User talk:Cyde/Archive000

Cyde's talk page Leave a new message

Archives
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N O
P Q R S T U V W
X Y Z 10 11 12

Wiki syndrome

I'll be sending this for deletion for obvious reasons. Sorry...—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some admin already deleted it. Your point is already described in the WP Manual of Style. In any case, please refrain from writing original research and silliness in the article main space. Better to check out WP department of fun.—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth you should've just said it doesn't belong in the main articlespace because it is self-referential. I was soooo young back then, and I did not know. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing links

The point of the World Wide Web is that pages have hypertextual links which allow people to easily find more content about a certain topic which is linked. To remove those links is defeating the entire purpose, and we might as well stick to writing paper encyclopedias if we were to do that. I reverted your edits to FLCL and will do the same at any other article I find you ruining in such a matter. Have a nice day! Garrett Albright 17:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

Did you know that wikifying dates like January 1, 2004 makes the automatic date reformatter preference works? Whether you consider that a compelling point or not is up to you, but it is one. Morwen - Talk

Doesn't seem to work for me? All I get are two separate links to January 1 and 2004, both of which are useless. LOTS of things happened in 2004, and lots of irrelevant things happened on January 1st throughout the centuries. Besides, the majority of the users of Wikipedia aren't even logged in, so they can't have preferences set ... what's the point of those links to them then? They're not useful. --Cyde 16:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Try fiddling with your settings and refresh a bit more. The MoS saying "full date links" does indeed refer to the things you removed, and not to links to articles about particular days. For example, if I change my date setting to "YYYY-MM-DD", then a bit that reads in wikitext as "[[May 20]], [[2002]]", does really display as if it was "[[2002]]-[[May 20|05-20]]". Morwen - Talk 16:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for example, "June 28, 1639", does get displayed exactly like that, even with the date preferences, the parser makes no attempt to reformat that. Morwen - Talk 16:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the consensus on which dates/years should stay and which should go? It seems to me as if the Wikipedia Manual of Style is saying that only full dates (day, month and year) all in the same Wiki link belong, i.e. your "June 28, 1639" example. Otherwise there's no point to just linking a year or just a month and a day. --Cyde 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Full dates mean "[[May 20]], [[2002]]", not what you are thinking it means. This has always been the usual practice for as long as I've been here, and I've been here over two years now. Morwen - Talk 18:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay thanks for telling me, I won't go messing around with date anymore then. --Cyde 21:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed

thanks for the note on my page - Ed is now on Wiki-vacation, and we are all hoping he comes back a little less tense. KillerChihuahua 00:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less tense now. So relaxed in fact that I'm simply going to request that you avoid using the term doofus to describe or address other contributors. Uncle Ed 22:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brainless cretinist trolls

Hi mate,

Please do not feed the brainless cretinist trolls. This is not t.o. Ignore them and they will go away (hopefully). You won't make them see sense, they're far too gone for that. — Dunc|☺ 22:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Pocket Monsters in NetHack

I'm a newbie to the game myself, but the one time thus far that I was afflicted with Hallucinating status, a monster was temporarily identified as "nyaasu", which is the Japanese name for the Pokémon Meowth (the romanization has several variations, including "Nyarth"). The name is based on "nyaa", which is the Japanese onomatopoeia for the sound a cat makes (analogous to "meow", hence the English name). As far as I can tell, it's not a coincidence, though I doubt that there is such a creature actually in the game; it's just a name kept in the database for the purpose of making hallucinations suitably bizarre (much akin to the ancient text adventure "The Quest For The Sangraal", in which you could be driven mad and have various random bits of gibberish displayed in place of proper room and inventory descriptions).

I also got a kick out of seeing a floating eye identified as a "microscopic space fleet", but after treating myself to various spoiler lists out of frustration, I see now it's hardly the only reference...

Can't believe I forgot Totoro in there. Oh, and "rat-ant" is a reference to the Zork/Enchanter series, in case you didn't know.--Tenka Muteki 02:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "quantum mechanic" from the list after I learned it was a regular enemy. Yeah, I was playing unspoiled, then I got frustrated and started digging up info...still can't get past level 8 without YASD'ing. XD--Tenka Muteki 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion: Fetal Pain response

This all seems irrelevant to me ... can a fetus feel pain? We're not sure. Can abortions be done in a manner such that pain is minimized? Yes. You can easily administer anesthetics in massive doses to the fetus (doesn't matter becuase the fetus is going to die anyway). And that way you guarantee it will be feeling no pain. --Cyde 08:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde-in many countries where abortion is federally/state funded, the question of whether or not to use aneasthetic comes down to dollars and cents; so of course one asks if it's necessary. And, it is definitely no secret, that the study of fetal pain and sensory perception relates to the study of fetal personhood and their subsequent rights.

Interestingly enough, in Roe vs. Wade, when one of Roe's lawyers stated that the matter of fetal personhood doesn't matter, because of the rights of the mother, one of the judges asked if the lawyer realized that this meant that a mother who felt a living child was detrimental to her health could kill her; the lawyer responded in the affirmative, but was cut off by another judge before she could finish her response. She declined to elaborate on her response upon further questioning. But the point remains - the study of fetal personhood is important to many, and if it is determined the fetus is a person with rights, then it would dramatically effect the status of abortions, as the reasoning of the judge is sound, and the lawyer's response would most likely fall apart in court. And thus many are interested in, and follow, research in this regard.DonaNobisPacem 07:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Welcoming

Replied here. Blackcap (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. Blackcap (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here, again. O.K., no worries, I was going to stop now anyways. Blackcap (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

I added two sentences -- one which vaguely mentions the theory has had social and religious controversies, and another which made more clear what the religious controversy was (in its own section). I don't think that's much of an upgrade. The scientific aspects of evolution should take center stage, I agree. But there is no harm in mentioning that people have been disturbed by the theory, and linking appropriately. In looking over the article, I did think that the religious objections had been a little understated. Which is not to imply that we should go into detail on them on that page, but naming that they exist is not a problem to me. --Fastfission 16:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FF's cool and knows a lot about the history of biology, history of physics and eugenics. Listen to what he has to say even if you don't agree with its nuances. Let's remember whose side we're on; the NPOV one, right? — Dunc|☺ 22:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mushishi

I was surprised to even find an entry for Mushishi, but yes, I am watching it. Fascinating stuff. And yeah, little grammar fix. No big. Maybe will add episode synopses when I have more time.

Your signature

I just wanted to let you know that your signature looks really messed up in Internet Explorer. It chops off everything halfway through the "r" in "contribs". If you can figure out how to fix it, let me know, because I would like to do something similar. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-12 02:06

Deleterious -> Mutation?

Before you made a redirect form it, the article Deleterious has just been deleted as the result of a discussion in WP:AFD. I don't think Deleterious should redirect to Mutation, the connection is too weak. Afterall, beneficial doesn't redirect there... Jamie 07:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll give you that deleterious seems to be used primarily in the biological sciences. But not only in genetics. I knew the word as "harmful to your health" in the sense of, for example, alcohol or tobacco. And it does show up in that context on Google: About Tobacco and Its Deleterious Effects (1909), by Charles E. Slocum, MD. Jamie 01:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmmm, it sounds to me that it should be made into a disambig page. I'll start working on it. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 02:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've started off the disambig page with its usage in genetics; now you can add your thing about "harmful to your health" in medicine. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 02:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try, but I think it's going to read like a dictdef. Jamie 02:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree why would one have a redirect for an adjective? Is there a precident for this? i would have thought it all depends on the context. David D. (Talk) 05:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Winslet

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Please read the article's talk page about the Kate Winslet article's main image. I've changed the main image accordingly. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mumrph, I did discuss on the article's talk page ... I don't think I was the one reverting without discussing :-( --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

