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
As someone who has seen you around, I must say I was going to probably oppose your RfA. It has nothing to do with your politics, userboxes, or anything big like that. It was a matter of your civility. I won't oppose at this time, because I think you would make a good admin. However, I would encourage you to keep trying to remain calm and cool under fire. Also, keep up the constant use of your edit summaries. Good luck with your RfA, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
We disagreed on some things, but it's pretty clear you have nothing but the best intentions for WikiPolicy and the Wikipedia itself. Best of luck on your RfA. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that in the end I went with neutral but I just can't see my way clear to support yet. However you have my best wishes and every assurance of support should your nomination reach positive consensus whichever side of the fence I fall on... ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How would you handle the developing controversy regarding the Charmmy Kitty article? Do you think it's Al Qaida or Fiona Apple? What should we do? As an admin, what would you do? --DanielCD 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Meh, I'd rather just edit this than start an entire new section... I wanted to say, I'm sorry for voting oppose. Reviewing my vote, it seems incorrect on my part. However, I just wanted to say (despite its 'funniness'), that you gave me the userbox for supporting your RfA... should I use it? --NomaderTalk 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
NomaderTalk 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate your attention at my User page. Have a good one. Terryeo 20:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
w W w \ | / \.|./ | | o .:.:.:. | DAMN HUMANS ALWAYS TRYING TO IMPERSONATE GOD wwWWWww // ((c ))"""(( //| o /\/\(( (( 6 6 )) // | (d d (( )))^((( // | o / / c((-(((')))-.// | /===/ `) (( )))(( ,_/ | /o o/ / c((( (()) | | ` `^ / c ((( )) | | /c c((( ( | | / c ((( . | | / c c ((^^^^^^`\ | |c c c c((^^^ ^^^`\ | \ c c c(^^^^^^^^`\ | `\ c c c;`\^^^^^./ | `\c c c ;/^^^^^/ | `\ c c /^^^^/' | `;c |^^/' o .-. ,' c c//^\\ ( @ `.`c -///^\\\ \ -` c__/|/ \|jgs `---' ' '
It said to gang up on you, i dont know what for but i figured I'd leave you a picture of neptune god of the sea. Gastrich will probably try to RfC me for this though as it is blastomphy! Mike (T C) 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not say Maryland was named after Saint Mary. Maryland was named after Mary, Queen of Scots--the mother of King James you fucking asshole! The Calvert and Stuart families were very close and the Calvert family partook in the Rising of the North, which was to unseat Elizabeth Tudor for Mary Stuart. How dare you libel me so inconsiderately, buffoon?! 68.110.9.62 05:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
File:Microphone and cord.jpg | This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned. |
I read your comment on your abstain vote, and wanted to drop by and share with you my belief that if this proposal passes, it will make edit wars much worse. Here is why,
As you like userboxes, I thought I'd share my latest one with you below. I did it over the last few days in part as an example of how such a box should be used. If this proposal passes, there will be no central place to find it (it is listed in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs), and no list of like-minded people to explore. Recently, rogue admins have been deleting dozens of categories and templates on the assumption that this would pass. The damage to Wikipedia's culture will be irreparable.
Please consider changing your vote to Oppose.
StrangerInParadise
If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add ((user pro-cannabis)) to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type ((user pro-cannabis|stamp|right))
Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.
Stand up and be counted while you still can,
StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
For reverting that one edit to my userpage ... by an IP user ... from Spain ... who apparently came to Wikipedia just to delete a photo from my userpage ... and then vanished ... never to edit again.
