User talk:Cyde/Archive014: Difference between revisions

Hi,

I notice that you asked the 37 candidates not to vote. I understand the motivation (civility, decorum). I do disagree (two reasons, one, I want to see how they handle themselves, two, as I expect 100 - 300 votes, these would represent perhaps 15% of the most informed voters abstaining). Anyhow, leave my reasons aside. Would you consider relocating your requests to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements? That way other users could discuss the request. Notice, that even though you have phrased it in the form of a question, it is really a request to act (or not act) and not a question soliciting information.

Thank you for thinking it over. Jd2718 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users can discuss the request at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements if they like, but I still want to hear an answer (and reasoning) from each individual candidate. This will help me make up my mind about them. --Cyde Weys 22:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, you made a statement instead of asking a question on the candidates' pages. Perhaps you could add a Do you agree? to the end to turn it into a question. Cheers, NoSeptember 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, on second reading it doesn't look like I exactly encapsulated what I was trying to say. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me is that you have asked the candidates to behave in a certain way. Even the "would you agree?" leaves us essentially with a request. I would like them (and apparently Mailer Diablo would like them) to behave differently. So now instead of one discussion on the talk page, we've got 37 little conversations. At this point it can't be avoided, as I want their assurances that they will vote as much as you would like their assurances that they won't. Jd2718 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty standard type of question, actually, and I've seen it in numerous other ArbCom questions. I don't think it's unreasonable. "Here is what I think; do you agree?" If you want their assurances that they will vote, you can simply look and see if they agree with me or not. Some do, some don't. --Cyde Weys 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a new problem, which is that you have deleted comments by another user, Mailer Diablo. Not only were they his comments, but they reflected what I wanted to see put to the candidates. I don't know my WP: Policies well enough to tell which the deletions are in violation of, but they certainly violate something. Please restore Mailer Diablo's comments, or I will need to file a report. Jd2718 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ask your own questions in separate section headings, you are free to do so. Just please don't answer my questions to the candidate without even giving the candidate a chance to respond first. This is question/answer with the candidates; it's not a threaded discussion free-for-all. And by the way, why am I communicating through you with Mailer Diablo? This doesn't make sense. I have nothing against him. I've already tried talking to him twice, only to be snubbed by comment blanking or "merging", and then have you relaying for him. Please tell him to talk with me directly. --Cyde Weys 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a report here. Jd2718 23:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, posting a new section on ANI isn't really "filing a report". There's no real process for that kind of thing on ANI; people just post comments there when they have grievances, and sometimes others mostly agree with them, or sometimes they mostly disagree with them. --Cyde Weys 00:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "210" in my sig doesn't represent atomic weight. My sig is just configured into such a way that it represents an element designation. The "210" represents a date. ;) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Cyde. Just a heads up, per your request, that I've wrapped up the answers to my Questions page. I will completely understand if you wish to retain your oppose vote in light of this personal delay. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyde. I see that you changed your voting comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Geogre with this edit, but Geogre's comment is still there. This is a bit misleading, as it is not clear now what Geogre was responding to - it probably would have been better if you had removed his comment at the same time and said that you had changed your comment. I've removed Geogre's comment and I hope you will make clear that your comments have changed as well - at the moment it looks like that is what you wrote at 00:07 on 04/12/06 - when you actually rewrote it at 03:09. Carcharoth 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update here. Carcharoth 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for his comment; he shouldn't have left one there in the first place, as it goes against the election rules. --Cyde Weys 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. As long as you are happy with my correcting of the misleading situation your edit created. Do you mind if I add a small comment to your edit noting that the timestamp is wrong and that you changed your comment? Carcharoth 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I just change it back to what I originally wrote? Why does it matter so much anyway? --Cyde Weys 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can change it back to what you originally wrote. But for clarity, it would be best if you noted the editing and changes you are making, as this is not clear from just looking at the page. A certain amount of minor editing and corrections is acceptable (I do this as well), but given the history here, especially the comments further down the page where people refer to your vote (eg. "Per Scobell302 and Cyde." and "Accusatory response to Cyde's oppose above is bad enough.", it would seem that the amoutn of work to clarify what has happened is justified. I'm really quite happy to add 'small comments' myself to clarify what happened. Not quite sure what to make of "Support per Cyde and Ideogram."... :-) Carcharoth 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