With your comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Did the Chicken...?, you've earned yourself a barnstar. People started looking at me when I laughed at your comment. Thanks for improving the atmosphere around here. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, should I like start up an awards page or something? Or is that overly optimistic at this point? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the award I gave is the only one, it's probably overly optimistic. I do recommend you put them on your userpage for posterity like I do. That way they can easily be seen even if you end up having to archive your talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's not just an admin thing. Anyone who knows how to post images can hand out awards. It makes people feel good and provides a creative atmosphere. I do recommend you be a little selective with the reasons you think warrant a barnstar, so you don't spend more time giving barnstars than editing yourself, but otherwise, go right ahead and give some. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I resized the image on your award page to avoid it going all blocky. Hope you don't mind. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I don't mind at all, I wish a lot more people would edit my user page, it's crap. I just don't feel like spending time on it because I'd rather spend my time editing the articles in the main namespace. I also awarded a barnstar just now -- wooohooo -- but he definitely deserved it. I think I'm going to make up my own Barnstar while I'm at it. Eventually. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 13:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beckjord

Re: your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Beckjord, his notariety is really based more on his interesting personality, and not so much on his "research" (cough, cough). I think it's really more of an entertainment-value issue. --DanielCD 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a heap,Dan. I wonder if you really ever took four hrs and read all my website? --Beckjord 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

194.154.22.37

This IP address has been registered to Tiffin Boys' School and is consequently used by many school children every day. --194.154.22.37 15:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it sounds like you need to rein in your schoolchildren, several of them are vandalizing Wikipedia. I don't know how they found Wikipedia (or if you led them to it), but Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. They could easily stumble on something inappropriate for their age, like penis or vulva. Between the vandalism and the mature content, I would suggest you have the children steer clear of Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to a comment of yours

Re: this - I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Raul654 16:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woot! Glad to be entertaining. What I said is true, too. It works on so many levels. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awards table

I took the liberty of modifying your awards table according to the "To do" list on that page. Hope you don't mind! —Slicing (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I find it hilarious that other people are contributing to my user page, by the way. But anyway, go for it! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AB edits

This is beyond the bounds of what's expected. -MegamanZero |transerver 08:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are you saying that as a good thing or a bad thing? What's to be expected anyway? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 08:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its bad in that's not the kind of comments you should be making in situations such as that, and its good in that I found it quite humorous. :) -MegamanZero |transerver 09:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather let a thousand criminals go free than deny one the right to laugh. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 09:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you mean, but I'll agree with you anyway. :) -MegamanZero |transerver 09:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a faux-portmanteau of humor and the famous quote, "I'd rather let a thousand guilty men walk free than keep one innocent man in jail." --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 09:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beckjord

to learn more, go to http://www.google.com

and type in Jon-Erik Beckjord and also Erik Beckjord.

Note UFOMIND site will trash me, but this is one guy who never met me, and 16 people

are suing him for libel.

Oppose wiki police.

beckjordBeckjord 08:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to User:Aranda56...

...have been BJAODN'd. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:59, Dec. 15, 2005

Please stop. If you continue to not vandalize pages, you will be forced to edit Wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

......... --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 17:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude -- just to note, you aren't the first to play around with vandalism counts on user pages (see User:Andrew_pmk) novacatz 07:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh vey

Would you consider the redirect I suggested (after you edited) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oy vey -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how...?

Hi. Sorry toi bug you, but if you time to answer...How do you get your user name to be in bold and have those little (talk) and (contribs) links? Thanks Herostratus 08:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

I have asked permission to run a bot to reduce links to solitary years etc. Could you say a word in support at: Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F? Thanks. Bobblewik 15:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Topic

Yes, I have read that section of Wikipedia. I do not believe that by stating that Evolution is a theory that is tought widely in public schools, while Biblical teachings are restricted to private schools is a personal biast. That is fact. Why should the theory of evolution be to tought to American kids as if it were fact? And why are no other theories and beliefs represtend in the public school?

All I have stated so far is fact.

You, however, have misrepresented Creationist multiple times throughout your article, and given so-called "facts" that are not backed up in any way. You say something is so and act as if it should be.

However, I will not attempt to edit this article anymore, as it appears you are bent on being in full control of what people read on this site.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeakytoad (talk • contribs)

First of all, please sign your posts. You can do so by typing in four tildes like so: ~~~~. As to your objections...

First, evolution is both fact and theory. And yes, evolution is taught widely in public schools, for much the same reason that physics and chemistry are taught in public schools: they are all scientific truths. But this article is mainly about how biological evolution works, not necessarily how well it is received by the American public, and your comment was added into an inappropriate section that dealt specifically with the scientific aspects of evolution.

Also, Biblical teachings are not taught in science class. Want to know why? This little thing called separation of church and state makes it illegal. You might want to look into it, it's older than 200 years now. And while there are hundreds of various mythologies and whacko hypotheses people have regarding where the variety of life came from, none of them even come close to matching evolution in support.

For further discussion I would highly suggest we move this to the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins, which you can access from Google Groups. You'll need to setup a free Google account (or just use your gmail account if you already have one). Then, just post a message to the group with "Cyde Weys" in the subject and I'll get to it rather quickly. See you there! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what (unsigned person above me): THE WORDS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE NEVER APPEAR IN THE US CONSTITUTION!!!! The only seperation between church and state that exists is the 1st amendment. Try reading it sometime, before you look like an anti-religious nut: You'll find that it also states that you can't prohibit anyones free exercise of religion. Nice job insulting everyone and looking like an idiot doing it. Swatjester 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, yeah, we are not going to have a religious debate on my talk page. And that unsigned person? That was me. You just put your comment into the middle of my comments. And by the way, just for your education, separation of church and state is the interpretation of the literal Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. It was first spoke by Thomas Jefferson. Hardly a non-notable phrase. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh. That's why it was unsigned.

Anyway, you don't need to educate me (a law student) on the interpretations of the Establishment and the Free Exercise clauses. Try reading one of Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Chief Justice Rehnquist, or Justice Kennedy's opinions on the Lemon test and you will invariably see that although Jefferson wrote that phrase in a letter to a friend, it was never meant for constitutional inclusion. Jefferson also slept with mistresses and whores. Does that mean that everything he does should be law? No. It's not in the constitution, it's not in statute, its not in federal common law, therefore it's NOT LAW.

Want to know where it IS in the constitution? In the old USSR's constitution. Swatjester 00:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "we're not going to have a political discussion on my talk page" did you not understand? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part where you never said it. Read your own words. "Okay, yeah, we are not going to have a religious debate on my talk page". Swatjester 07:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whups I meant political debate too. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 15:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White phosphorus in current events discussion

I see PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL, not white phosphorus mentioned in that paper. Once again, you clearly show your bias as there was no mention of the conventional weapon (white phosphorus) in that report. Before accusing anyone of anything, I advise to to read your sources more carefully. In addition I refer you to this source [1] which states

"White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects. " 205.188.117.65 19:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind? Directly from the linked page:

PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN
BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI
BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION 
AT THIS TIME).

I'm reverting the change you made to the article. Also, in the future, please make a link to the article you're talking about, like so: White phosphorus (weapon). Thanks. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Un-birthday!

Have a great day ;) -- sannse (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Don't cry! Cheer up! *hip hip hooray* :-) Spum 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

I don't care one way or the other, but maintaining spelling, date and BCE/BC/CE/AD conventions are a delicate balance. There are people who feel strongly about the styles, and people out to change all them wherever they occur. I believe that enforcing the policy as it stands makes it harder to edit-war over these things. That's all. Guettarda 02:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious jabs on abortion page

Yes, because now you're really going to get sympathy with your BS Christian persecution complex. "They're attacking Christmas! Save me Jeebus!" I know I'm not being constructive but neither are you. None of this has anything to do with abortion.