I guess I'll have to file that one under "life's mysteries"
Cheers! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You're doing some weird linking stuff there :-O 21:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Cyde, I seem to have screwed up the AfD creation for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrizia_Norelli-Bachelet (and see today's log page also) and can't seem to unscrew it up. Help would be appreciated. Thanks, JoshuaZ 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Disregard above. Got assistance. JoshuaZ 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This image is not usable in the Conan O'Brien article. (1) One of the criteria at WP:FUC is that there is no free alternative. Replacing a free photo with a fair use image is a copyright violation. (2) This image has no source or licensing info. It's a obviously from a premiere or other event, taken by a photo agency (also a violation of WP:FUC) which are not a fair use.--Fallout boy 00:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I reinserted "underage" to the Bairam Khan article, since the reason Khan served as Regent to Akbar, as I understand it, was because Akbar was 13, and not yet old enough to control the Empire. Khan was dismissed as regent once Akbar was 18. Anyways, if my history is wrong, by all means argue with me, I admit I'm very, very fallible. :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cyde. Re your question on WP:FPC about controlling depth of field, have a look at this brief tutorial. I'm not knowledgeable about camers either, but I remember someone posting a link to these digital photography tutorials on WP:FPC not long go, and they are all superb. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Cyde, I finaly got around to tracking down the wiki policy on signatures that I had briefly mentioned on Guys talk page. You can find the official policy here. The take home message can be summarized with the following two statements.
Sorry to wreck your fun :-( David D. (Talk) 19:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You know what, "brevity ... is wit", so here ya go, my all new sig. --Cyde 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it was an accident. I copied it over, but forgot to replace the redirect. I didn't do it purposely. haha. Thanks for your concern though. --Jared [T]/[+] 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cyde,
I hope you're well.
I'm writing a couple of Wiki users because I feel that I may have offended some people. I apologize if my past contributions made you upset. I see that you value making contributions to Wikipedia (although I don't agree with them) and that you have a passion for this place and getting your input into various entries.
The recent explosion in revert wars by "apparent Jason Gastrich sock puppets or impersonators" has not been my doing. Although I disagree with your viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong, I haven't been contributing under the huge number of impersonators we have seen, lately.
Please consider reconciling with me. It could do us some good. I wish had something tangible to offer you, but I don't. All I can do is apologize for the past edits that were deemed inappropriate by you, although I still strongly disagree, and forgive you for the misdeeds I feel you have done. For what it's worth, I see this place as hostile to what I believe in, and even the truth in general, causing me to have serious reservations about even inviting others here and certainly about promoting this place in any way.
My most important goal is to glorify God and to lead others into a relationship with Him. I've been working hard and doing this online, although some may not see these efforts reflected on Wikipedia. Therefore, I need to go where I'm needed the most, because that is where the fruit is at.
Thanks for your consideration and God bless you.
Sincerely, Jason Gastrich 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Please don't be offended that I'm sending a similar message to a handful of others. I feel the same way and wanted to say the same thing to them, too.
Maybe it was someone else's name I saw in AfD's and such? I sure hope I'm not wrong again! I am making a severe fool of myself. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
While I don't know if you're deaf of not, I wanted to make you aware of a relatively new userbox you might find interesting. Cheers!--Esprit15d 16:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your great efforts on Amin al-Husseini! It looks like we are converging on compromise with the only issue being discussed is whether his collaboration with the Nazis before WWII should be mentioned in the intro or not, but that's peanuts compared to what it was. Now, will you be able to deal with something even more challenging? I filed this request for mediation back in february and still got no response. I will appreciate if you look into this issue. Many thanks and cheers, Pecher Talk 14:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Two more votes for, and you will have hit the minor notoriety list. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It was a tough Job but you navigated us through. I think we are 99% done so let's call it a 100%. Zeq 21:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:100 has a place in the sun for you, I'd say. I reckon it would have been many more if we'd followed Plan A ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like closing time has hit on your RfA and it's very close, so it's up to the 'crat now. Although I was on the oppose side, it was only about the userboxes issue, a topic that's been hard on a lot of the community. If you don't pass, try to keep level about them and I'd be a support voter in as little as a month. If you do pass, then early congrat's! Hopefully a good userbox policy will get passed soon, and it can be the end of The Great Userbox War of 2006. -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 03:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! I know you will be a good administrator. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 10:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Congrats on your RfA. JoshuaZ 03:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I was inspired to change the term "negative influence" to "influence" on your user page after reading that it was "open for editing by everyone." Then it occurred to me that you might not appreciate that. What's your take? ... aa:talk 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That puts you on WP:100. Congratulations. ... aa:talk 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see you made it. --Go for it! 04:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that is ironic. Congrats ;p Moe ε 04:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice userbox, although I should point out I opposed you (weakly). And congrats on making it, take care of those buttons. NSLE (T+C) at 04:48 UTC (2006-03-09)
Wonderful sense of humor, which you will need as an Admin.
