User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Senior Editor II

My user page

It was a request on the reference desk for help with the CSS. He was just doing me a favor.--v/r - TP 04:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ready?!

I've created this. I'm sure you won't take long over it, but use me to your fullest. Ask questions, come up with weird situations, whatever you like. Or, if you'd rather, just plod through the course, though I'm sure you'll find it a doddle. I'm here to help! Worm^TT(talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will learn two things from your adoption course. First, how to be a better Wikipedian and second, your teaching style. Don't be surprised if I come with truly and unremarkably strange questions. Of course there is one problem. I do go to college now and am studying to become an electrical engineer so it may demand a lot of my time. I'll try my best to not waste too much of yours.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I originally set up the course to work over a 3 month period, 1 week per lesson. It never really worked out like that, people ran through it much faster. In any case, take as much time as you need, and if I miss a question, just give me a nudge after a day or so. I'll do my best to keep on top of things. As for questions, let them be as strange as you like. I couldn't tell you the difference between a snozzberry and Whangdoodle though Worm^TT(talk) 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Rollbacker and Reviewer Cabal!

Welcome to the Rollbacker and Reviewer Cabal, Cyberpower678!

In case you forgot, we mainly coordinate on anything that requires a rollbacker or reviewer's attention.

Currently, we have two pages;

• The main page
• Discussion page

but we have more things coming up!

Regards, J (t) 18:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cabal

I don't know if you've seen this, but it looks to be getting pretty toxic. Just a heads up. Dan653 (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I am trying to become coordinator of the cabal. I have a few ideas that can remove the toxicity of the cabal. I'm not kicking out Jeff, I'm just going to promote myself to coordinator and head clerk so I can enforce my ideas.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As an addon note. I removed myself as a member rather than try and take over the cabal.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Userpage

Well i relented and had my main user page reinstated, changed it dramaticaly though.E W 22:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks nice. I just developed a battery template that I think you might like.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, this is a bit of a techie question. The photo on my user page is displayed from User:Edinburgh Wanderer/UserImage. Is there a way to store multiple images, and when a user goes to my user page it selects a random image. Is that technically possible.E W 13:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. How many pictures did you have in mind?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not many four or five max, not sure ill be able to fine any more than that.E W 13:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I need an exact number. Can you list all of the images you would like to use and mark the one that's your favorite?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Give me an hour and ill get them.E W 13:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Ross Fountain Princes St Gardens 02.jpg favourite one already listed, File:Edinburgh Castle 32.jpg, File:Tynecastle Stadium 2007.jpg, File:Royal Palace of Holyroodhouse 2.jpg, File:St. Giles' Cathedral front.jpg, File:Cirsium vulgare - carsick tasmania.JPG and File:Glenfinnan Viaduct.jpg. The way it currently displayed it has a brief description not sure if that will be possible.E W 14:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you give me a description for each image, I can fix that for you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• File:Ross Fountain Princes St Gardens 02.jpg , Edinburgh Castle as viewed from Princes Street Gardens
• File:Edinburgh Castle 32.jpg, Edinburgh Castle lit up during the Edinburgh Military Tattoo
• File:Tynecastle Stadium 2007.jpg, Tynecastle Stadium home of Heart of Midlothian
• File:Royal Palace of Holyroodhouse 2.jpg, Royal Palace of Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh
• File:St. Giles' Cathedral front.jpg, St Giles' Cathedral
• File:Cirsium vulgare - carsick tasmania.JPG, floral emblem of Scotland
• File:Glenfinnan Viaduct.jpg, Glenfinnan Viaduct, Loch Shiel

E W 15:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I am guessing you can see what is going on here RE: TMCK

They just called your edit to the talk page a 'drama festival' and with a minor edit to boot. I get the feeling that they may be doing this on purpose to troll us. You should seriously consider taking this to WP:ANI... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 01:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I just might considering he's been warned more than once.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good. Hopefully someone will take more stern action than posting on their talk page to point out how their editing is wrong. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 01:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it tomorrow.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion template