Cyde - Wikipedia is not the place to make religious jabs, such as "Save me Jeebus." If you realize you're not being constructive, then don't add the comment. It does not help reach consensus by trying to humiliate a potential contributor.DonaNobisPacem 06:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other religious holidays occuring near Christmas

Since you changed it to "other holidays", Kwanzaa is appropriate there. Under the previous title, it did not fit.Ramsquire 21:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying whoever it is should've changed the title rather than removing Kwanzaa. Despite Kwanzaa not being such a big holiday in terms of who celebrates it, it is taught to most school children as a counter balance to Christmas and Hanukkah. --Cyde Weys _vote!^talk 21:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could have. It works either way. I just didn't think of it. Anywhoo, merry festivus for the rest of us. Ramsquire 23:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 05:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Barnstar

hahaha... thanks for your Barnstar Barnstar... I'll proudly display it on my user page. --D e ath phoenix 18:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me also, Cyde! That's very cute. :-) —Lifeisunfair 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hi, Cyde! I noticed you added the Barnstar Barnstar to Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia. Please make proposals for new awards at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals first, where it will be discussed and reviewed. If you don't wish for it to become an official Barnstar, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Personal user awards. :) I apologize for the inconvenience. Thanks! Sango 123 (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've commented on the proposal at WP:BAP.
By the way, thanks for the Barnstar Barnstar! ;-) Sango 123 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar thanks

Hi, Cyde. Thank you so much for the Barnstar! I really appreciate it :) Redux 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon accusation

Thanks, Cyde. :) You may want to take a look at this: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Severe. Regards, Sango 123 (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hostility?

Santa not good to you, either? --Merry Christmas! 05:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as how I'm not Christian, and I'm much too old to believe in your "Santa Claus" anyway ... --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot

We have a couple of editors who claim to have seen Bigfoot, and are unable to accept the possibility that other people don't believe them. When skeptical information and references to skeptics are included in the article, they insist on deleting it. Beckjord thinks they're transdimensional beings who can move between dimensions. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. When info and references are false, and malciously so, I delete them. Legit criticism is valid. Example - it is true that there are no bigfoot bodies. --Beckjord 20:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think, cannot yet prove, they are interdimensional. This explains why I see them disappear, and tracks will terminate in snow. My idea is a __theory__. --Beckjord 20:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I keep getting people adding their comments to the talk of the page and I have to hunt through the whole thing to find them, I thought stealing your message link might help.

If he has reverted again, after my warning, I'll have to block him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

never warned, Zoe Only saw ONE item, and that after the event. --Beckjord 20:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like we're supposed to believe somebody who scorns consensus with "amateurs". User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly correct

Amateurs who do _not_ read the lit. I have total scorn for those. If you do not know the topic, _stay out_ ! 50 amateurs are not worth one expert.

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/ebsuit.jpg see image who I am. I have a name, and a face. most here do not. (Snort!)

beckjordBeckjord 20:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Takoma Park Middle School

The problem is that that a middle school is usually never notable enough to deserve an article. The article as it is now simply says the school was a pioneer in a given field and links to its website. In general, if the website itself can claim give the same information, it's not a good idea to have an article. You need to show the school was truly important. Regrettably, the only examples of notable schools I can think of are those where some student has gone mad and killed a few of his schoolmates. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently every high school counts as notable according to the cabal, and for an actually notable middle school, I don't see how they could think any different. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 02:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went there. That makes it important. hehehehe egads! --Beckjord 07:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your featured pics page.

It seems nearly the same as Wikipedia:Featured pictures visible, except that yours aren't in the gallery format. Ral315 (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh dammit, I had not seen that page before. Oh well. It wouldn't take too much work to make my script display images in a gallery format rather than simply displaying them, but it appears that there's no point. Thanks for the information: I didn't think a page like that existed, hence I went out and made it on my own. A simple duplication of effort. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 13:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting my successful RfA! Your trust means a great deal to me, and I promise to try my hardest to serve the community. —David Levy 06:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki thrives by giving people ranks, like the US Army, and like the MUFON org does with "regional admins" and "local admins", etc. Now they gottcha. You will do anything to avoid losing that admin rank. --Beckjord 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar barnstar. When no one is willing to pat you on the back, sometimes you just have to do it yourself. D e nni ☯ 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"gene pool" rather than "common proginator"

From Common descent "A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool." and "The earliest life-like forms probably exchanged genetic material laterally in a manner that is analogous to lateral gene transfer amongst bacteria. For this and other reasons, the most recent common ancestor may have been a genetic pool rather than an organism."

From Horizontal gene transfer "Increasingly, studies of genes and genomes are indicating that considerable horizontal transfer has occurred between prokaryotes." [1] Horizontal gene transfer is called by some "A New Paradigm for Biology " [2] and emphasised by others as an important factor in "The Hidden Hazards of Genetic Engineering". "While horizontal gene transfer is well-known among bacteria, it is only within the past 10 years that its occurrence has become recognized among higher plants and animals. The scope for horizontal gene transfer is essentially the entire biosphere, with bacteria and viruses serving both as intermediaries for gene trafficking and as reservoirs for gene multiplication and recombination (the process of making new combinations of genetic material)." and "Biologist Gogarten suggests "the original metaphor of a tree no longer fits the data from recent genome research" therefore "biologists [should] use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use [the] metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among microbes.". WAS 4.250 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still, there can be no horizontal gene transfer amongst organisms when we're talking about the first organism. So there is a first progenitor. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Respons at Talk:Evolution. WAS 4.250 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

Welcome to the discussion on school articles, where common sense and basic intelligence have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand. The discussion is entirely predicated upon whether schools are universally deserving of articles, or whether they are not. Right now, the inclusionists have the upper hand, and there is no point in attempting to get a school article, no matter how pathetic, deleted, 'cause it just ain't gonna happen. Your best bet is to leave now, before the frustration passes the boiling point. D e nni ☯ 01:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Bigfoot Page

Have the bigfoot page protected for a week to two months until this is dealt with. Martial Law 04:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- or until this "blows over" Martial Law 04:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just put non-admin protection on it, but that doesn't exactly do much. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

protect against skeptic-vandals

Like DreamGuy

someone puts in GROSSLY wrong factual info.

Now, how can a NON-admin, like me, put on a block?

PLEASE REPLY. DO NOT IGNORE.

thanks

Beckjord 07:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is factual when it comes to Bigfoot anyway? You don't even have bodies. If Bigfeet did exist you'd think you'd at least find a body once in awhile (assuming they are so gooding at hiding while they are living).

And no, non-admins certainly can't put on blocks. And I'm not an admin. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

Check out my comments in response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Young_Earth_creationism#Category:_Pseudoscience

nice talking to you. Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?

Why did you delete ESPN NFL 2K5? --Jingofetts 18:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary on Wikipedia to redirect multiple titles in a yearly sports game to a single page. See Madden 2002, Madden 2003, et al. If any information was lost please add it to ESPN NFL Football. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read

WP:TOE KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now that's just plain ridiculous. And it's only a proposed policy. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 22:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, add your thoughts to the talk page. I merely mention, because I have already seen people citing it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TLA's

Re List of all three letter acronyms and please DO NOT DELETE, this took A LOT of time to make and I think it will be very helpful. Pity you did not find Wikipedia:TLAs from AAA to DZZ, etc. ? -- RHaworth 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pity I know Perl :-P Cyde Weys _vote^talk 13:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kwekwe school

Hi. Don't give up the school battle. The inclusionist camp finds satisfaction whenever one of us goes down in flames. You know we're right, so press on, friend. D e nni ☯ 19:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pick a state and write a very brief stub article about every high school in it. Pick another state and do the same. If every school should be included, then you might was well get credit for stubbing the majority of them, eh? Hell, just in my county alone there are over 20 high schools and most do not have articles on them. Nevermind middle schools or elementary schools ... :-P Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes down to a very poorly thought out statement from J Wales. He said something along the lines of "imagine an encylopedia with all the worlds knowledge in one place. That is what we are doing here." Unfortunately MANY people misinterpret the word knowledge and think it means information. David D. (Talk) 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the school cabalists have their own WikiProject which they regularly update with links to all of the AfD discussions in process. The result is that they flood the votes and always get their way. Frankly, I don't see how this is any different than some external site getting together meatpuppets to go vote to keep a relevant article. Most of the votes coming from this school cabal are mere one-liners and don't even begin to examine why the school is notable and should be kept. The general reasons go along the line of, "We've kept all the other schools, so let's keep this" (inertia), "There is room in Wikipedia for all knowledge" (all-inclusionism), or "By definition schools are notable" (All True Scotsman, a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy). Ah well. I don't see that there's much we can do ... the tyranny of the masses has taken over Wikipedia, at least on this issue. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the tyranny of the few. David D. (Talk) 20:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right, it is actually a relatively small number, but they're well organized, and they easily overwhelm any opposition on all school AfD debates. School AfDs tend to get the most votes of any AfDs and by and large it's the same people over and over again with the same worn spiel of "It's a school, therefore it's notable". --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kwanzaa controversies