KillerChihuahua?!? 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
-Congratulations, I'll probably be coming back to you with one of those in a few hours so we can newb up the admins' noticeboard together :) --Obli (Talk)? 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
there was what I thought was a consensus here [1] not to semi-protect the evolution page unless subject to massive vandalism. Two little comments hardly seems to qualify. JoshuaZ 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikibreak couldn't hold me back from voting on your RFA. (It's not often that one gets to revert a speedy deletion tag, so one tends to remember the person who placed it.) I think that it's awesome that you got admin-fied, even though we were on opposite sides in the userbox "war". Your level-headedness and (there's no better word for it) humility is something that an awful lot of admins (and non-admins) could learn from. Again, congratulations galore. I'm really happy that the community valued contributions over controversy and supported you. (And, by the way, you had just about the coolest thanks-for-voting message ever. Very nicely done.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Congrats. Sorry I missed your RFA, I'd have voted support if I had known you had requested. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
What's the meaning of this [2]? You sent it out to everyone who opposed your adminship as well as supported. Did you not realize that? Or is this some sort of jab at the people who opposed? Because that's what it looks like. --Ben 06:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, Cyde, on a successful RfA. While I thank you for the note of thanks, I do think putting it in the form of a userbox could be seen as "rubbing their face in it". Also, you did put "...that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RfA..." (emphasis added), which can be taken poorly by those who opposed. "Thanks for voicing your opinion on.." may have been better, but the cat's out of the bag now; no sense making 130 more edits!
That being said, and although I supported you, I encourage you strongly (<strong>, get it?) to use moderation in administering your powers these first few days/weeks. It's a common sentiment that "training" for a job only prepares you to discover what you didn't know about how to do it before you were hired. I feel the same may apply here, and believe you should take your nominator's paradoxical words of wisdom to heart above; you more than most may draw flak for any borderline decisions you make in the near future, since your RfA was so contentious. Remember not to panic, and get someone else to weigh in on your decisions in all cases but dire emergencies (and really, they're mostly not that dire, are they?), and I'm sure you'll do fine. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it right on my userpage, and using the ((user box)) template! :) Jude(talk,contribs) 08:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Your vandalism of my talk page only serves to prove me correct. Any further edits will be reverted unread. Cynical 09:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:VAND for a definition on what vandalism is. It is bad form (and possibly a violation of WP:CIVIL) to accuse other editors of vandalism for acts which are clearly not vandalism. I don't see how a thank you note for voting in an RFA could possibly be considered vandalism. I don't know why you're taking this tone; it's almost like you want some sort of antagonism. I've already put the past behind me and I urge you to do the same. We're both editors on Wikipedia and we may have to work together in the future. That's not going to work if you stick by your current statement of refusing to listen to anything I say on that grounds that it is "vandalism". --Cyde Weys 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! And Cynical, don't be a dick. Cyde was clearly making a joke, and while it was open to minsinterpretation it's clearly not open to being grounds for refusing to have any contact with a respected editor and now administrator. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I just closed the TFD-debate as speedy kept per WP:POINT nomination, then I saw that you had already deleted this template. →AzaToth 11:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll wear it proudly.