issue now resolved here. Carcharoth 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Cyde. I just noticed that Fred Bauder has voted in the elections. Given your note to the candidates about voting in the elections, would you consider sending a similar note to the current arbitrators? It seems to me that the same reasoning would apply about arbitrators who voted against each other having to work together. Of course, this whole thing becomes a bit silly when you consider that those running in this election might have voted against current arbitrators when those arbitrators were elected (in a different tranche). I agree with MailerDiablo that voting is OK (you should never really restrict that anyway), but that candidates and current arbitrators should not give divisive reasoning (I see that Fred has sensibly not added a comment). Carcharoth 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had I known that current arbitrators were going to involve themselves in the elections I would have sent out a similar note ahead of time, but now that it is too late, I don't see much point in proceeding. Besides, Fred's votes (with no associated comments) are not nearly as bad as the stuff I was really trying to protect against. --Cyde Weys 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. If I'm around when Fred comes up for re-election (if he runs, in two years I think) I'll try and remember to ask him this voting question of yours! :-) I'll be interested to see if any other sitting arbitrators vote. Carcharoth 15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Fred is in Alpha Tranche, which comes up next year (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee). I believe Charles Matthews has also voted in this year's election (just supports, no opposes, no comments). Newyorkbrad 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyde :-) Look for an email from me dated 2 AM last night. I'm interested in your thoughts. Take care, --FloNight 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look for another email, time around 6 PM. FloNight 23:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it exceptionally sad that you were quite happy for people to trust you during your RfA process but your not prepared to return the favour and trust me. Especially as you were in a very similar situation and only had 3 full months of solid participation before you were promoted. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's not at all the same situation. I do trust myself. I do not know that I can trust you. If that's inconsistent, so be it. Everyone is inconsistent when it comes to evaluating others versus evaluating themselves. --Cyde Weys 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you recognise that to be inconsistent. I look forward to your support at my next RfA. In the interim, I suggest reviewing my edits and confirming that you can trust me. Best Wishes and Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, too late. I decided to only vote "support" (except for one polite instance) and leave all the candidates I didn't like alone. I do respect your point, though. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intent with moral support voting is to suggest that I think the user is trying to be nominated (for admin,arbcom,whatever) for good reasons, but simply does not meet the requirements. Some of the answers given I did like. I did not oppose, and if I had not voted moral support I simply would not have voted at all (since there is no neutral). I certainly not voting moral support out of some kind of Janus-like ambiguity of choice. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm completely with Cyde here. You should vote for what you actually think is correct. You can always soften it with a nice comment, but I think it borders on insulting to say moral support and mean no. Along with assuming good faith, we should also assume someone has the maturity to confront criticism head on instead of trying to package it with a pretty bow. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came here to ask Cyde if he wants to start a no-moral-support Cabal when I saw his comments and then saw Elara's post when I got here. So Cyde, what about it?  :-} —Doug Bell ^talk 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't cast any moral support votes in the ArbCom election, but I've cast them two or three times in RfA's (having seen other users doing the same: I think they were a bit more common in July when I became active then they are right now) and been thanked for them. They are typically in order when a good-faith but unready or unqualified user needs to be gently counselled that the RfA is failing badly and he or she ought to withdraw. There are times, especially with newer or younger users, that one could anticipate that the words of advice will be seen more quickly or accepted more readily if they come from "moral support #2" rather than "oppose #27." The word "moral" is readily understood by future !voters, and one wouldn't, of course, do this in a situation where there was any possibility that such a !vote would change the result, but I don't see that it makes any genuine difference whether the withdrawn or snowballed RfA fails at 3-24 or 2-25, and sometimes a few well-chosen words can put a doomed RfA out of its misery or console a valuable editor who otherwise might walk away forever. Is an occasional !vote of this nature really a problem? Newyorkbrad 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a "moral neutral" next time? —Doug Bell ^talk 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think the best solution is to only vote honestly, and then leave the user talk page comments. I still object to a "moral neutral" because each vote should be treated as seriously as if it decided the issue, and although you are saying neutral, you really honestly leave oppose. I think a courteous, honest oppose combined with a courteous post on their talk page explaining why they need more time, what they can do to improve, etc., would be even better than the demeaning beast that is moral support. --Cyde Weys 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agree with you, but I was thinking something slightly different than what you responded to. Neutral seems to be where you can make statements on an RfA without taking a position. I realize neutral is not the only way to make a comment, but certainly someone casting a moral support might not feel strong enough to take a position, yet still want to express an opinion. So I guess it's a case of saying moral neutral when you mean probably not. Anyway, I think you and I have the same thinking on this issue, it's more a matter of semantics on my comment. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes, it's on like Donkey Kong. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, I removed your question from Paul's page. He'll answer if he wants to, so please don't restore it. It's too late in the day for that kind of question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. You're saying I'm not allowed to ask a question about something in his candidate statement? No way. If the question offends you, please try to find a way to ask the same question that is less offensive, but don't remove it entirely. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Slim, it's really a shame that you've gone so far downhill as to accuse me of trolling; wherever did you get the idea that it was acceptable to throw around such words about fellow admins? Do you really want to work in such a nasty environment? I'm not going to reciprocate in kind. And by the way, if an uncomfortable question is asked, the best solution is not to get three different people to try to repeatedly censor it. That makes the third-party readers think there's something very sinister going on. --Cyde Weys 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, you know it's provocative, and unfair to Paul and to Geogre. If you really want to know Paul's opinion of Geogre, e-mail him. If you continue to restore this, there's a risk you'll be blocked for disruption, and it's not worth it, so please just let it drop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the question/answer pages is so that everyone can see the results; if it's done in email, it may help me make up my mind, but it won't help others make up their mind. And I don't care if you think my question is "provocative"; it has to do with the substance of his candidate statement and I have every right to ask it. Are we now not allowed to ask anything but bland questions? --Cyde Weys 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I, for one, have been seriously considering to vote for Geogre because Paul endorsed them. I haven't seen any link to the actual reason for the complaints, but if the complaints turn out to be well founded I would like to read what Paul has to say about this. — Sebastian (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main complaint I have right now is the comments Geogre made about another current ArbCom candidate. There's no excuse for the things he said. Civility is a very important aspect of serving on ArbCom, and slamming around another candidate like that, even if they have past disagreements, is unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no excuse" is too harsh. The "Cute ..." statement was venomous, but not insulting. The gender mistake was certainly excusable. But that he does not even attempt an apology, and that he switches to personal attacks against yet another editor, instead of trying to understand and address why others find it hard to believe him, is a strong argument to oppose his nomination. — Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to ask questions that amount to personal attacks, and you know whatever answer he gives, or fails to give, won't make a difference to the outcome of the election anyway, so there's no point. In any event, he'll see the question and answer if he wants to. I've protected the page in the meantime and I hope you'll respect that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond ridiculous. How is asking a candidate if they endorse someone a "personal attack"? Really, you're just making stuff up now, using certain keywords like "personal attack" and "disruption" because you think if you use those words to describe my actions it'll let you get away with blocking me. Luckily, arbitrators are a bit smarter than that. --Cyde Weys 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cyde here. I voted against Paul precisely because my confidence was shook by his continued endorsement of Geogre. It's a totally valid question. --Gwern (contribs) 01:38 6 December 2006 (GMT)