I'm trying to characterize the disputes fairly. patsw 04:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as long as we're discussing and not just blindly reverted. Continued at Talk:Kwanzaa. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein was a good pupil: Portal:Science

Hi Cyde,

you mentioned being in charge of the Science Portal. I have tried unsuccessfully to change the "Did you know" box. I believe the snippet about Einstein is factually incorrect. I have given three sources for this on my user page, User:Samsara. I'd be grateful if you could have a look and amend or delete. Perhaps it is actually equally interesting that Einstein's underachievement in school is nothing but an urban myth, so that could go in the box instead if you'd like. - Samsara 09:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You did successfully change the DYK, you just didn't know how to refresh the main portal page. To do that look for the "Purge Cache" link on the portal or hold down shift while pressing the Reload button in your browser. If you look at it now you'll see that your changes did, indeed, have an effect. Ohh, and thanks for working to keep the portal accurate; I didn't add that particular DYK but I didn't know it was wrong, either. I suspect that little bit is an urban myth engineered to make dumb kids feel better about themselves :-P Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in accordance with WP:SCH

At one point you had the following back and forth:

"If it's about following the (proposed) guideline, why don't you vote in accordance with it? Kappa 05:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Just refer me to where I can vote on this guideline and I will do so. Thanks for the tip. --Cyde Weys votetalk 05:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Still waiting ... or are you not going to refer me to it because you don't want to give me a chance to have my say? --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You were being asked why you were voting delete, when the proposed guideline guides people to vote merge on articles that were too short.

Before diving headlong into the contencious WP:SCH problem, I suggest you review the policies on WP:AGF and meta:DICK. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that it is a violation of meta:DICK to suggest people "review" meta:DICK? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I tend to either vote "Keep" or "Delete" on AfDs because that keeps it simple for the closing admin. I don't have anything wrong with merging the information into the higher-up school district as per WP:SCH, however. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conlangs Straw Poll

Hey I just wanted to say Hi I noticed that we agreed on almost everything on the Conlang Straw poll everything you said lacked a aura of stupidity. Thank You for not being stupid. ALL HAIL CYDE I will issuse you the Obey The Fist Award

You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AfD notices

Please don't remove AfD notices until the discussion is closed. I know you meant well on the Mannerpunk article (especially considering it was looking like it was going to be kept) but it needs to stay there until it gets closed, so that anyone who reads the article can contribute to the discussion. Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 17:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making this article evil!

There is a horribly pro-condom/anti-life view being expressed in this 'article' please stop re-adding it, I've already fixed the article, now don't change it anymore!--64.12.116.197 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the "facts" you think you're adding are little more than religious propaganda that are all demonstrably false. Stop vandalizing Wikipedia with false information. All, please register an account and sign in if you want to be taken seriously; many people consider it beneath them to even debate with anonymous users and instead just revert on sight. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes like mad!

Wow all the userboxes. I havent seen so many in one place. It looks cool. :) --Act o wn ^e 20:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mensaje de un wikipedista norteamericano

¡Saludos, compañero de Wikipedia! I'm coming to Argentina soon and wanted to see if any of my fellow Wikipedians were interested in meeting up, etc...I'm flying into BsAs on Jan. 25th and I don't know many people there, so if you'd be into talking/getting together, let me know. Feel free to leave a message on my user page...seeya around - Paul 22:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. Your collection of userboxes is impressive[reply]

Speedy deletion?

Your user page is in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and there's a {{db-author}} in there somewhere but I can't figure out where. It might be vandalism on one of the gazillions of user boxes you have in there, but for the life of me I can't track it down. Can you confirm that you want User:Cyde speedily deleted, or is that not supposed to be there? Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd rather not have my user page deleted. As to tracking it down ... humprh, don't know if I can help you there. Now we can see the inherent violence in the userbox system. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it - it was in Template:User No Read Guiilty. I've speedied the template as this was a misspelling of what the template creator intended. Which should fix this issue... CLW 01:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - It was because of this that I earlier speedy deleted User:Cyde/testboxen; now I've sussed what happened, I've reverted the delete. CLW 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all of your help. You have helped me in my quest to build the ultimate userpage that no one else can even touch. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 02:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Your user page has been edited again, and is now back in the speedy category. Maybe someone else will speedy delete your user page. WP:POINT. CLW 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, don't delete my user page. I'm trying to figure out what's causing that category and I'll work on fixing it. And I'm certainly not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I need some help, I figured out how to view all of the categories but I don't know which ones are triggering you. Some stuff that will help is User:Cyde/template check and the raw of that page. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's orange!

:)

I swear, do you have enough crap on your User page? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't like the color, just subst it and then change it on your own page. As for my own user page ... it's sort of a rebellion against userboxes. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits on your user page

I noticed that you seemed to have crammed your user page with as many userboxes as possible. Well I don't think that's an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources--I could almost hear the servers groaning. I've deleted the most recent revisions of your page (this necessitated deleting the history and restoring all older revisions. Please don't do it again. I appreciate that you like userboxes, but this kind of disruptive action isn't really a good way of getting your point across. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see how it is. You perceived from my userpage that I liked userboxes, and since you are vehemently anti-userbox, you decided you could just censor my page. If other people are allowed to have userboxes why aren't I allowed to have userboxes that express my own views? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. This is unacceptable. -MegamanZero|Talk 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... yeah, I need more information than that. I barely even know what you're calling unacceptable, let alone if you, say, have any suggested resolution for it. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to how your history page was deleted and how it wasn't discussed with you beforehand, which I find appalling. Please see this for more info on my viewpoint. -MegamanZero|Talk 15:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user page may be silly, but disruptive?? How?? I see no need for such heavy-handedness here. Tony, if you really have technical concerns, that's another issue, but please don't call such things disruption. Friday (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's not even a proper thesis to back up the "technical" aspect of this concensus, ethier. -MegamanZero|Talk 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have listed this at WP:DRV in hopes of getting more comments on this deletion. Friday (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation on Mark K. Bilbo

I'd just like to let you know I think you did a good job mediating the dispute over Mark K. Bilbo. Are you part of the Mediation Committee or something? Or maybe you're part of the mediation cabal? (I don't know the terminology). Thanks! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Cabal Mediator. Thank you for your nice words. I appreciate this. Bonaparte talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal Mediator? That's the awesomest title ever. Do you guys have a Wikipedia project page? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Here you can see it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal Bonaparte talk 06:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. This interested me, so I signed up as an "Aspiring Cabalist" in case you guys ever need an extra hand dealing with a mediation case. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 07:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/3_01_2006_Johann_Sebastian_Bach when you have some questions please don't hesitate to ask me. Bonaparte talk 07:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, it looks as if I'm jumping right into the thick of it! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 07:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cyde. Thanks for the reptilian help, I was looking for an iguana, but you beat me to it :) I decided to add Evil, Eating and Sorry as well. BTW, I'm the "Another planet" guy in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_reptilian_kitten-eater_from_another_planet

My Request for Adminship

Hey, thanks a lot for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. Oh, and welcome to the Cabal ;) See you around... - FrancisTyers 01:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhhh, there is no mediation cabal. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late! I heard you! I'm a' gonna tell Jimbo! :) -MegamanZero|Talk 01:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice link

The link to TalkOrigins in the macroevolution talk page is great! -Justforasecond 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen TalkOrigins before? It's a great site with loads of information. Probably the #1 evolution"ist" resource on the web. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

watching

I don't regard 'always watching you' as a joke or a light-hearted comment, as you seem to with your tiny font; I think you underestimate the resentment you might cause by telling a forum that you're 'watching' them. Better to watch silently than risk intimidating people.