Your Jeffersonian reticence may have cost you support; I would have been persuaded by your statements, had it not been for the blustering and misconstructions of your friends. Septentrionalis 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the userbox, and congrats on your adminship. Pecher Talk 17:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hall Monitor | Congratulations on your recent success, I'm confident you will prove to be an excellent addition to the team. |
And for you. Hall Monitor 22:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Cyde/Archive002, thank you for the message of support you left on my talk page regarding my RfA: it passed with a final tally of 55/1/2. I also wanted to say congratulations again. I'd left a congrats message for you on my talk page, but after leaving 57 thank-you messages just now, I realize that the odds that you checked up on all of those pages to see whether you got a reply is pretty slim—especially as you had nearly twice as many people to say thanks to! If you want a hand with anything, please gimme a shout. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
Congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Best wish!--Jusjih 08:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to copy: User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. Caveat emptor. Regards bobblewik 22:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed a picture from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article because it was irrelevant to the article and at the same time potentially offensive. However, on the article's talk page, you didn't address that concern and instead implied that I was a vandal and that I consistently deleted images on the basis that they were offensive. I am requesting that you respond to the issue I brought up. joturner 01:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you please make a page move for me? Marin Catholic should be at Marin Catholic High School, its official name, but the latter is currently a redirect. (ref:official site). Thanks! - Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 02:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Been nominated to be a Admin myself. Any advice ? Martial Law 05:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)
Hello, Cyde! I saw your message on Danny's page - you may wish to read my comment above, asking for clarification as well. Here Danny seems to indicate that all pages except Jack Thompson (attorney) under WP:OFFICE may be unprotected, and the page was no longer protected (having been unprotected by Geni) when I removed the tag. Just FYI... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cyde,
I and Pecher have also had discussions regarding the dhimmi article. He reverted my edits for several times without even discussing them. His logic is that “I am twisting the sourced material”. I think Pecher's edits have 3 problems (though some of his edits are good):
1. He is assuming that whatever some particular scholars has said is a fact. Instead of writing them as the opinion of some scholar he writes them as a fact. "Lewis says X" will have more support than "X is so;” Especially the Humiliation of dhimmis part. [3] or 'Shi'a peculiarities' part [4]
2. Some of his quotes are clearly wrong to my mind. particularly the 'Shi'a peculiarities' part.
e.g. " Shi'a jurists deem non-Muslims to be ritually impure — najis" is quoted from somewhere and is incorrect. The fact is that shia believes that only polytheist are najis. Their belief is based on the quranic verse 9:28. "O ye who believe! Truly the Mushriks are unclean". Even if we assume that it refers to ritual impurity, the verse is only in the context of polytheists and not dhimmis. Anyway, there is a story behind this verse and how it was used to justify the ritual impurity of polytheist. As a shia, I am well aware of the ritually impure things.
Pecher send the website of Ali al-Sistani for me, saying that Kafirs are unclean. But the Kafirs are not Non-Muslims?!!! Some shia scholars consider Zoroastrians to be ritually unclean but nobody considers Jews or Christians to be ritually unclean. When Quran talks about the Kafirs, it is talking about Meccan Kafirs who were worshiping idols and NOT the Jews of Medina. People of the book are NOT kafirs.
I don't ask him to remove his edits in this place or other places. Just say "According to X, ...." I will come then and provide evidences against them.
3. He is adding irrelevant material to the article (e.g. The picture of Maimonides in the Dhimmi article.)
For more details please see [5]
What has made me unpleasant is that he was reverting my edits wholesale without providing good reasons and was insisting that instead of writing "According to X,.." one should write "X is so".
Could you please consider this as well in the "Ongoing mediation".
