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

Would I care to explain...

Please see Talk:Main Page#Vandalism. Andre (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In regard to signature

Thank you for the warning. Let me know what exactly is wrong with it; though I can guess. *cough*Green e*cough*. Have a nice day! DoomsDay349 22:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's too long. In source edit it is three lines long, which is ridiculous considering it doesn't add anything other than formatting. Please make it shorter. --Cyde Weys 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Three lines is way way too long. Remember the rest of us are forced to read that each and every time we look at the source! --Gwern (contribs) 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I chopped it down a bit...how's it look now? DoomsDay349 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely short now. Thanks for listening. --Cyde Weys 02:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Esperanza

Do you think that the people supporting Esperanza are doing this just so they can keep their little social clique (which is very pretty and probably lots easer than fighting vandals and dealing with articles on toe vomit) or out of a desire to help? I ask this because your anti-pathy for them seems to be even stronger than mine, and I personally wouldn't mind if a few of the more outragous perpetrators of this mess were made to take personal responsability for this utter waste of resources, time, and editor effort. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of them probably think it is helping; others obviously just aren't here for the right reasons, and of course they're going to get mad and try to stop it when their little clique is up for deletion. --Cyde Weys 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you were wondering...

There is a current Featured Picture Candidate discussion going on that you may be interested in. If you are interested, mosey on over to the discussion. Cheers! Wikipediarules2221 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I nominated that once before, sort of as a joke. Yes, the picture is very hot, but it just isn't featured picture quality. On many other sites it would be rated very highly (say, College Humor or Facebook), but we have a much higher appreciation for technical excellence here, and alas, that picture is just an everyday snapshot that happens to be of some hot subject material. --Cyde Weys 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

At least give it a pity support vote.Wikipediarules2221 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not big into pity ... Cyde Weys 03:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

How do I delete a useless article? The article is: Muahahaha. *Mystic* 02:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, telling me about it is obviously one way. Otherwise, because I'm not always around, you can use one of the speedy deletion templates listed over at WP:CSD. In this case the template {{db-nonsense}} would make the most sense, though really, any speedy deletion template would work; as long as you get the administrators' attention a page like that is clearly going to be deleted, and using that template gets the administrators' attention. --Cyde Weys 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Massive POV Problems: What do I do?

Hi! I'm a Biology student, and was frankly horrified at a POV-laden creationist article, Jonathan Sarfati, I found, but the subject of it is fairly obscure - possibly not even notable enough for Wikipedia, but I can't judge. However, something needs done about it, and I was hoping - as you're one of the maintainers of Portal:Biology - that you could help tell me what to do. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it POV? Try to identify some of the problems on the talk page. I don't really know enough about the subject matter to make a judgment. --Cyde Weys 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Couch

Could we stick this in BJAODN please? :) (Radiant) 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would urge that you please check with the author of the article (User:PHDrillSergeant) before doing anything like that. He seems quite unhappy enough already. Newyorkbrad 15:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea ... Cyde Weys 15:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't intended as a serious request, hence the smiley. (Radiant) 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The recent MFD on the Hangman pages

I wanted to say up front that I really don't feel strongly about keeping these pages, and in fact was only vaguely aware that they existed until this Mfd. But I do question your closing of it (a bit early, as it was opened 11/11 and you closed it today 11/15) since it seemed like a fairly controversial matter. I'm also uneasy with your finding that the consensus was delete -- while Mfd is not a vote, I saw a variety of opinions: 8 for delete, to be sure, but 5 keeps and 5 others that were some version of keep, like my own (keep and userfy, keep until the tournament is over, etc.) Regardless of your personal opinions on the matter, since this is obviously an activity that is dear to a lot of other editors, don't you think more opinions should be heard? Cheers Dina 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm, since when do we count comments to determine the outcome of a discussion? I thought we were supposed to weight both sides' arguments and determine the consensus? And frankly, that's exactly what's happened. Misza13 18:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I didn't present the comment count to contest the deletion but rather to question the early closure. It seems clear to me that the debate was still active and that there was a fair diversity of opinion, including the one voiced by me and a few others that the participants ought to be allowed to finish their tournament before it got deleted. Cheers. Dina 20:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

They can finish their tournament elsewhere if they really want to. I don't see why we're supposed to accommodate them to the end of something that never belonged here from the beginning. --Cyde Weys 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we pretty clearly disagree, but I thought I'd express why I thought they should be accomodated: Because they're not they they're us, other editors of Wikipedia, who, with no malicious intent, created and participated in a project. I essentially agree that the project doesn't really belong on Wikipedia, but I don't see any real urgency in deleting it. Since tournaments end, and editors' interests change (and consensus changes), I think it would have been easier to reach a real consensus if the participants and their interests hadn't been summarily dismissed as having no value whatsoever. And early closing of the Mfd (or speedy deletion, as I believe you're suggesting below) implies that some opinions are essentially more valuable than others, regardless of context.