I think you made a mistake in blundering in prematurely; the whole thing has damaged the endeavour, and has made me look bad. Next time, (your second situation) you might consider observing proceedings for a little while before taking action that is irreversible. Tony 01:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's named the "Cabal Mediation" committee for a reason. The whole thing is approached with a humorous angle. I can't help it if some people don't see that. I don't think anyone else was confused or resented it, though.

And how did I "blunder in prematurely"? A request was made to the cabal, and I came. And I don't see how this made you look bad; maybe you should stop approaching everything in terms of whether it makes you look bad or not. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 02:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

Ĉi tio ne estas poruzanta skatolo. -- a nice way of getting around using "bad" words. :) Jim62sch 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry ... I don't know what "bad words" you're referring to? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 02:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

????

Hi Cyde, when I was wondering around Wikipedia I saw your userboxes page and well... I don't think it made sense. You seem to live in five coutnries or so! D a Gizza ^Chat 07:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a point about how ridiculous userboxes were. They were originally on my user page, but, uhhh, that didn't fly so well. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 07:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for your support and very kind comments on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 11:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs2

I just wanted to say that I generally think that AfD comments that spend more words dealing with one's personal judgement of other editors than dealing with the article generally belie a hasty reading (or even no reading at all) of the debate thus far, and a tendency to have decided to respond to what one sees as bias rather than to attempt to properly evaluate the article. -Splash^talk 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are mistaken. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove User:Cyde/template check from Category:User Browser/Microsoft Internet Explorer. Thanks! --AllyUnion (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done so ... now please get rid of that abomination of a category :-P Cyde Weys _vote^talk 12:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A random thank you...

...for preaching on behalf of game mods in the recent AfD discussions. My thoughts exactly, and I would have done the exact same thing but I'm in too much coffe right now and there were too many of those AfDs and I don't want to copypaste. Game modding culture, and smaller games in general, is a notable topic as such and it's good to see someone fighting for that. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wheel war

LOL I just went there to see if I could find a definition of the term too, but I like your idea. I can just picture a group of Wikipedians duking it out with different kinds of wheels... howch e ng {chat} 00:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you find out you let me know! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to hit save

I was trying to get the certain venom off the arbcom page, but oh well. Look at RfC⁰ and RfC¹ where I don't see a statement of critisicm that focuses on user boxes. Insistenceby some users that this is about user boxes is tacitly dismissive, as if these concerns are so trivial, so ridiculous that they do not even need refuting. They can simply be denied.

I hope that this lends itself to ongoing discussion better than, err, "nose spit face"? I don't even understand that one. "Spit + face" I could see, but where does nose come in there? Anyway, I'd love to talk about this more... since that's all I seem to do now, having effectivly abandoned main space. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

high traffic

Got my support there - I was just going through the list of articles tagged with this template and removing where "not fresh", most have been tagged since the last ice age! ;) Thanks/wangi 15:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation on Chimera

I would be perfectly happy to accept mediation. Dmcdevit has also been trying it, but to no effect. Septentrionalis 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have a mediation without both sides agreeing to mediation, and the "Cabal mediation" is just some guy showing up giving his own opinions trying to make people follow it. I'd rather have all the editors involved have their input and have real consensus. And I say this not knowing or caring whether you'd take my side or not. The only time the "cabal" (who came up with name, by the way?) got involved with me before they sided with me, so it's not that I am being political here, I just don't think one person showing up is useful in the slightest. In practice you are an RFC but with only one person giving comments, which isn't helpful at all. There are already plenty of editors there who have built consensus before, and we'll do it again. DreamGuy 22:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDN

I don't think this works right. howch e ng {chat} 20:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, see its talk page. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bimillennia

Cyde, I try to assume good faith and I don't mean to be negative, but would you take a look at this: Special:Contributions/Jose_and_Ricardo. I really don't like where it's going -- if the intention is to create articles for all of these... eew. On the other hand, the word appears in my dictionary, and maybe some people do measure time that way (!). Whaddya think? bikeable (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it isn't looking promising. And perhaps bimillennium may be in the dictionary, hence it can get its own article. But I would hate to see millenniacruft like third bimillennium popping up into exist, as nobody realistically keeps track of years like that. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Mix

Cyde, looks like your closing of Cake Mix AfD created a box that extends down the rest of the AfD page. I've no idea how to fix it, though. bikeable (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for letting me know, I didn't catch that. I fixed it. I needed to add {{vb}} to the bottom of that page's AFD listing. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You voted for Physical oceanography and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

Cap's shield

I left the "in progress" mark (although I know it wasn't the proper syntax) because I was IN THE PROGRESS of making edits, edits which were lost and I now have to go back and redo because you edited while it was in progress. I know it was an honest mistake, but please be more careful next time. Elijya 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct template to use in this circumstance is {{inuse}}. The one you were trying to use doesn't actually exist. And by the way, when you're modifying something and someone else gets in before you, the edits aren't lost, you just have to merge them in. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correct syntax. But my edits were lost. Again, just asking you to be more careful. Elijya 19:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be asking me to be more careful. I had nothing to do with you losing the edits. You should have been more careful. On high-traffic pages you will frequently run into edit clashes, so you need to learn how to deal with it sooner rather than later. When a conflict comes up two separate text boxes will show on the page. The top will be what is currently saved for the article and the bottom one preserves all of YOUR edits. Then it's simply your job to merge your edits back into the top section. Usually this is very easy; in my case of deleting the template, it would've taken you just one copy-paste to resolve the conflict. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Tendler/Cindy the Dolphin

Hi, I noticed that you took part in the AFD on Sharon Tendler. Well the article that was previously made before the Sharon Tendler article, which got redirected towards it is now up for deletion. I thought you might like to vote. Afd Cindy the Dolphin. Englishrose 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny.

I do not know with what weapons World Wide Web War I will be fought, but I do know that World Wide Web War II will be fought with acoustic coupler modems and TTY interfaces.

That's a hoot. Thanks for a nice chuckle on an otherwise unremarkable Saturday morning.--◀Puck^talk▶ 13:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying humanoids

Doh sorry about that; my bad. I was just trying to remove the pics to make the AfD stand on its own

Google / Foreign Media

Will do that next time when doing a google search. Thanks. What does Wikipedia Reliability protocol say about foreign media sources, such as the Mexican media, who had initially reported these things ? Martial Law 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the Rense source, that is how I had found the Mexican media and the Texas media sources. Cheers. Martial Law 07:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Chimera

WikiThanks

I was impressed by the quality of your work on chimera and the result. Thanks to you and your colleagues. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse Wikipedia articles

I was having trouble adding my vote to this AfD and I noticed it's a redirect. Do you use the AfD helper javascript? Your vote was on the redirect page. I moved it to the target page... if that was not as intended, my apologies. (I watch talk pages so you can reply here if you want) ++Lar: t/c 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I sure do use the AfD Helper. I suppose the link redirect should be bypassed then. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 01:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics as subportal of Science?

I noticed on the Portal:Science page that you listed Portal:Mathematics as a subportal. I don't think this is correct but I wanted to hear your reasoning before undoing it. There is a main hierarchy of portals, including Arts, Culture, Science, Technology, and Math. Since Math is already a top level portal it can't be classified as a subportal of Science. Also, the point of the subportals list was to highlight and link to specific topic field portals that may not be getting as much exposure. The Math portal is already linked to at the top of every portal page in the {{browsebar}} so its inclusion isn't merited in the Science subportals under these criteria. Thank you for understanding, Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 14:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. By the way, I went back to take a look and noticed that it had already been changed back. But looking at the history, there is no record that I had changed it in the first place. What is going on? I feel like I'm trapped in Back to the future. --Go for it! 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that comment. I found it (on the subpage). Forgot about the transclusion. In answer to your query, isn't Mathematics a branch of Science? So for semantic accuracy, it needs to be on there. However, I agree that it doesn't qualify as a subportal, which is a wikiterm. I missed that, and was thinking specifically in terms of the hierarchy of knowledge. I went to the science article, and was surprised to see that mathematics wasn't even mentioned as a branch of science. So I checked out the mathematics article, and the authors there posed it as a question - they weren't sure whether it was a science or not! (Though Carl Friedrich Gauss was quite sure that it is). I'll look into this further, and will get back to you. --Go for it! 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, science and mathematics work on two fundamentally different principles. Science is based on the scientific method whereas mathematics is based on logic. In science nothing is ever proven; in math everything is proven. In science there are no absolute truths, just theories that best interpret the data. In math ... well, I think you get the drift. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on logic. Hmmm. Logic is a branch of philosophy. --Go for it! 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're referring to, but where I come from logic is a "branch" of mathematics and computer science. Maybe philosophy does use logic sometimes but I'm not referring to philosophical logic, I'm referring to real logic. Mathematical logic. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility...