Thanks. --Aminz 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you please rephrase this in a neutral light (i.e. not directed at me) and post it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-27 Dhimmi and Jizya where others may read it and comment on it? Thanks? --Cyde Weys 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
I award you the Barnstar of Diligence for quickly spotting Template:Office and protecting it before it could be vandalized. (I spotted it ysterday and was actually going to ask someone to protect it, but you did it before I got around to it.) - Hbdragon88 05:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC) |
I am looking for an explanation here because I'm genuinely confused. Template:User_Nazi and User:UBX/Communist were both up for deletion. Both were decided "kept" and yet only User Nazi was deleted. Care to explain why that happened? It would seem BOTH would be kept, but for some reason, that didn't happen. For the record, the note on Nazi was "The result of the debate was speedy kept per WP:POINT nomination." The communist note was: "The result of the debate was Keep pending any new userbox policy." (By the way, I'm neither nazi nor communist and only care about fairness.) I also realize someone created both just to "make a point" and both were created on the same day. They both should be deleted or kept. Or am I missing some unwritten Wikipedia policy on "-isms" here? Nhprman UserLists 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I see your rfa was successful. Glad to see you utilizing your tools well, and I hope you continue to assist the community as you are. Good luck! -ZeroTalk 06:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you are a new admin closing several afds, hence this heads-up. You must not close an afd unless it is five days old. You have closed several afds that were initiated on 10 March on the same day, which is considered as highly unacceptable. This is akin to closing an rfa within 3 or 5 days, instead of waiting for a week. This does not apply, of course, for speedy deletes. If you need to reply, do so on my talkpage. --Gurubrahma 10:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your involvement. You may want to notify User:Tickle me who has been editing the article and the talk page of Dhimmi. Pecher Talk 17:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cyde.
I see that you removed the HCOOP userbox. It would have been nice if you had left me a message about this or at least some explanation of why you are deleting it. I'm not a big userbox fan, but if you're going to delete that userbox then you should minimally delete all the Dreamhost, ISP, and mail userboxes as well. NTK 01:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Congrats on becoming an admin! I was hoping you could help with something. In deletion review (and the deletion process for that matter) and article was deleted that I believe should not have been. User:Tony Sidaway agrees. The article was deleted for notability, but the person in question was mentioned in about a dozen different mainstream media articles, included a recent front page article in the New York Times. Can you take a look and vote accordingly? The review is here. Wikipedia:Deletion Review#John Bambenek. Thanks. -- Alpha269 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please respond on my talkpage or mention clearly on your talkpage that you'd reply here. Else, it is too difficult to keep track of conversations. WP:SNOW is not a policy or a guideline - so, do not quote it for this purpose. I'd be happy to support your closing if and when it becomes policy. I have seen several RfAs and AfDs turn around within a day/ two days - I know as I have rescued around 9 articles from deletion. So, please follow policy or work towards getting the policy changed. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 10:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you made an improvement to your dates.js (removing 'Sun'). I incorporated it into mine. There are some improvement that I have done to mine that you haven't got. I like the idea of duplicate files, but can we synchronise? bobblewik 12:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, I only duplicated yours instead of merely linking because I heard some whispering of deletion. Sure, let's synchronize. --Cyde Weys 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do it soon. --Aminz 03:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, you may not know me, but congrats in your succesful Rfa! I like your userbox too, very innovative! Cheers and see you soon!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 03:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, I'm writing to you because as a lurker following the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy I've noticed that you've made insightful comments on its talk page. In the last day there was a user named Irishpunktom who tried incessantly to add irrelevant information to that article and eventually there was a bit of a back and forth until Irishpunktom filed a 3RR violation report against Netscott. Well the first administrator didn't handle the report properly and only blocked Netscott despite the fact that Irishpunktom was in equal violation. I filed a 3RR violation report against Irishpunktom that finally saw him blocked as well. From looking at the comments on the reports of fellow editors it seems that Netscott didn't really merit a block... well to make a long story short I was just hoping to make you better aware of the situation as I imagine you'll continue to be involved with that article. Congrats on become an admin btw... I only wish you knew me better as that sounds a bit hollow coming from someone you don't know... take it easy CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 05:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
CIPHERTEXT REMOVED-- Tawker 08:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me, Cyde. And sorry for being so ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CannonBallGuy (talk • contribs)
Hi Cyde, I have an admin task for you! Please register me, so I can use this: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser
--Go for it! 10:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Congrats on your adminship Cyde. I'm currently sending you and all recently made admins a quick request which will put your new admin powers into effect to assist in an important area: deleting images that have been tagged as having no source info after 7 days. The category is at Category:Images with unknown source. Most of the images have been removed from articles, but some may have been skipped. It would be fantastic if you could assist in this matter! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been testing a new regex in a file called 'datestest.js' (see my monobook). It has dramatically reduced two entire classes of false positives: ISO dates and dates that have the year at the left. It does have some 'misses' and some of these can be cured by running it twice (i.e. clicking on that 'datestest' tab a second or third time). Please let me know what you think. bobblewik 18:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I logged all of Deathrock's offences on a page from my user page, so only myself and Admins can edit it. The link is here, [6]. I urge yew to look into this matter immediatly. Ley Shade 22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The usage of the template says this
Usage
((subst:-))
Substitute this template after any floating elements and before elements you do not wish to float together with the first set.