You know that file deletion notice you removed? It appears to have been for your bot. The file was deleted but the bot did its task — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I don't want to constantly receive a notification of deletion for every image my bot tags as a bad image. Can something be done about that?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I honestly have no idea. Perhaps VPT or HD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: [1] Well done. Worm^TT(talk) 13:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't see that. :D—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No problems. Half the fun when a joke backfires :P Worm^TT(talk) 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Idea, idea. I always try to poke some humor into an RfA to lighten it up a little. I'll keep this "accidental support in the oppose section" on my list.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Trout in a sandbox

I got the sandbox version ready for testing. You can try it out if you like. Mind I may revert it later. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 05:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It performs no differently from the current version.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 07:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Check the trout link at Template:Trout me/sandbox and compare it to the one at Template:Trout me. I think you will see the difference. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 15:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No objections.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 15:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - If there are any problems feel free to revert. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 03:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Facepalm Well, sorry for the trout. →TSU tp* 01:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive talk

Do you remember how you fixed my archive talk a whilst back. Before the rename it archived to User talk:Blethering Scot/2012 well Edinburgh Wanderer but you get the picture. Today it archived to User talk:Blethering Scot/Archives/2012 i never changed the text assuming the redirect would do the trick, is it supposed to do that. B S 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. It should work fine now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 22:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks was it just the username, thought the redirect would of kicked in.B S 22:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The username parameter was incorrect for the talkpage it was on. My gues was that it placed it in a default directory as a result. If it still doesn't work, just let me know.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 22:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Worked perfectly. Thanks. B S 10:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Your IP.

Hey Cyber, I'm sure you understand my comments to that IP. There is no way I could know, and IPs can't vote, so allowing an IP to take your name, place a vote, well...you understand I'm sure. It was in part to protect you. I just didn't know it was from yourself ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbot I

Hi Cyberpower678. I saw this note and was curious what checks it does. Does it do different checks from the checks User:Chris G Bot 3 does? 28bytes (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That is one of SoxBot's deactivated tasks. It was deactivated because a different bot took over if I recall. The task is stored on toolserver and can be activated from the control panel. The task is disabled, so I am a little clueless as to what happened there. Perhaps the Peachy framework glitched and briefly activated the task. It appears to be an isolated incident so if it happens again, please let me know.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. 28bytes (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Weird

Hi Cyber. If you think this is something weird on Wikipedia, how about this? You do some very good work on vandal fighting - I hope you'll continue help to keep the project on the right track, and perhaps help recruit some more admins to the task;) That said, do you have any thoughts on the perennial problems with NPP? (not that it's strictly a CVU remit of course...) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused with your links. Is this an indirect request to nominate me for adminship? If so I'm flattered. I was a member of that cabal and tried to save it by trying to become coordinator and change. When I saw it became pointless rather than taking charge, I just removed myself as a member. I haven't been vandal fighting for quite some time because time doesn't permit me to at this time. The problems with new page patrol is that we don't have enough patrollers in my opinion creating a huge backlog which eventually may cause a page that should be speedily deleted to survive for countless years such as this article. I'd love to help recruit some people into the CVU task force. I am currently writing a notifications bot for CVU and dedicated vandal fighters to allow for them to step in when vandalism levels increase.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 21:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm sorry if I confused you - it was not a veiled threat to nominate you for RfA; with all due respect I don't think you quite are ready for that yet ;) However, I was kind of suggesting that the CVU might be requiring a tad more element of maturity and that you, together with Yunshi who is now an admin, might be two of the people to introduce it. I don't work on that project, but I follow it very closely, and unfortunately I get the impression that it sometimes strays far to close to being a social gathering of some rather young and perhaps overenthusiastic users; or certainly not users with the experience and competency required for NPP. That's why I couldn't understand why the CVU claims WP:NPP to be within its project remit. NPP requires a heck of a lot of experience and knowledge of policies if it is to be done properly, which sadly it far too often isn't. Keep up the good work! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on both the adminship and NPP. I am waiting for someone to nominate me at some point but I don't think now is right. I'm not much of a content creator but I do like the maintenance work. As for CVU and NPP, I haven't been much of a patroller but I believe that CVU and can include NPP as part of its project since technically, page creation vandalism is also possible. I'd love to try and help the project but changes can only be made as coordinator and that's not me. I'll help out nonetheless.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 14:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems with NPP is that some of those who are doing it can't recognise an attack or vandalism page from an A7. Unfortunately, NPPers don't require any user rights or even any training, and that's why NPP is a magnet to new and inexperienced users. Being a coordinator on a project doesn't mean a thing (for example, I am coordinator, (and perhaps sometimes the driving force), of several projects, including the huge WP:WPSCH, and NPP). Coordinators are most certainly not in a position of responsibility or decision-making. They do the donkey-work of simply keeping everyone informed, keeping talk threads tidy, and some other basic project organisational tasks. If you feel that there is a nascent hierarchy in such a group, perhaps now is the time to help nip it in the bud - remember, everything here works on consensus. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to make a user right for NPP. The patrol right should be removed from Autoconfirmed users and made a separate user right. Perhaps the patroller user right. Patroller is inherited with the administrator user right.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 17:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Ryan Vesey 17:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Was the user right not considered as part of the move to WP:New Page Triage? Just asking as not sure.Blethering Scot 18:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Making NPP a user right has been discussed many times but not yet as an official RfC proposal. However, during the early development process of WP:New Page Triage which has been renamed Special:NewPagesFeed for the prototype, the WMF stated that 'what we don't want is a whole priesthood of gatekeepers' , although the WMF would probably not reject such a proposal if it reached consensus.