You wrote in your edit summary, (I did read the changes and they were all garbage POV-pushing.). Couldn't that have been said a little nicer? And, not all of his changes were garbage, or POV-pushing. Thanks, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the majority of changes are POV-pushing I don't see any need to make the distinction on the last one or two that are arguable. None of them were good changes that improved the article. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see a few good edits [2][3][4][5][6], a few questionable ones [7] [8], and a few that do clearly push POV (the other couple... I forgot to get the diffs, but they are there). Why not just change the bad ones? By the way, rollback is intended solely for vandalism, so rolling back because of a content dispute shouldn't happen. Just letting you know. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're pretty much in disagreement then on those edits you consider "good". And "rollback", aka "revert to last known good", is not just for vandalism, it's for any instance in which an edit decreases the quality of an article. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not "good", but certainly good faith. Also, policy states:

This feature's function is best described by developer Brion Vibber in this posting:
Its intent is solely to be a timesaving shortcut for reverting mass vandalism... No one should ever be in an edit war, sysops in particular should be aware that that's not cool, so there's no need to think about whether or not 'rollback' should be used in an edit war. It shouldn't, because we shouldn't be in that position in the first place.
Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; do not abuse it.

I would just like to see a little more caution, is all. Cheers, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that quote even applies. I did give an edit summary. The quote you're referring to is in regards to the admin rollback functionality, which I don't even have. There's a big difference between the admin's, "Reverting edits by xxxx to last by yyyy", and every user's ability to commit a previous revision of the article. That quote also strikes me as too idealistic to be applied in practice, i.e. "X is the ultimate situation, but it is so idealistic that it is impossible. Nevertheless, we shall act as if X is true and never do anything that is less than perfect." And one more thing ... I do assume good faith. Once that assumption is broken, like in the case of these blatant POV-pushing edits by the user in question, it no longer makes sense to continue assuming good faith for that editor because they have clearly established their biases. That's when I examine all of their edits very critically. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. So just because a person pushes a POV one time, you can no longer assume good faith on the rest of their edits? But yes, I am sorry, I mistook your reversion as "rollback", and stand corrected. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, once a user has committed multiple bad-faith edits to an article all of their further edits to that article (or related subjects) are immediately suspect and no longer subject to WP:AGF. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to argue with you on your stance on a guideline, but urge you to consider that some people can push a POV, and still make genuine, good edits to an article. Blindly reverting someone's edits does not help build a community, nor promote a certain guideline we have been discussing. Even the worst trolls should still be given some good faith (not much, but we can never be totally sure their intentions). Perhaps that's just the optimist in me? Oh well. I sincerely appreciate having this discussion with you. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is the default opening position, not a death pact. I liken my stance to the Prisoner's Dilemma - be nice on the first turn but subsequently don't put up with any crap. And I wasn't "blindly reverting" - I did look at the edits and saw that they were sub-par. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 19:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current events

I try. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for informal arbitration

There are two disputes ongoing at the [Topalov] page, in which I am involved. While your input would be greatly appreciated on both issues (grammar and NPOV), methinks it would be easier to confirm that User:Dionyseus is in fact mistaken about his comma use (it is a clear Comma splice error. The NPOV may be a little tricker, but I would appreciate some common sense vis-a-vis the grammar.

I tried reporting Dionyseus for violating 3rr at [Here], but due to my unfamiliarity with wiki rules, did not really go about the process correctly. Nonetheless, I have provided numerous links there supporting the inclusion of the allegations of Veselin Topalov's cheating, which is both a fact (it is a fact that the allegations exist- not that Topalov actually cheated) and also relevant to the topic in question. As an aside, Dionyseus included many negative comments in the Vladimir Kramnik article, which by the same standards would have been considered POV. Your input, Cyde, would be much appreciated.Danny Pi 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I request adminship?

Dear Cyde,

I'm thinking about requesting adminship, and have written a draft of my request. I would appreciate it if you would proofread it for me, and let me know what you think. --Go for it! 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chuckle

OK, I had to laugh when I read this on Talk:Penis.....

"We're gonna need proof. Can you please take another picture of your penis next to a piece of paper with "Wikipedia" hand-written on it? This way we know you actually took the picture for this, and didn't just find another picture of the same penis somewhere online"

That's a great response, particularly when you look at the contributor's talk page (he's been adding nonsense to countless articles). Thanks for the smile! DonaNobisPacem 06:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the above, I had to go see the discussion. I also like to fell out of my chair at "Where did the penises go?" I couldn't seem to avoid a mental image of a spooked herd of phalluses stampeding off into the sunset. I know, I know, it's a serious subject worthy of treatment in an encyclopedia. It's still gonna be funny. Good thing the sex drive is so strong in humans. Else we'd laugh ourselves into extinction. Mark K. Bilbo 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probable image copyright problem

Copyright problems with Image:Noctilucent pp big.gif

An image that you uploaded, Image:Noctilucent pp big.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Its a mistake I've made myself in the past, but not all images on NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day site are actually by NASA. This one appears to be copyright of Pekka Parviainen in Finland. Solipsist 09:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, you're right, it's probably not safe to use. Hopefully there are some other (better?) GFDL/PD images out there of the same phenomenon. --Cyde Weys 14:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWWWI

Thanks. I'm actually kind of surprised my user page (or web site for that matter) didn't get hit by all kinds of vandalism, given the depth of the intensity of some of the people involved in this "war". howch e ng {chat} 16:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, in real wars there is inevitable collateral damage and people striking out blindly against those who did them no immediate harm. More proof that this wasn't a real war. --Cyde Weys 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFL

G'day mate, was wondering if you'd taken a look at WikiProject AFL. Feel free to join and add your expertise to the area. Cheers, Rogerthat 12:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

please explain to me, kind sir, how stating that evolution is a theory NOT a fact is biased. I never said that evolution isn't possible or even true, i simply said that it's something that can't be proven and therefore is a religion and shouldn't have any higher standing than any other religion concerning it's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celador (talk • contribs)

First of all, please sign your comments with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~), and please create new sections for your comments by surrounding the header topic with double equals signs (i.e. ==Evolution==). Now let me point out the various fallacies in your actual statement:

First of all, evolution is a fact and a theory. Secondly, you seem to misunderstand what a scientific theory actually is. It doesn't mean the opposite of fact or law, in case you were wondering. And your statement "something which can't be proven is a religion" is demonstrably false. The word religion means a lot more than "something which cannot be proven". And anyway, you seem not to understand that nothing is ever proven in science, only disproven. You may want to brush up on the scientific method. In summary: please don't edit articles when you don't understand the subject matter and please don't edit articles to conform to your specific religious POV. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Standards

hey, cyde. i wanted to find some information on double standards. it seems you know a lot about them so let's talk, Okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celador (talk • contribs)

I don't understand what you're talking about. Are you seriously trying to suggest that creationist baraminology has the same scientific value as biological phylogeny? And why do you automatically assume I am anti-religion? Many people have rectified their faith with what science shows to be true of the world. Why can't you? --Cyde Weys 19:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBU people delete chaos

I'm not going to bother replying in the middle of that mess over there. But you said:

"You can't have it both ways though. When the "Wiki4Christ" or whatever club goes out and solicits votes it's "campaigning". But if I were to go out and solicit votes for deletion I would get accused by Jason Gastrich and others of being some sort of evil atheist censorship cabal. I find the hypocrisy in this AfD alarming. And if you'll look below you'll see that meat puppetry is starting to have some success ... look at those various keep votes from users with hardly any edits. --Cyde Weys 23:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"

Yes, he's starting to have some success. The disruption is working. If he can deadlock the AfD, I understand the default is to keep the article? Once he sees that tactic work, look out! Simply put, he's a spammer. Always has been. And the Wiki is high profile in Google searches.