The template may also be transcluded, but as the markup provided is unlikely to change or improve, there is little justification for transclusion overhead.
I also took Wikipedia:Template substitution advantages and disadvantages into account.
The template is a simple br tag, it doesn't affect the page sizes that I subst'd it on. I was just using the template in the way it says to use it on its template talk page. I don't know what I've done wrong to offend you. --Squilibob 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I really, really wish I could be certain you were wrong, or that we could just weight the voting (say, one vote per 500 article edits). But the former is probably me being overly optimistic, and the latter would just be seen as us "oppressive admins" gaming the system. (It still amazes me how "admin" has been used as an epithet in this debate.) I'm gonna still hold out for a miraculous, kumbaya moment, but also think you're right: top-down intervention could potentially go a long way toward getting this behind us. JDoorjam Talk 17:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Benapgar (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been a constant source of personal attacks and disruption at the ID article, and it seems to be extending out to touch others, such as yourself now. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to talk directly to you through this, but you told me not to leave pov in the hovind article. I was doing no such thing, the person who wrote that article was very slanted in the view point, leaving only their point of view, i was just trying to equal out the slanted and mis-leading points in the article. If you have any suggestions on how to correct incorrect information, without seeming to leave pov info on the page, i would be glad to hear it. This article has nothing to do with informing people about kent Hovind. However, it has everything to do with persuading peole that he is an illiterate quack.
Isaac (personsaddress) personsaddress@gmail.com
Your edits are very POV though. You keep attacking "evolutionists" or what not. Have you ever met Kent Hovind in person? I have. And everything in that article is pretty much accurate as written. --Cyde Weys 08:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I have, however, i think it just all comes down to the original argument of Evolution v. Creation. You believe that the information in the article is accurate, most likely because you believe in Evolution. This, however, is your point of view. I was trying to balance out the single point of view, and slanted, article. Personsaddress 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Not everything has a valid controversy surrounding it. A good example would be flat-Earthers. Kent Hovind is that kind of person. He's a convicted tax evader and a slimy businessman all around. The "arguments" that he uses are all absurd and go way beyond the "creation vs. evolution controversy" and into "reality versus Kent Hovind". He doesn't understand anything scientific besides shooting rubber bands. If you want to see more, check out this site. Make sure not to miss this nice subpage. --Cyde Weys 08:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
"They have come to the point where they cannot attack the message I bring against evolution so they wish to attack me personally instead. This is called an ad hominem argument. They mistakenly think that by belittling the man they have answered his points and won the debate. When the opponent in a debate begins using ad hominem attacks, it is an obvious signal that they are losing the debate on facts and must resort to other means to try to save face or divert attention."-- Kent Hovind. - The person who wrote the article, knows that he cannot face the facts, so he attacks the one presenting the facts. Any person claiming that evolution is a fact, or even a theory is either a lier, someone who has been lied to, or just plain dumb. Anyone who uses "The scientific Theory" accurately, knows that Evolution is a religion, the same as christianity. Also, Hovind has some pretty good ideas on the government, rather than just calling him a tax evader, maybe you should look at some of the reasons and explainations behind this "behaviour". I don't know, call me crazy, but someone who uses logic to back up their beliefs, just seems more credible than someone who tells you to believe it, just because they are smarter than you. (Evolutionist Professors) .... and btw... not concerning Hovind... what kinda programs have you programmed, i'm a c++ programmer. Currently I have a contract to design a POS system for a 3 store chain retailer in my area, and i actually like talking to other programmers. Personsaddress 08:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Here are a few points:
And as for Kent Hovind ... if you consider fearmongering over some hypothetical "New World Order" to be "good ideas", then yeah, he has "good ideas" on the government. --Cyde Weys 09:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In regards to programming ... I'm still in school. The only programming I've done for pay was for the government. By the way, what is it with computer scientists and creationism? The same thing has been noted amongst engineers. --Cyde Weys 09:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