A NewPagePatrol Survey carried out in November last year asked respondents to comment on the possibility of making NPP a user right. The respondents remained divided. Whilst creating a user right for NPP would definitely clear up the quality of page patrolling once and for all, I too would be hesitant (although the suggestion was originally mine, in order to garner opinion from the community) to create yet another user right. Some suggest that we have too many user rights already, and there appears to be some evidence of 'hat collecting' by users who see a string of minor user rights as a possible stepping stone towards adminship.

My main concerns are that these minor user rights are a magnet to young and/or inexperienced editors, such as for example vadalism-fighting, and many semi-admin areas where anyone without any specific knowledge can intervene, and even warn other users. Such rights (moderators) are very rarely accorded to members of even the most run-of-the mill Internet forums. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Think about it though. If we want quality articles to pass and the others to fail, we need patrollers who are experienced. Therefore we should restrict it to users who demonstrate knowledge of how to patrol them properly. I therefore think the patrol right should be moved into the administrator, reviewer, and patroller user groups.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 11:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not generally keen on creating more usergroups though. As Kudpung points out, they're often regarded as things to be attained, rather than a tool to use. I appreciate the point of view that we want experience from patrollers, but it's a difficult balance to find and I really don't think that userirghts is the way to do it. Worm^TT(talk) 11:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what the community says to this.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 11:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Worm has an uncanny knack of very successfully mentoring users for various tasks. NPP and counter-vandalism are both totally essential departments, but their work is different and does not really overlap. CV has the aid of some 3rd party software, but NPP must rely wholly on people being able to read new articles thoroughly, and do a lot of manual background checks before passing or tagging new articles. The CVU has started an academy, which although I feel it is excessively bureaucratic, might be something to watch by very experienced users such as Worm, who may be able to come up with some solutions for a possible NPP 'school'. For the time being, we have WP:NPP which Scottywong and I knocked into better shape as a tutorial a couple of years ago, but the problem is in getting people to read it! Handing out gongs and bling and pretty userboxen probably won't work because in general, there is no way to obtain a score, which is the way it should really be. I think probably the way to improving the standard of NPP is simply to step up what a few admins are already doing, and come down a tad harder on those who in spite of requests still don't get it right, and insist they go through some mentoring process before they are allowed to tag another page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm studying Worm's teaching skills so I can expand the teaching program. I even had myself adopted by Worm so I can get firsthand experience. Right now however, I have a lot of other things to do, such as college, and until I'm done with this semester, I will only be answering talk page queries.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 13:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Cyberpower678, Acalamari has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The last time we spoke we were disagreeing, although I'd like to think that was resolved. This is just a little something for you, both as a friendly gesture and a note to say that I did appreciate what you had to say. :) Best. Acalamari 22:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been absent for the time being but I certainly hope you didn't interpret that as a fight or an argument. Either way I still think we have friendly interactions between us and thank you for smiling at me. My suggestion is to apply the right after reviewing one person rather than review all then apply to all because the appearance of that comes across as a little careless. My tip would be to decline requests for users who have rollback who request access for AFT5 as they do not demonstrate the need for reviewer.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 13:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha, no it wasn't a fight or argument; the above was just an acknowledgment and a gift. :) What I do now for users who request reviewer but have rollback is ask if they know about and understand pending changes, as that's what their reviewer rights would be for; I think that's a decent approach to take, but let me know if you're unsure about that. :) Best. Acalamari 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Adminstats on simplewiki

