself to the wikivoter category. As shown in this diff [5], you had the wikivoter category commented out. The program checks the category itself for the user names of those who try to use it, and by commenting out the category when you first put it on your user page, you weren't added to the category at all. I'd encourage you to add yourself to the category properly, and try using wikivoter again. This comment is also at Eagle's RfA - I'm posting it here so you see it quickly and can hopefully test WV for yourself. Martinp23 19:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I originally got that error message, and by adding myself to the category (even though it was commented out) I got past that stumbling block and then started tripping up on JavaScript errors. I had previously gotten the "not in the category" error but had succesfully resolved that, and am now getting errors that seem to be entirely separate. --Cyde Weys 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... that seems strange, although there could be a js conflict, as you suggest. Did you get any specific error numbers, and do you know what version of WV you were using? Thanks Martinp23 19:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, somehow, perhaps with the use of magic, I managed to get Wikivoter to work with the JS adjustments in User:Cyde/monobook.js. This can be seen in the following two screenshots:

File:Wvworks.PNG

File:Wvworks1.PNG

(click them for an enlargement).

Also, you may want to check the page history of my monobook.js, to prove to you that I'm not lying :). As you can see, there is full functionality in the second screenshot with all of your JS additions shown in the toolbox. On the screenshot on the left, you can see that we are referring to my monobook, which is also the page open on the right, just scrolled down. I also include the time on both (with two three clocks no less!)- the difference being caused by something IRL. Anyway, do you think you could try commenting out the category in your user page, then WV will probably work - after all, it is not a crystal ball for seeing what people want to hide in their userpages! With the category commented out, you are not included in the category itself (take a look), so the progrm won't let you use it. Please let us help you by trying to remove the comment tags around the category, and perhaps post some screenshots of any problems you may have (which Eagle 101 has kndly licensed to be available to all for free :) ) Thanks Martinp23 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot broke my userpage :-(

Hello, Cyde -

Cydebot broke my userpage while changing a category in a userbox. I have a 'nurse' userbox, because I'm an RN, and I substed that userbox so I could change the wording from 'nurse' to 'registered nurse'. Cydebot changed the category associated with that box, Category:Nurse Wikipedians, to Category:Wikipedian nurses. That was fine - but in the process, it took the categories out of every substed userbox on my page and moved each one outside the "</div>" tags of their userbox, which had the effect of breaking all the HTML. It put the entire contents of my userpage inside the userboxbox and moved all categories to the bottom.

Since pictures are worth a thousand words, here's the diff between what Cydebot did and what it should have done. For simplicity, I reverted back to the last version before Cydebot's activity, then I changed the category manually.

It's not a problem for me 'cause I can read the code, but users who aren't versed in HTML or wikispeak might think the bot is malicious or defective. I know it's not malicious, but I'll leave it to your good judgment to determine if Cydebot is defective. I'm not upset or anything, so it's not necessary to reply - this is just for your information. Thanks - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The video issues

Hi Cyde, did you see this question? Where do you think this whole issue should go from here? David D. (Talk) 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Illegal in the sense that his video display technology is being used for copyright infringement, not illegal in the sense of, say, murdering a busload of babies. --Cyde Weys 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, i didn't think you meant murdering a busload of babies. So what do you make of the youtube links, is there is policy in place with regard to that yet? David D. (Talk) 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally would get rid of every YouTube link that doesn't have the same kind of copyright information that we have on our Image: pages here on Wikipedia. That means the license the video is available under must be explicit and source information must be provided. Something like Flickr (which lists the license and creator of each image) would be fine, but YouTube doesn't seem to give a damn about any of these issues. They don't have it built into their software anywhere about the licensing issues and such that we have to concern ourselves with on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 22:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Snowcrash

For WP:SNOW and the WP:FUCKPROCESS, I think of the novel WP:SNOWCRASH.

PS: What do you think of my user page's boxes? Anomo 23:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And this?

Excuse me? This is way out of line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks For Saving The Code

Quite an improvement in you from the old days! Thanks for the code, i'll tell my fellow Merrimacker I made the box for to userfy as well. Good luck in trying to find all the people that you think are me :-) Karmafist 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)