FIND BETTER ARTICLES, THESE ONES ARE WEAK 1st article talks about facts, it states, Fact: Life appeared on earth more than 2 billion years ago, it does this with several statements, but it gives no evidence that those statements are facts, it just starts with them, considering them as a given, however, Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. Second article is talking about how different fossils and such, fit on their "tree of life" which is also automatically considered a fact, even though it is just an unproven theory. 3rd article says that Creationists think that Evolution is a religion because it encompasses views of values and ultimate meanings. This is not true, I believe Evolution is a Religion because it is a view, that has not, and can not be proven on this world, but it is still taken be people as truth. They believe it on faith. Something which is not seen or heard, but is believed reguardless. I cannot prove, see or hear creation, but i can believe it, i believe it because i believe the bible, which i take to be the word of God of Faith. It's religion. Evolutionists have no proof of Evolution, but they believe it anyways. (Faith) They tell themselves that they have the proof so often, that they actually start to believe they have it, without having it at all. Any new evidence which comes up, Evolutionists neatly smash it up, until it fits into the little box that they want it to......about the Comp. Science, i'm still in school also, majoring in computer science, music composition, and Biology. I'm pretty much done with my computer science, and just working on my biology, and composition. However, maybe computer science and creation may be related because...... Telling someone to explain how the world came to be, but they can't use God as a possiblity, is like one computer talking to another computer, trying to figure out how they were made, but they can't use people as an explaination. It's absolutely preposterous, and impossible. (what school u go to?) Personsaddress 09:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Look, this isn't the best place to discuss this. There's a great newsgroup that was setup especially for this purpose, though. It's called talk.origins and you can find it here. All you need to do is setup a quick user account with Google and you'll be able to start posting. Put something like "ATTN:Cyde" in the subject of your first post so you get my attention and I learn your username. I'll see you there! --Cyde Weys 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, those articles aren't merely stating things as facts; if you saw the References section you'd see that they're citing specific papers from the scientific literature. But anyway, we can discuss these and other matters further on talk.origins. --Cyde Weys 09:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the words of wisdom. --GorillazFanAdam 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Check your email, please. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Are radio towers non notable? They are really, really tall, they can last for a long time (the article in question was about a radio tower that was more than 40 years old), and they are capable of transmitting information great distances. If there are dozens or hundreds of radio tower articles out there (along with a category and a specific type of stub), there is probably a good reason for keeping them (or are we the first to notice so many?). If you have a problem with so many radio tower articles, you might find it easier to bring up a mass deletion somewhere (you're an admin, you would know better than I) than deleting them one at a time. Anyway, that's just what I have to say in defence of radio towers.-PlasmaDragon 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice what went on lately with that page and missed that children's pictures were posted. I'm presuming that's what triggered the edit and the socks were subsequently banned.
Thanks very much for clearing up the archive.
--Mmx1 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
We're still working on it, actually. Someone shoulda told us sooner :-O There's quite a few edits that need to be selectively deleted. --Cyde Weys 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)== USAA ==
Update: USAA was unprotected a few days ago and one of the sockpuppets slipped through: [8] --Mmx1 02:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for helping me reverting changes to band articles. Mike Garcia is now reverting all our reverts back to "are" and "were." I strongly suspect that 69.12.166.47 is a sockpuppet of Mike Garcia. Those two users have the same edit history and are doing the same thing. Please help solve this problem. Thanks! —RJN 00:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to suggest you look at the links I provided on the talk page first. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 02:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
134.48.201.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Thanks. JoshuaZ 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Got it. --Cyde Weys 06:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. JoshuaZ 06:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The above arbitration case has been closed and the finall decision published.