Hey Cp. The other day on simplewiki I deleted a bunch of adminstats subtemplates that belonged to former admins. Your bot re-created two of them -- one of them had a transclusion so I know why that was recreated, but the other was completely unused. I don't really want these unused templates lying around and I'd really rather not have to keep deleting them, so... is there something you can do to make sure they don't get repeatedly recreated? If not, I will just salt the titles. Thanks. Osiris (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to do a bit of searching for the problem. The template does link to your WP:Simple Talk.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 11:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's what it is I can just remove the link. Feel free to do a bit of testing if you like. Osiris (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Never mind I found the problem here. That should resolve it I think? Osiris (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your sentiments and look forward to seeing you again sometime. =) Kurtis (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Pokémon: Black & White: Rival Destinies episodes

I stopped watching the page a while ago to focus on making sure that the season 2 page was up to date. An IP editor completely revamped the article, including a bunch of as of yet unconfirmed (except by a bunch of other user oriented websites and a fansite) English language titles and English character names. I've changed all the character names back, but are you aware of a reliable source that lists all the episode titles (beyond the one where Ash's Tepig evolves)?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at current. I haven't had the time lately to monitor the Pokemon pages. According to what I've been seeing, a lot of edits have been going on there. I'll look at it within the next couple of days.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 14:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've technically mentioned you on WP:ANI in regards to Principal adjoint's inability to understand what the English Wikipedia does.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reported him for breaking 3RR.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 21:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Cyberbot II

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 05:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

RfX Report

Hi,
I noticed you've taken over maintaining the RfX Report from TParis. When he went through the BRFA for it I asked whether he could remove the signature to avoid all those unnecessary edits and MBisanz concurred so TParis removed it. I assume you are using the original source code so it's back now. Could you please remove it as well?
Cheers, Amalthea 19:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Set the showtimestamp parameter to false to hide it from view. Some users consider the time stamp useful and I'm one of them.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind seeing them. My point was the edits are pointless. Why make 100 edits a day when actually two per RfA would be sufficient? You know it's updated every 15 minutes, why bake that into the page? Amalthea 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It would still make the edits every 15 minutes if I removed the time stamp. The edits just won't show up if there are no changes in the active RfAs. I see no difference.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, MediaWiki silently discards such null edits, they don't create a new revision. Amalthea 22:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I know. That's what I said but nonetheless, the will still be pushing edits every 15 minutes even if they're null. Also an edit every 15 minutes is hardly a waste of resources.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Amalthea. Cyberpower, as a compromise, would you be willing to have the timestamp off by default, then for users who find it useful it can be turned on? Worm^TT(talk) 10:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Cyber. Not looking to pile on (whether the bots edits every 15 mins doesn't phase me), but I'm wondering if you could change the bot's sig to something simple like Cyberbot I so it's less distracting. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  Sigs are something I am apprehensive to changing. When I made my signature, it was the intent to make it stand out and distract much less. You are essentially also saying that my signature is distracting as well. I work hard on my signatures and in order for me to change any of mine or the bots', will require a community petition against the signature. You can however opt out of the timestamp by adding |showtimestamp=false to the transclusion.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  There's a big difference to having a signature in text discussion and a signature highlighted in a RfX box. Worm^TT(talk) 14:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm going to give it thought. In any event, I don't have access to my personal computer right now that will access the bot.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  I had quick access to my computer so I threw in a quick update to the task. You can now choose to have a much simpler sig displayed by setting the simplesig parameter to true.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