I would support Cyde's right to ask the question if I could tell what the hell it was about. "Several thinks have happened since then. Do you still endorse him?" This a "Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more" kind of question. I'm aware, of course, that Geogre has said controversial things in the past, which makes it more important that I know what "several things" refers to this time. On reading the diffs I see it used to say "Given his recent outbursts against another ArbCom candidate" before, but that isn't really much more help; given how WikiDrama tends to work at this level, I could search Wikipedia all day and find out that it refers to something said on IRC. If it's about the page linked to above in this discussion then I can't even see the outburst, unless this is another "OMG, someone with a gender-neutral name on a male-dominated website was referred to as 'he'" snipefest. On ANI, RfA and pretty much anywhere else, talking about what users have said and done requires diffs, and I don't think this is different. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a link to evidence was sorely missing. (I made this point before - wink, wink). But this could and should have been fixed by asking Cyde to provide the link, not by removing their question. Re the outburst, I'm wondering why you can't see it - see my comment above. — Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Cyde getting upset about Geogre is to do with what he referred to in his oppose vote. More on this, and what happened afterwards, can be seen here and here. That last link is to a thread on this very page, where I asked Cyde if he would make clear that he changed the text of his oppose vote (the first oppose vote that many people will have read, and which may have influenced the subsequent 15 or so votes in the three hours before Cyde toned down his comment). I still think that leaving that comment with the 00:07 timestamp, when in fact it was rewritten at 03:09, is misleading, and I'd appreciate it if others could say whether they feel Cyde should have (and even still should) note that he subsequently edited his vote/comment. Carcharoth 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Kat so eloquently said, we can leave it to Paul to decide what to do with the question, but I'd like to suggest that you remove the second part of it, and leave only the questions about the content of his statement? I think it reflects very poorly on everyone involved, but particularly you since it's got your signature on it. --bainer (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it. We still have a day until he gets back, so feel free to give some more comments on it. I still feel it's important to ask a question about the integrity of elections, however. What I saw yesterday was very disturbing. I asked a valid question and quite a few people mobilized to try to have it removed, despite the fact that all of them have vested interests and none of them are tasked with being an elections official. Luckily, the closest thing we do have to an elections official, Geni, intervened to uphold the integrity of the elections. But seriously, what kind of nonsense is this when people go around reverting and protecting questions pages because something uncomfortable is asked? Isn't that admin abuse, pure and simple? That's the kind of thing the ArbCom would go on to rule about anyway, so I now want to know Paul's opinion of these actions. --Cyde Weys 14:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. My gut reaction to the question was that it's not really appropriate to be trying to try to draw a comment from a candidate on another candidate while the election is running, even without the subject matter of this particular question. But Kat's reasoning is persuasive, and it's a more-or-less relevant question, considering it's directed at the statement. Basically what I'm saying is that my first thought was to remove the question, and I wouldn't blame anyone else who thought the same. It's a hot-button issue and the question treads some thin ice.