Why LBU? Well, to "legitimize" the school from which he's buying... erm, obtaining a degree. You know, I live in Louisiana and had never heard of LBU before this. Turns out, it's a building off the I-20 in Shreveport. Couldn't get accreditation even under our two-bit educational standards. But they'll grant you "life experience" and you can turn in pretty much anything you want to be your "thesis." Not that they're a diploma mill or anything!

The the "inclusionists" are opening up a can of worms that'll be right pretty. If this tactic works to defeat AfDs, you will be assimilated. I'm betting he'll have someone else come in to write the vanity articles about him and his "ministry" then pull the same distruptive stunt to stop the AfD(s).

Mark K. Bilbo 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:JzG#Mr._Gastrich for more David D. (Talk) 00:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done. He's disrupting Wikipedia for his own agenda. I had the misfortune to run into him on talk.origins. Ugh. And now he's here. His outright use of meatpuppets to swing the vote was disgusting and I can't believe he's getting away with it. It's so obvious he's abusing process. I pointed this out to an admin but he wanted to see evidence on the exterior site (JCSM) that shows he was soliciting votes. Well guess what, Gastrich already scrubbed that from his webpage. He probably realized how bad it made him look. But he already had the desired effect ... he got a bunch of people to come into the AfDs and vote delete. I definitely suggest an RfC and I will be more than happy to comment in it. You guys start preparing the diff lists of all of the various times he's found like-minded users through userboxes or whatever and "politely suggested" that they vote keep in this AfD. --Cyde Weys 04:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubbing things? But... but... but... he says he's done nothing wrong! Why would he erase evidence of doing something that's not wrong? Mark K. Bilbo 14:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lessee... jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions437.htm here he's thanking his meatpuppets for coming to the AfD on his vanity "Jason Gastrich" page. And also jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions438.htm here. But one of the more entertaining starts here. Uncle Davey (meatpuppet extraordinaire) moves in for the attack. Here's one of the more fun replies by Davey. This is example of the seedier side of the Gastrich puppetry. There's some nasty stuff going on in the background. Mark K. Bilbo 15:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of fun, you wanna see a Gastrich explosion? (be sure to scroll down to the part with all the bolding to get the full effect!) Mark K. Bilbo 15:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try me

The time of self-rigtheous wikipedia "admins" with no life outside the comp like yourself as come to a stop. Continue violating the civility guidelines yourself and you might find yourself in the ban area aswell. Itake 14:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

I know the official policy, but that doesn't mean that anyone with morals wouldn't be offended at the sight of the photograph. And there have been valid reasons made for why a person would visit the article, such as for medical reasons, but wouldn't want to see a photograph of it... Just because you don't find an image offensive is no reason to keep it. Chooserr 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipedia does not offer advice (including medical or legal). And it makes absolutely no sense to include an article on "penis" without having a picture just like it would make no sense to have an article on "liver" without a picture. You need to stop thinking of it as something as dirty or naughty, but rather, as something that is simply part of our bodies. There is nobody in the world who can't handle looking at a picture of a penis. It's a part of the human body and it's simply natural. So my reason for keeping the picture isn't because it's not offensive, but because it has important illustrative value. How do you explain what the glans is without a picture? Some people don't have penises and unless they see a picture it's really going to be lost on them. --Cyde Weys 23:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have morals. I don't find the picture offensive. Please don't presume to speak for me Chooserr. Hell I don't even really like Cyde, but at least I agree with him on this. Just because you find an image offensive is no reason to remove it. I find your ignorance offensive, can we remove that too?? Swatjester 23:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What ... you don't like me? :-( I like you. Just because we may disagree on issues of politics don't mean we have to hate each other. --Cyde Weys 23:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't say I hate you. I just don't like your opinions on issues, and I tend to believe that peoples opinions on issues are a direct reflection of themselves. It'd be folly to say that I hate someone on wikipedia...I don't KNOW anyone on wikipedia Swatjester 23:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid deflection strategies won!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Asteroid deflection strategies was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Abuse

Hi Cyde. How are you doing?

I wanted to let you know that I won't be tolerating abuse on my talk page. For instance, User:Jim62sch has been saying some awfully offensive things to me there and elsewhere. In fact, when I politely asked him to leave me alone and knock it off, he said, "You're as much a Christian as my dog."

Incidentally, I'm not very impressed with your single-minded approach to opposing my input at Wikipedia; but that's another issue, altogether. --Jason Gastrich 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politely? How polite is "your so-called brand of Christianity?" So anybody you don't personally like is not a Christian? Who are you? God? Mark K. Bilbo 00:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he thus far seems to have been more polite than you mr. bilbo. Why is it that people on this wikipedia (not directed at you cyde) automatically rage at anything with the slightest religious bent? It seems that if it's not atheism it must be POV. :rollseyes: Swatjester 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth Gastrich and Bilbo's history goes back for years. Bilbo is not "automatically raging at anything with a slight religious bent" ... he is raging against a very specific person he has gotten to know rather well. Just search for their names on Usenet on Google Groups, you'll see. --Cyde Weys 00:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism

Cyde, you need to revert your vandalism on the following pages. Posting a large notice on the top of every nomination for deletion page is vandalism and very inappropriate. You have damaged the voting process, damaged your integrity, and shown no regard for Wikipedia or its policies.

The issue of reprimanding you for vandalism and you making ammends is in the beginning stages. Rest assured, posting this polite notice on your talk page is just the beginning. It would certainly be in your best interest to immediately remove the vandalism and apologize. Even then, the voting has been damaged to the point of no return and an admin will have to take things from that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_DeYoung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Morey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Pack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mal_Couch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice

Regards, --Jason Gastrich 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so, another episode of Gastrich retaliation begins...see this. - WarriorScribe 01:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, vandalism? I'm not the one with an RFC pending against me regarding these AfDs ... so maybe those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, eh? Or at least you should have to answer the door? --Cyde Weys 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Running candidate template

Hi. I've reverted your edit and it would be polite for me to explain. The template was intended to be - and as far as I can tell, has - used to caution, not just to state that the politician in question is taking part in an election. There's just not much point in the latter, since it's not something that should be taken into account when reading the article and is clear from the text itself. --Kizor 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree with the wording though: "This article about a candidate in the upcoming 2006 Finnish presidental election may draw controversy and partisanship." seems to imply that the article itself (or the article being about a candidate) is going to draw controversy and partisanship, which is hopefully inaccurate if the article is written with WP:NPOV in mind. Frankly I don't like any templates which say stuff like, "This article may attract vandalism", as that only tends to encourage it. I think saying, "This article is about a candidate in the upcoming XXXXX election" is enough. People know elections can be contentious and saying it may draw controversy/partisanship is unnecessary. If the article itself is not up to snuff then tag it with {{npov}}. --Cyde Weys 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination)

Regarding this comment [9], please don't encourage Gastrich in his belief that Wikipedia is a battleground.