RfX report

Hi Cyberpower! If possible, can you use small text? It'll look like this and probably more tidy. (I've made your sign bold too here)

Last updated by ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} at 01:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Any reason it's not added Rcsprinter? Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@TSU, small text can be an option. @Worm, huh?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 10:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 put his RfA live an hour and a half ago. It's not on the RfX report. Worm^TT(talk) 10:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Amalthea fixed it before I did. The bot is case sensitive. A lowercase r will cause the bot to miss it. I will put in a fix once I have the time.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 11:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@TSU, you can now optionally set the text to be smaller by setting the smalltimestamp to true.

Thanks cyberpower, I saw your previous reply but however forgot to reply. I'm cool with your idea, infact I find the version with the small BOT, the better one :) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeRTOS

Dare elaborate the closure? I actually see no way this can be kept as "keep". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I meant to close that as merge. Something else must've been going through my mind when I closed it.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to offer

Thanks for the expression of willingness to help me remove (True) from my user name.Michael V Gold (True) (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords

You seemed to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords which was a relatively active discussion. There didn't seem to be a clear keep outcome. I don't know if you read the discussion, but in determining notability, the discussion identified one source of unknown reliablity, and one reliable source that was being discussed. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The discussion was overdue closure and most of the users agreed that the topic is notable and therefore should kept.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't working from a straight majority, as lots of the keeps were based on bad reasoning and thus unconvincing, as pointed out in the discussion, so I'm not sure a baseless 'disagree' is valid here. Does one reliable source make a game notable? 31.220.203.74 (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

7 keeps and one delete is clear enough for me.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's 7:2 (not including the nomination). Consensus isn't based on a a tally though. It's based on reasonable, logical arguments. One early keep referred to another article existing and said there were "at least six [sources]", when only 1 or 2 of them have since been deemed reliable/with significant coverage. A more recent keep used the argument that it had been featured on the official RPG Maker website and had a certain number of downloads in a month. These appeared to be his reasons tipping him to "weak keep". Neither of those things were true, as said in the comments. That's why it's unreasonable to just go on the basis of a tally. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What I consider is tally and strength of arguments. If one person makes an exceedingly convincing point as to why it should be deleted, but 20 other people vote to keep it, it obviously won't be deleted.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, per WP:DGFA#Rough consensus this is not 'obvious'. One policy-based reason for deletion should generally trump 20 WP:ATAs, just as one editor showing in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources must trump 20 editors saying 'not important'.
Depending on the discussion, numbers can sometimes factor in, e.g. if interpretation of policy is not clear for the topic at hand, or if there is debate whether the coverage is significant enough, but that's then what you should look at, not simply the number of bolded words. Amalthea 11:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

AFD script

Hi 678 and thanks for taking part in AFDs! We have an amazing script who helps us close AFDs, remove the template from article and add old-afd within a single click. It also helps in re-listing debates just with a click. The script is located here: User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Funny thing, I was looking for that script right now. Thanks for completing my search for me.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, Cyberpower678. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mlpearc (powwow) 17:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donte_Paige-Moss

Hi 678! I also did close it but then reverted on second thoughts ([2]). The afd, in my believe needed to be relisted rather then closing as the votes were 1 delete against 2 keep. It was not that clear consensus and could be relisted as it wasn't before or could be closed per "no consensus", but "keep", I don't think is exactly applicable. Cheers buddy! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Two strongly reasoned keep votes with incredible amounts of sourcing. That's clear enough to me. If someone has a problem with my close then they can take it to deletion review where the community shall judge upon my close.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

As a non-admin you are unable to close articles except with this specific but very narrow criteria: Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures. A non-admin is unable to close an AfD as no consensus; it's too contentious for you to decide. Anything that isn't blindingly obvious keep you shouldn't close as a NAC. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed a large number of your closures are inappropriate. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I'm also concerned at your actions here. Please desist in closing AFD debates that are not obvious. — foxj 22:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the closures done today, I can see how that was a bit out of line. Are you asking me to just not do the non obvious ones?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