For the arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Got it. --Cyde Weys 22:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see if the [[Anwar]] [[2004]] problem still exists. See my talk page. bobblewik 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Since you commented that the "dont feed the trolls"-userbox was irrelevant, I simply wanted to you to know that a few good editors have stopped editing wikipedia because of continued personal attacks and other forms of "trolling" in articles connected to the cartoons controversy and that I only made the user box since I miss them.DanielDemaret 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I really don't see how a little pastel box is going to prevent people from getting attacked by religious fanatics. Religious fanatics don't respect human life, let alone pastel boxes. --Cyde Weys 03:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Which part of the MOS does the removal of year links in taxoboxes conform to? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This part right here:
--Cyde Weys 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but the dates in a taxobox are relevant to the article. They are the date the taxon was formalized. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
By that definition all dates are relevant because all dates are the date of which something regarding the article content happened. The date is relevant; being able to click on the date and see a list of irrelevant things isn't. There's nothing special about the taxobox that makes it exempt from WP:CONTEXT. Maybe if it was a link to Taxa formalized in 2004 or something then it'd be relevant, but just a general link to 2004 isn't. --Cyde Weys 19:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Two things. One why don't you open the RFC. I'm not here to make enemies which is what SPUI would become if such an RFC were opened. And two on what basis would you block? And if you did block would such a block also be put on SPUI?JohnnyBGood 22:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your questions in my RfA joturner 00:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond with fully thought out answers. It shows that you take this seriously. Some other people pretty much brushed off my questions; I couldn't support them. --Cyde Weys 02:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this again. Can you weigh in some intelligence at the The Decemberists article's talk page regarding collective proper noun. This user keeps on reverting and is at his fourth revert for today already. I tried explaining and rationalize that the usage "is" is correct. Thanks! —RJN 17:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
FYI. You may want to look and comment here: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. For your reference, the guidelines are referenced here: Barnstar Proposal Guidelines. Thanks -- evrik 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the last few edits to his talk pages and his contribs list? I'm not sure that his last few edits merited blocking. JoshuaZ 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, he definitely was vandalizing[9]. --Cyde Weys 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That was his previous set of edits on the 23rd. His most recent block was today on the 24th I think. JoshuaZ 22:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, apparently he also violated three reverts. JoshuaZ 22:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the helping hand. You're just in time, as I'm heading off to bed. Please be aware that User:Yoggga has been vandalizing this and associated articles using a number of different sockpuppets; User:Erin Elizabeth and User:68.11.236.86 have both been having fun with that article, as well as HIV, Adenovirus infection, and Adenoviridae. If he/she persists, semiprotection may become necessary for those articles. Thanks again! :) --Ashenai 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I'll stoip vandalizing - it is too ridiculous
Hello Clyde This user User talk: 64.241.230.3 has been warned about vandalism without a block six times. It is an unfortunate situation becuase this user seems to make helpful contributions to comic book articles. Perhaps an adminstrator's touch will help. Thanks so much! Debivort 01:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You should take a look at the last vandalism to your user page, it was some quality stuff. Someone clearly needs to get some form of life. JoshuaZ 03:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm doing a good job as admin when I attract this kind of attention :-P Cyde Weys 03:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Weasel Finder (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - A new user who finds a problem with calling Louisiana Baptist University unaccredited. Doe, John (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - A new user quoting wikipedia policy. His only two edits are to revert the removal of a list of links to Christian schools.
Why did you remove the unblock tag put by Bonaparte, or whoever put it there? Doesn't he have the right to request to be unblocked? That's what the tag is for, right? --Candide, or Optimism 05:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, he has the right to request, and his request was looked at and denied. That template doesn't just stay up there indefinitely, you know. It only stays up until the request is reviewed, then it is removed. --Cyde Weys 05:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Great work on the footnote indexing on Ben Domenech. Wanted to do it myself. --CSTAR 05:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I try :-P Anyway, I didn't do it the best way possible, so there's still some room for someone else to go in there and clean it up the rest of the way. *Hint hint* :-P Cyde Weys 05:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)