User talk:Cyde

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

Why did you delete User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion

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

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

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

Myspace? I think a better example would be Livejournal. --MichaelLinnear 08:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a good suggestion as well. --Cyde Weys 13:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livejournal has more petty and pointless drama and more politics, so it would be more apt. --MichaelLinnear 04:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

In case you didn't want it to look official, you could have just deleted the links to it. In case you've got a problem with the content, why are you not deleting the boxes themselves? Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 02:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, I shall start deleting more of the boxes themselves. --Cyde Weys 03:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you even gonna delete religious humor like {{User:Xaosflux/UBX/User religion flying spaghetti monster not really}}, {{User:UBX/googlism}} and {{User:UBX/EAC}}? On an extension, are you even planning to delete non-religious humor like {{User:Suriel1981/Userboxes/Penguin}}? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're inventing a slippery slope that isn't there. The penguin joke has nothing to do with being divisive and inflammatory. --Cyde Weys 02:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was just trying to see if any of the boxes I'm using are to be deleted. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: deletion of Template:User against censorship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accuracy Rate

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

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

Deleted userboxes

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

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

Apparently not, since so far as I remember seeing there was no discussion of the matter at least where the deletion of the Userboxes/Politics directory was concerned. Did this page meet WP:CSD? You may or may not have a point about politics and religion templates being irrelevant, but it would have been nice to see some conversation about it. For example, I think that if someone has a userbox that says he's a practicing Hindu that it might help me decide whether an unsourced statement he makes about a temple to Shiva or even the use of Ayurvedic medicine is likely to be "common knowledge" from his perspective. And while you're at it, why don't you delete Userboxes/Zodiac and Userboxes/Sports? The first is even more irrelevant, while the second is even more divisive, if you go by the number of riots at least. Mike Serfas 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde Weys, if you think that that Wikipedia is exclusively an encyclopaedia, then why don't you delete every userbox and userpage because encyclopaedias aren't supposed to have micosites for users who want them? Also, when making a major change such as deleting a template that will affect thousands of users, isn't there supposed to be some kind of discussion and consensus? Also how could an anti-censorship userbox offend or inflame anyone? Isn't Wikipedia against censorship? See WP:CENSOR. The same goes with the anti-gun template. In my entire life, I have never met a person who said they supported guns, so obviously an anti-gun userbox isn't divisive or inflammatory at all. Obviously people aren't “pro-gun”; just the term just sounds absurd. Finally, people can't just go around deleting things without discussion because they don't agree with them. If everyone did, then every article on a controversial topic would constantly be deleted. Please restore the userboxes so I and everyone else can have them on their userpage. Eddyy 19:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Request, if possible

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

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

Thanks,

~U

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

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

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

Template:User against censorship

Why did you delete this userbox?--Sefringle^Talk 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your "Why use Tor" comments

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, same ISP here. When I read your comments, I decided to try Tor, and amazingly the videos worked. Interesting thing is that running through Comcast, they don't seem want to load at all, and believe it or not it is usually one of the first search results, which made it seem like the unexciting explanation. But then they load pretty quickly when using Tor, so I'm rather baffled. Add to that the glitches with accessing content on sites (that I can't even remember) when I first started with this ISP, and it really makes me wonder.

I had verizon until about late December though, and do not remember any problems like this. I started Comcast in January, so maybe both ISPs started doing this. It really is evil :()

Take care, and thanks for the response, daveh4h 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trying to prevent deletion of images

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

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

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

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

Double redirects

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

Ummm, care to link to what you're talking about? --Cyde Weys 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. :) User:Cyde/Double redirect is the one I'm asking about, there seems to be some others listed at Special:DoubleRedirects actually, and they're all protected. Any idea why? -Mike Payne 17:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can see it :P -N 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too... It says:

# User:Cyde/Double redirect (Edit) →‎ User:Cyde/Single redirect →‎ User talk:Cyde

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

User box

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

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

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

RFC

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

Cydebot renaming image templates

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

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

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

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

Category:East Jerusalem

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

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

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

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

Can the bot recreate the category? If not, then it is not easy to repopulate the category. I suggest instituting a standard waiting period of say, 2 days, before running the bot. I still haven't heard from the closing admin. I left a message on their user talk page. I don't see any great need to rush these things. Maybe a notice can be created for contested category deletions. Same as for contested speedy deletions of images. What happens if an official deletion review is started? Are you notified? Do you delete in spite of an official deletion review? That would really be wrong. I appreciate what you do. You need to appreciate my efforts, too, in my opinion.

See Template:Db-reason. One can remove the speedy-delete template if the reason does not apply. Or one can add {{hangon}}. We need some kind of "hang on" tag that creates a "hang-on" list of contested category deletions. That along with a 2-day waiting period should solve the problem. --Timeshifter 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks for the list. So I assume there is no current programming for the bot to add the category back to the pages. I would think that it would be possible to create such programming. Since to remove category text from pages is similar to adding category text to pages. Some categories are populated by hundreds of pages. Imagine having to add back categories manually.

And you did not answer my question about the 2-day waiting period. Is there any reason you could not wait? And from your answer, I gather that categories are depopulated in spite of ongoing WP:DRV discussions. That needs to be fixed. I don't see why a "hang on" category deletion tag could not be created. In fact, I suggest making it a category itself. For example: Category:Hang on. Do not delete category.--Timeshifter 06:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unprotection

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

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

Two things

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

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

REQUESTING CAT MOVE

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

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

Speedy deletion of User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion

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

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

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

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

No, there'll be no digging from me. However, just to clarify, I view out-of-process actions to be determinal for the encyclopedia, as they undermine trust in administrators and in the rules and often result in more bureaucracy. I also notice that the deletions have now been contested ... not surprising given the resulting redlink in the navigation box. An MfD nomination takes only a few minutes, but is almost always better for controversial cases. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, deleting the organisation page while the userboxes still exist makes it harder to identify and nominate for deletion potentially problematic userpages. I don't care about the userboxes themselves, but I'll again ask that you restore the two organisation pages: User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRVs

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

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

Recategorisation

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

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

Stub tags

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

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

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

Category:Hilary Duff

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

Cydebot adding @@

Cydebot added @@ to an article [1], mentioned at Wikipedia:Help_desk#@@. PrimeHunter 04:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've heard of ack-ack attacks, but at-ats !!?? - Maybe it's been watching Star Wars recently? :p --Alf ^melmac 17:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen it before but I just looked at around 20 edits before and after and found 2 others: [2][3]. In all 3 cases Cydebot removed the only category specified with [[Category:...]] (there were also template generated categories). All the other edits I examined had other categories specified with [[Category:...]] and Cydebot did not add @@ in any of those edits. PrimeHunter 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

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

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

Use of non-free images in licensing templates

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