The two methods would ultimately have resulted in the same outcome -- the deletion of the pages, and the end of the game. But one in a slightly friendlier fashion, which does have value to the encyclopedia, because editors who feel their opinions are not valued seem to end up leaving. That's all, if you respond and I don't respond, it's not because you've pissed me off or anything, but simply because I expect that we've isolated what our disagreement is here, and probably can't go much further. Cheers. Dina 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't place too much emphasis on the MFD, if my attention had been drawn to this in a different way I would have just deleted it immediately. This is straying so far from Wikipedia's mission that I do think a quick application of WP:IAR is needed to get everyone back on track. If you want to play Hangman, there's applets and such online that let you do it. If you really must play it in a wiki environment, which is far from ideal for it, then you can set one up on Wikia. But in no way does it belong on Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 19:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR can work both ways. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It's actually a lot more limited than you'd think. --Cyde Weys 22:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? I've seen many people bend it (and I'm not innocent either, neither are you) to fit their side of (for example) a vote. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you can make a convincing argument that games of Hangman belong on Wikipedia. But I welcome you to try. --Cyde Weys 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• You appear to have missed this page, or was that intentional? (Radiant) 11:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope, pure mistake. --Cyde Weys 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on MfD for Esperanza

“ …and advancing the claim that without Esperanza Wikipedia would lack a community is very denigrating to the real community that actually gets articles written. ”

I'd like to see you verify that, please. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 22:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the keep rationale make no distinction between community and Esperanza, going on and on about how good community is and how lost we'd all be without it. They seem to be equating Esperanza and the community, when of course, that is very far from the truth. --Cyde Weys 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ's sake

This is really starting to annoy me. It's getting ridiculous. Check this out. You get rid of the bad side and you think you can put it back up again. Nice try. Same arguments apply as before, I'm afraid. Imagine going onto that couch because you felt someone was threatening you - can you imagine how cheesed off that other person would be? Talk about cult of victimhood. Can you delete it straight away, or do we need another MFD? Cheers, Moreschi 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford

yes, I screwed up. this shows why it is important to have this information on userpages i guess (I daresay much of the stuff is in deleted edit histories as well, whee). But it's funny how this proposal got left there for some hours, without any protest and then within minutes of me doing it, people notice. Morwen - Talk 17:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's always the way it is ... things can sit languishing on WP:AN for several hours, but once an action occurs, news spreads like wildfire. I got an urgent PM on IRC from another admin, for instance. --Cyde Weys 18:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me.

User:PHDrillSergeant/WikiCouch was deleted by ME via {{db-author}}, not by MfD, and I requested another administrator to undelete it, which he did. Not only that, but the content on the page is different from the projectspace one.

Not only that, but you do not have any right to delete this page, since it is a different page and is also a backup copy for me.

Please restore the page. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, deleting it was the emerging consensus of the MFD, which you thought you could circumvent by closing early. Evidently you were mistaken on that. The content is not sufficiently different. You also have no right to keep backups of deleted material on Wikipedia; you can use your local machine for that if you so desire. --Cyde Weys 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So I have no right, if the page doesn't go over well, to continue to improve it until it? Keep in mind that Userspace deletions follow different guidelines and the userspace version was there the whole time as a backup. When people apply for patents, and they are declined, the US Patent office doesn't go and burn down the guy's house to make sure all copies are destroyed. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What an apt analogy. You're right, I haven't gone to your house (your personal computer) and burned down all of the copies of your patent application (WikiCouch). I just got rid of the ones at the patent office (Wikipedia). --Cyde Weys 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the mistake you're making is that you're treating Wikipedia userspace as your own personal site (i.e. your "house" in your analogy). It's not. That's made quite clear over at WP:USER. --Cyde Weys 00:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, sir, the mistake is yours. You are assuming that I am putting that page there for my own personal use, when in fact I'm putting it there to improve it until I can resubmit it as WP:COUCH (as can be CLEARLY seen by the overhaul I gave it before you deleted it again). That assumption is also called assuming bad faith. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 04:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford (again!)

Cyde, with regard to your point on the administrators' noticeboard about him, I agree with you, he's used up his chances to reform. I would be glad if he was community-banned. You've said the right thing. --SunStar Net 19:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to know I'm not the only sane one :-P Seriously, Wikipedia isn't therapy, we have lots of work to do, and we shouldn't be wasting our time on trying to reform people — the track record is horrendous and the possible benefits are limited at best. --Cyde Weys 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your diligence in removing things that serve only to divide us and waste time, and for your doing it with a sense of panache and gentle irony, I present you with this barnstar. Keep on rockin' ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm, what was this in relation to? Hangman? --Cyde Weys 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hangman, and Esperanza, and stuff you've done in the past.But Hangman was the worst. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Superiority

From User talk:Pmanderson:

It would really help the environment around here if you didn't call editors oxen, as if they're somehow beneath you. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you really never heard Deuteronomy 25:4 used before? I'm not claiming superiority; I'm one of the oxen, even if I'm not nibbling from that particular crib. I've never seen it used to imply otherwise.