With respect to the altered wording, I would personally leave only the original question, and maybe ask the other part in private. If Paul then wants to answer that he can, but asking for a response about an almost-edit war over the question is, IMHO, going too far for the public questions page. --bainer (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask that you do some deep introspection if the first thought you have when seeing a somewhat controversial question aimed at a candidate in an election is to try to censor it? --Cyde Weys 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of Cyde's comments up there got me thinking. I'll quote: "How is asking a candidate if they endorse someone a "personal attack"?". Now, elsewhere, Cyde has been asking the cadidates if they would consider not voting against each other, to avoid conflict and resentment after the election. Surely asking candidates to endorse each other is a similarly risky business that might cause conflict? So, Cyde, is it possible to reconcile your request for non-voting to avoid conflict, with your request for endorsement (even if it is technically a request to confirm an existing endorsement)? My feeling is that if the candidate offers an endorsement or disendorsement without being prompted (as Paul August did), then it probably does become fair game for questions from the floor. Would you agree with that, and also agree that asking candidates their opinions of other candidates (where they have not previously said anything) is less acceptable (you should wait and see how they vote, if they do)? Carcharoth 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree completely. I noticed a seemingly initial disparity between my request not to comment on other candidates and my request to get Paul August to, in effect, comment on Geogre. As you point out, however, the difference is that Paul August has already commented, in effect, on Geogre, and thus it is fair game to ask about this endorsement. My view on candidates discussing other candidates is only a recommendation; once it hasn't been followed, it does not prohibit potential voters from asking questions about the comments on other candidates. I do not want to leash the voters in any way in trying to obtain the information they feel is necessary to make up their minds on the candidates. --Cyde Weys 18:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for your comment re: the Well. I wasn't sure really how to get the point across (without breaking my arm patting myself on the back); you got it across quite succinctly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's funny, I'm seeing a lot of people voting in these elections who seem to have no conception of what they are voting for. Arbitration Committee isn't some random higher position; it's a dispute-resolution body. As such, it makes zero sense to vote in favor of people who seem to turn every little disagreement they touch into large battlegrounds. One of the candidates in particular is a a conflict escalator, not a defuser, even demonstrating so during the election with his extremely inflammatory comments about another candidate. I cannot fathom how anyone could support such a person. I personally have not voted support on any of my friends unless I thought they would be good ArbCom members; unfortunately, a lot of other people seem not to be doing the same. People need to remember we are voting for a community manager, not an army general, and I am glad that my support comment for you is drawing attention to this. --Cyde Weys 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyde. I see from the above that when you rewrote your question, you re-signed it so it had the correct timestamp. Could you please consider doing the same for other comments and votes you have re-written without renewing the timestamp? I point out one of these above, though if you are aware of other rewrites you have done, you could correct the timestamp on those as well. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. [Psst! You missed a 3. 03:09, not 00:09... :-) ] Carcharoth 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was that deleted? Carlossuarez46 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The honest answer is: hell if I know. Check WP:CFD archives. --Cyde Weys 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, there's no difference between oppose and strong oppose, here or on RFA. I'm modifying your comment so that it fits on one line. --Cyde Weys 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I fully agree with your statement. How strongly a person opposes a candidate (and of course how well they present their rationale for doing so) are an important part of the consensus-building process. However, truncating my !vote to one line is fine. Thanks for the head's up. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, ArbCom is not a consensus-building process. It explicitly is a vote (as opposed to a !vote). The comments you leave with your vote might help influence other editors, but "weak oppose" v. "oppose" v. "strong oppose" is rather meaningless. The same mostly holds for AFDRFA. It's also, for the most part, a vote, although bureaucrats are given some small measure of discretion. --Cyde Weys 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean RfA rather than AfD there? Newyorkbrad 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, I did. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I reserve the right to express my opinion of a candidate more or less strongly than the default. It is common practice around the Wikipedia and I'm surprised that you'd take the trouble to try to convince me that it's insignificant. It's a practice strongly grounded in precedent and clearly has at least some utility.