He said: Anything that isn't blindingly obvious keep you shouldn't close as a NAC. Isn't that blindingly obvious? It would actually be far more preferable if you didn't close any AfD at all until you have a lot more experience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• I know that a lot of your mentoring work with Reaper Eternal has been on this subject, I hope you won't mind that I've pointed him to this discussion. Worm^TT(talk) 11:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, and if anyone's interested in my thoughts on the matter - non-admin closures of XfDs is a bloody stupid thing to do. Deletion is by definition the most contentious thing administrators have to do, they're removing editors hard work, whilst leaving the editor there to complain. Any administrator who does it constantly has "Why was my article deleted" style questions on their talk page.

  Emotion breeds emotion, so everyone at XfD is instantly more emotive than most places. This leaves any non-admin who attempts to make a judgement as a target and if someone is invested enough, they are more likely to go to some lengths to discredit the source of that closure. This means that a non-admins closures will be scrutinised repetitively, and since it is very difficult to write a water-tight closure, there is always going to be someone who disagrees.

  The benefits of closing the simple cases are minimal, and the problems with closing the contentious cases are massive. It's really not a cost effective use of an non-admins time, especially if they ever intend to be an admin. Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I've got to point out that I don't close AfD's for a very similar reason. Administrators don't need assistance at AfD. The amount of assistance I could give is miniscule in that the only AfD's I could close are ones that an administrator could do in a very short amount of time anyways. That also means I would spend more of my time searching for an AfD that falls within the non-admin closure guidelines than I would spend closing the discussions. If I want to be active in AfD, my time would be better spent taking part in discussions. Making arguments in a discussion that are grounded in policy should help an administrator better than closing a discussion. Ryan Vesey 12:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well so much for trying to be helpful. I knew this would happen at some point but not so soon. Guess I'll just not close them anymore.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Re. Your recent reversion of my edit

Hi, would you mind telling me what was particularly wrong with my edit? Yes, the page was archived and it is against policy to edit it, but I didn't think there was anything especially erroneous about overstepping that rule in this instance. I am a bit of a spelling/grammar freak, so I guess I just couldn't resist the compulsion towards making that edit. I won't undo your revision (and on face value, it doesn't really matter all that much), but I would like more of an explanation. Kurtis (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

1. It's archived, you shouldn't edit it.
2. You refactored someone else's edit, that's frowned upon.

Cheers.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online(Now using HTML5) 00:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your second point is inaccurate — that was actually my comment (I formerly edited as "Master&Expert" until I changed my username roughly a month ago) — but I'll concede to your first point in that I shouldn't edit archived pages. It doesn't really matter, anyways.

Thanks, and take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online(Now using HTML5) 00:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

RfX reports

Is it necessary for the bot to edit the page every 15 minutes, just to change a timestamp? →Σσς. 07:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

...and its status page; would it be easier to simply check its contributions page and see if the bot is editing or not? →Σσς. 07:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Its useful for me to know that it is editing when it should, which it is not right now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline(Now using HTML5) 10:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wouldn't another way to do that is have the script write to a static html page in your ~/public_html so you (and others) could see when it last ran? I really don't think 2k+ useless edits (only this month) are the way to go about this. Thanks, LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 18:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably, except for that public_html doesn't work on my account for whatever reason. I haven't gotten the chance or time yet to thoroughly look into what's causing the issues.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline(Now using HTML5) 18:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to make thousands of edits per month to let you know when the bot is editing when it should, when you can just check its contributions? Have you considered making the bot update the RfX report only when there are active RfX's? →Σσς. 06:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't; thing doesn't need a last updated at all. If it ain't up-to-date for whatever, looking at the page will make it pretty apparent, and the history should more than suffice for getting to the bottom of it. A little link directly to that (or at least to view the template itself) might not hurt, though. -— Isarra ༆ 07:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I was just coming here to ask the same thing, and found this discussion already in progress. If you need to check that the bot is running when it has no edits to make, have it log somehow off-wiki instead of making useless edits. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I will adjust it as soon as I can access Toolserver again. My computer at home is the only unit that has the access key to access the folder containing the code. It is currently dissassembled due to renovations.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline(Now using HTML5) 18:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