There would seem to be a much greater claim to superiority in closing the discussion against the emerging consensus to permit the tournament to finish and then delete. Septentrionalis 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you really that surprised that there are people out there who haven't read, nor believe in, your bible? --Cyde Weys 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are making an unjustified (and, if it mattered, false) assumption: it's not my bible; but, like much of the Bible, that phrase is a cliché in English. Your reading of it is, as far as I can tell, completely novel. Septentrionalis 00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But thank you; you nicely balance my old nickname of Mr Pagan. Septentrionalis 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Pagan eh? The last time I heard someone make a pagan joke was Kent Hovind when he called Carl Sagan "Carl Pagan". He's now serving over 200 years in jail for tax evasion, so ... hehe. Guess that's not a good idea. --Cyde Weys 03:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.... I suppose there is a parallel with Sagan's case against Apple Computer, but Sagan lost that one. Newyorkbrad 04:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Quazer Beast sighted!

Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast for details. --Gray Porpoise 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Coffee Lounge

Forgive me if I'm naiive, but I'm sort of questioning the motive of your "moderating" the Esperanza coffee lounge. It might be uncyclopedic, but it's still like removing discussion from a talk page. Could you please explain your motives a little further to me? bibliomaniac15 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to the Coffee Lounge

As a wikipedian and esperanzan, I understand and agree that aspects of the organization have gotten out of hand, and I support the current effort to overhaul the organization to turn it into less of a clique and more of a useful organization that benefits Wikipedia as a whole. I also think that much of the Coffee Lounge is a waste of time, and patent nonsense, and the entire coffee lounge should be scrapped. Still, I am concerned that you are going and redacting entire sections of the coffee lounge without much explanation in either the edit summaries or the talk pages. At issue is not whether or not the sections you redacted belonged at wikipedia (THEY DID NOT BELONG). The problem is that, in light of the high level of tension between the Esperanzan camp and anti-Esperanzans such as yourself, the fact that such sections are being removed by someone with outright animosity towards Esperanza may be seen not as a means to reform the group, but as a unilateral move to further disrupt the group. Thus, though your actions may have been warranted, they may be interpreted by others as a bad-faith move. Again, I am not in disagreement with you over your changes, either in intent or in substance. I just think that in the current state of tensions, such move may be indelicate. I understand that you are acting in good faith. I cannot speak for others, and am just letting you know that such a move may only act to perpetuate conflict, which is not desirable by anyone. --Jayron32 06:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If others are interpreting it as a bad faith move that's their problem. And don't peg me as an "anti-Esperanzian" — it's a lot more nuanced than that. There certainly aren't merely two warring sides. --Cyde Weys 15:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• While that may all be true, it can sometimes be imprudent to comit acts that could be reasonably seen to contribute to, rather than mediate, a conflict. At issue is not your intent, it is the easily forseeable results of the action. To commit an act, even with good intent, that could be easily forseen as causing ultimately more harm than good, is imprudent and probably not called for in this case. --Jayron32 17:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposition

I toyed around with this notion a while ago, but it was shot down, mostly; just prior to MFD. Oddly enough, it was in anticipation of that very thing. Kinda makes you question the Crystal Ball Policy, huh? But anyway, the idea is creating a set of monitors, both Esperanzian and non-Esperanzian, to watch over the Coffee Lounge (or whatever we'll be calling it) and keep away the silliness/social networking. I noticed you're taking a lot of initiative in doing that, but you're kinda not looked upon too greatly for it...but anyway, I'm really going to push for this in the Coffee Lounge reforms, and if it does happen, I'd love to head it up alongside you. How's it sound? DoomsDay349 21:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may commet; while I was not around for the first discussion about monitors, I certainly think that if a new Lounge, it would need monitors, especially in the early stages. However, I'd prefer to see more of a gentlemen's agreement between any editors in good standing within the community to monitor the place rather than a set members list or anything. The only reason I say this is so that a them vs us attitude does not foster in the new lounge, which will hopefully lead to less of an abbrasive attitude as seen by some editors when Cyde has been monitoring. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding PHDrillSargent's subpage

I noticed you redeleted a {{db-author}}'d subpage that was recreated at PH's request. You suggested DRV. Are you out of your mind? -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 04:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)