I also agree with you on the point that RfA's are essentially a "vote" as well, simply because the community is usually well-represented in RfA discussions. However, it's a damn shame when the process breaks down. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you but wondered if you were in a position to give an uninvolved opinion on whether this comment [1] is incivil when made by a very experienced Wikipedian to a newbie. Note that the author had just previously been telling another off for an alleged breach of WP:POINT. I haven't had any immediate involvement in this exchange but have unfortunately had previous acrimonious run-ins with this user. Would be very grateful for any opinion you can offer or if more appropriate if you could refer me to to any other source of advice. Itsmejudith 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I qualified as uninvolved, actually. And I wouldn't necessarily say the comment is incivil; it looks like there's a heated argument going on from both sides. --Cyde Weys 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't realise you had any involvement. Itsmejudith 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment on my proposal? I've almost made up my mind to try building it myself, but I would like to build upon AntiVandalBot rather than start from scratch. Also, I have no previous experience programming Wikipedia bots, so I would appreciate any help. Trapolator 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at my latest comment there? I have some questions. Trapolator 10:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your post on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, whenever you're ready to respond to the questions is when I'll make up my mind. --Cyde Weys 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson is up for another RfA, and I had similar experiences to the ones you were talking about on his last RfA. I don't think he's ready, or may not even have the temperament period (as witnessed also by his recent 3RR). Skyemoor 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, please could you review me at here. I'm working on trying to get WP:1FA so I can become a sysop on requests for adminship; any advice is appreciated! --SunStar Net^talk 16:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk page, as you asked. --SunStar Net^talk 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyde. I've answered your questions. Paul August ☎ 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, Cyde. I don't expect this to change your !vote; but it is important in itself.

I don't hate you; I disagree with you. I believe strongly in leaving editors alone to do basically harmless things, for the sake of compassion and good feeling. You don't have any use for pity.