WMF Labs

I need to talk to you when you get a chance about moving some code to labs. Catch me on IRC some night please.--v/r - TP 12:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I almost never go on IRC. I would prefer email communicates or text messages.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline(Now using HTML5) 13:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbot II on WT:CVU

Looks like it blanked a bunch of the page. I'm assuming that was unintentional and will revert it. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 21:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It should not have done that. The task should be disabled. That task is the Defcon notifier task that was requested to be created by CVU. I have recently gotten around to furthering the development of the bot.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool, sounds good thanks. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment

While I understand that you edit conflicted, was it necessary to get the last word in here? It does no good going forward and I think it would greatly diffuse the situation if you would undo your edit. Ryan Vesey 20:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone as good as called you a liar, would you feel the need to reply properly? Also, have you read the whole of Cyberpower's comment properly? In the last two sentences of it, he acknowledges that he may have problems with the tone of his comments, and undertakes to improve that in the future. What's wrong with that? I'm not seeing anything similar from LC, who's behaved appallingly regarding the current RfA, has finally withdrawn his inappropriate canvassing on the nominators' talk pages with poor grace (and knowing it's already had its intended effect). And feels like calling Cyberpower a liar and a bully, despite the "civility" userbox displayed proudly on his userpage. (P.S. sorry about all the edit conflicts!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)I had no intention of getting the last word. I had every intention making that comment my last word on the matter. I have nothing more to say and I feel that comment should stand for now. It's up to leaky to decide what he wants to do with it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Recall

Where was the discussion to not ask people about recall? The only discussions that people have pointed to me happened in 2008/2009 and I can remember the question being used in a few recent RfAs that I have participated in. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion basically determined that recall questions are a lose-lose situation for the candidate and it is generally preferable if they aren't asked. Ryan Vesey 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Merci Ryan. I removed the question --Guerillero | My Talk 23:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You can ask it but its not liked. Also depends how you put it. See Archive 217 and Archive 216.Blethering Scot 23:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

RfB/Apteva

Your removal of Apteva's comments after the close of his RfB was by-the-book correct, but under the circumstances of this particular case (the RfB being snow-closed and then the candidate answering a question explaining why he went for RfB and showing he's okay with the early closure), I think it is much better to allow the comments to stand. I've explained further on the RfB talkpage. I hope you can live with this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge it was closed while I was in the process of composing a response. I was editing a section that did not show the question 4. In most cases a closed discussion does not get edited, but applying a rule just for the sake of applying it makes no sense whatsoever. If anyone is really interested in my other answers, though, they will find them in the edit history, and there is no further reason to restore them. There are far more important things to fix on WP than reverting the first edit by a nominated party to their RfB... When I finished the edit I could see that it was closed, but it made no sense to not answer the questions, and close out the RfB. Apteva (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of leave to the community

I am typically a very patient and tolerant person. I can handle attacks, inuslts, criticism, and blatant lies from people. However, the recent RfA was one of the most horrendous I have ever been involved in and it has taken quite an emotional toll on me. This is not because I have been accused of hazing an editor, bullying an editor, and lying to and editor, but rather the additional drama I have inadvertantly created. I have gotten involved and pitted editors against each others. I have started threads that resulted in fights, and escalated matters at AN for lack of effective and clear communication. I deem these problems to be serious and I believe I shouldn't be involved in the community when I have these issues. This is not an attempt to be a diva. Additional turn offs was my aspiration to become a trusted member of the community and step up to do administrative help. With the RfA I have witnessed and seen that there is absolutely no hope for change, I can see that I will never be a trusted member of the community at this rate. I am therefore going on an indefinite Wikibreak to think about whether Wikipedia is a place for me or not. I could come back very soon or I may end up retiring. What I will do even I don't know yet. So I am saying goodbye for now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 19:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What? Please come back. We need you! In fact, I was in the middle of drafting an email that I planned to send to you at the end of the month about nominating you for an RFA. Please come back, as you are a trusted and valued member of the Wikipedia community. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My signature isn't grey yet! ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 00:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)