We disagree on when and how to change the culture of Wikipedia. Even that difference may not be as wide as you seem to think; I agree with WP:PRO both in its support of process and its opposition to process. Septentrionalis 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your accusations of wikistalking are injuring my character. I must request either a retraction or evidence. All that happened is that we both vote in polls and we disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cyde—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What new push? I don't see any links. --Cyde Weys 16:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He means here. -- Donald Albury 16:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a stub on the late mob prosecutor Burton Turkus. However, user MadMax just told me on his talk page that a previous article on that subject was created and then deleted. I see from the log Max linked to that you deleted it. I wasn't aware of the previous article and that it was deleted. Is there a problem with starting afresh? Turkus was a notable author and received widespread publicity as prosecutor of Murder Incorporated.--Mantanmoreland 15:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead and recreate it. Just don't use anything by Jay Nash as a source. --Cyde Weys 16:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way. I've read Bloodletters and Badmen and it is trash. One problem that I have with organized crime articles generally is that they tend to be unsourced and/or rely on bad Internet sources that are themselves unsourced compilations of material, such as Allan May's website, crimemagazine.com. I think using May and similar sites is at least as problematic as using Nash as a source.

The problem is that some of these articles are themselves picked up by Answers.com and other websites as sources, and it becomes a vicious circle. That happened with National Crime Syndicate before it was cut back. --Mantanmoreland 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I'd appreciate it if you can look at Havana Conference when you have a moment. My concern about this article is that it does not cite any sources despite its length, and it appears to be relying upon sources such as the Luciano "autobiography" of dubious reliability. I've posted several times pleading for citations, to no avail.--Mantanmoreland 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to use the reference converter, I get an error message: "HTTP 404 Not Found" "The Webpage cannot be found". Am I the only one getting this, or is it actually not working? --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the "No" userbox on User:Humblefool's userpage. I think it should be added to your userbox generator for the sheer irony of it all. Anomo 12:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#Full automation you wrore:

Just so you guys know, I've programmed up a little something special for Cydebot that lets him tackle everything on this page with a single command. So if stuff is ever lagging behind just send me a ping and I can have Cydebot do it all in a jiffy ... there's no reason to waste time setting up a bot manually to handle each different move, especially when there's lots of them to work on. --Cyde↔Weys 13:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still available? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working is getting very long at the moment. Timrollpickering 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'm on it right now. --Cyde Weys 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic - many thanks. Timrollpickering 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"12:34, 10 December 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:User UBXEssay" (T1)"

I do not see how that userbox could be viewed as divisive or inflammatory. It's entire purpose is to help those working on the userbox project understand each other. Therefore it is conciliatory, not divisive. Please re-instate. --NThurston

It linked to an essay in userspace dealing with userboxes. Frankly, it is divisive to make a template out of it. Put it in userspace where it belongs. --Cyde Weys 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:User UBXEssay. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. NThurston 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting people's talk pages to tell them to remove excessive junk from their signatures. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point, but a user's signature is that user's creation, plus it's under the GNU Free Documentation License as theirs. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the GFDL doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. It's simply common courtesy not to have an excessively long, obnoxious signature. --Cyde Weys 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? If it wasn't, what would keep me from taking the signature (for example) Tony Sidaway (since it's really short) and using it as mine? Noöne could prove that I wasn't Tony Sidaway. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what edit histories are, and how they work? And how exactly is impersonation relevant to asking people to tone down extravagant signatures? --Cyde Weys 21:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think sarcasm isn't going to work in a discussion. I also think that he knows what edit histories are. You have to admit, he does have a point. --Fredil Yupigo 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's the last poster who has a POINT. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it looks like impersonation and WP:POINT backfire. Who'd have guessed it. --Cyde Weys 22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did illustrate that it's easy to be confused at first glance. Fredil, per prior incidents I think you'd still be better off staying off this page. Newyorkbrad 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, how obnoxiously long the signature is has nothing whatsoever to do with ease of impersonation. All it takes is a single copy-paste. The issues of impersonation and overly-formatted sigs are orthogonal. --Cyde Weys 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say uncorrelated rather than orthogonal, but I understand your point. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Othogonal is more fun to say though. And for those with backgrounds in math or physics (something involving vectors), it even makes some measure of sense. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]