Don't think I'm taking his side in the slightest though. Even the middle ground is too precarious right now. After looking at the evidence at 'Reply by 'Uncle Davey' on the RfC (on which Gastrich by virtue of his complete ineptness seems to have confirmed that he is Uncle Davey, and that he threatened someone with physical harm over the Internet) I've... well, normally I'd say 'lost all respect I had left', but that ship sailed a long time ago. In fact I'm not sure I had any to begin with. --Malthusian (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyde/template check

Hi, just a FYI: I have listed this subpage at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion because it contained a large number of fair use images and I don't see any good reason for the page to exist (too "heavy" and cluttered to be of much use as an "index" or whatever). If you want it kept you can say so at it's it' entry on MFD though. --Sherool (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, and no, I no longer care about that page. --Cyde Weys 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ubx-0 alternate

You might be interested in this anti-userbox at Template:User ubx-0 alternate. --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Message

Please see the talk page there. Though I think I might understand the problem you were referring to; some of the other skins don't implement that CSS class. Is that the problem you were referring to? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response; I'm not sure if you've noticed, I've responded to your comment (as has another). Could you clarify which version of Firefox you're using? And which Wikipedia/MediaWiki skin? If it really is warping the text, I'd like to try and reproduce the effect locally. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping Wiki Clean

I started A CSME page and you flagged it. just wanted to let you know I intended to write an article from Scratch. it was just a starting point. If you noticed I didnt put the entire text from the JIS website there.

good looking out though.

Imaginary numbers

I agree with your vote to keep 155, but if it's not too much trouble I would like you to clarify that by "imaginary number" you mean a number that doesn't exist (e.g., a prime number p > 2 that is divisible by 2) and not an imaginary number like i^2 = -1. PrimeFan 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...... so much for that joke :-( Cyde Weys 21:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom de net

I haven't run across anyone else with this screenname yet. I would have thought it to be more common, since Lackey is pretty popular, but I'm not complaining. Kerowyn 07:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalms* No, I'm not from Maryland. I distracted myself while I was typing the above. This is what multitasking does to you. --Kerowyn 07:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, when I get into a new author, I try and read their books in the order that they were published. I don't know that I'd recommend any particular book. Just be sure not to start in the middle of one of her trilogy. I'm rather fond of By the Sword and The Eagle and the Nightingales. --Kerowyn 07:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Meynell

You removed the year-of-birth and year-of-death wikilinks. These are standard, so I'm replacing them. Charles Matthews 08:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see under WP:CONTEXT where that is justified. --Cyde Weys 15:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenlighting 2

Did you mean to write "keep" on the Greenlighting AfD? Your comment sounds like you meant "delete." -- Dragonfiend 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to write "Meets notability standards" on the Greenlighting AfD? Your vote sounds like you meant a better reason. :) Just kidding, I was about to say the same thing as Dragonfiend, but they got here first. Turnstep 03:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, me, too. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-( Cyde Weys 14:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Meehan

Hi, I have reverted your edit on the Marty Meehan article. Your edit summary said that main articles SHOULD NOT link to Wikipedia namespace; this is correct; however, this means that a main article should not contain an internal link such as [[Wikipedia:Some random page]]. In this case, the subsection is about Wikipedia, and the links are not internal links, but URL that will keep working even outside of Wikipedia, so the links should be ok. Schutz 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, I guess it's fine as it is now then. --Cyde Weys 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus

Ah, of course thank you for the correction. I need a bit of sleep :). American Patriot 1776 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on Sheehan page

User:68.188.249.30 just needs to be blocked now. I count almost a dozen defacements of the article and a statement of " I will not stop editing this entry until her stupidity stops." in the last edit made. Mark K. Bilbo 15:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care of. --Cyde Weys 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COTW Project

You voted for Male and Female, this week's Collaborations of the week. Please come and help them become featured-standard articles. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 invasion of Iraq

Thank you for pointing out that these guys do not care about neutrality. In my eyes it is a shame that an article about what most people in the world see as an act of aggression is dominated by soldiers of the aggressor. 84.59.88.9 00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go thanking me just yet. I actually was in favor of the Iraq War when it first started. I'm just here to insure that neutrality is observed on Wikipedia. This time the edits I reverted were pro-war ... next time they could just as easily be anti-war. Doesn't matter to me as long as I am eliminating bias. --Cyde Weys 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US was the only country were a clear majority of the population was in favour of the war when it started. Opinion polls showed the majority also thought that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11, which is completetely untrue... Whatever your reasons were to support the war, I would like to know whether you think it is a good idea to have an article about what most people in the world see as an act of aggression is dominated by soldiers of the aggressor. Would you like to have articles about Pol Pot dominated by Khmer Rouge? 84.59.112.101 13:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never believed in the whole Saddam linkage thing, I just kind of bought into the whole "biological weapons" lie. My fault for not scrutinizing the government more. Anyway, it's probably a good idea for you to register for an account here on Wikipedia. That would make it much easier to stay in contact. --Cyde Weys 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Invasion

What precisely is the issue regarding the edit regarding reporters wearing blue vests at the outset? pookster11 00:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NM, my mistake, I see your point now. Thank you.pookster11 00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Champloo MPAA rating

In case you've missed it, please respond to this. --Antrophica 08:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind page

Do you have a reason for removing the link on the Kent Hovind page? Aren't detailed transcripts of Hovind's videos a good thing to have in an encyclopedia entry? --HRoss 10:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO. Let the record show that three sock puppets have been created to attempt to avoid a 3RR violation on Kent Hovind. --Cyde Weys 10:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockfest

I take it we should block the three socks who just violated 3RR on Hovind? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yeah. There couldn't be a clearer violation of policy. --Cyde Weys 10:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support on article

Hello Cyde, I am looking for people to support my article on Cum Dumpster. You defended cum fart, and I was hoping you would review it and vote. Thanks! --DigitalPimpette 17:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich

However, Mark wishes he knew a helluva lot less about Gastrich and his history. Sigh.

See, the funny thing about the accusation he makes about being "followed" by atheists is he keeps barging into online atheist forums and provoking the hell out of everybody. The online atheist community is just not that big a place (the general atheist community in the US isn't all that big). I swear, you can't go anywhere in the online atheist community without finding Gastrich provoking the hell out of everybody or the smoking ruins of the thread he just left. And half the time, there's Uncle Davey explaining how even when Gastrich is wrong, he's right.

It's like he needs to feel "persecuted" or some damn thing. If he hasn't had a fight with a group of atheists in a while, he shows up in some clearly marked atheist forum and starts picking one. Yeesh. Mark K. Bilbo 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on my userpage.

Thank you for the constructive feedback on my userpage. 1) If the world as a whole is indeed more liberal than America, your explanation for Wikipedia's liberal POV may be entirely correct; or it may just be part of the cause. Regardless, Wikipedia's belief in NPOV is supposed to be "absolute and non-negotiable" and I find any strong POV in articles, frustrating. 2) While the statement on my userpage (that I perceive a liberal POV on wikipedia) might be controversial, I do think it is appropriate. I believe it is specifically in compliance with what someone can have on their userpage in that it expresses my valid opinion regarding wikipedia itself. 3) Recognizing that my opinion might cause "unpleasantness", I thought the humorous way I expressed it was least likely to offend. I am certainly open, however, to the idea that there is a more appropriate/better way. Any suggestions? :-) Lawyer2b 05:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheehan

I don't tell others to be mindful of 3RR so please don't do it to me. 3RR deals primarily with vandals and troublemakers, but when one is restoring wrongfully deleted text from an article, it's usually the deleter that is cited for 3RR. Badagnani 06:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR is official Wikipedia policy, so even if you don't want to hear it, I kind of have a responsibility to tell you about it. And you don't seem to understand what WP:3RR is about. Please re-read the page very carefully. It's for all circumstances except for patent vandalism. What is going on at Cindy Sheehan is clearly not patent vandalism, it is a content dispute, and you will easily be blocked for violating 3RR in a content dispute. And I find it rather insulting that you insinuate I am a vandal or a troublemaker, because in this dispute I am the one on the other side whose edits you contend aren't even eligible for 3RR protection. --Cyde Weys 06:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said you were a vandal? Untrue. I said you deleted text without discussing first? True. Badagnani 07:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SGCSim_(Computer_Program)

This must be my red letter day for AfD encounters[10] :) ... Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing that message I immediately thought the link would be to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Half-Life 2 mods, but no, it wasn't. Because that would've been a nice reference. --Cyde Weys 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mediation attempt

I'd like you to come watch my mediation attempt here at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. There's quite a bit of work to be done, and I can't do it alone. Swatjester 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

"This is nothing but a usual Europian hypocricy. Can you say, for example, 'Holocost is nothing but a propaganda!' in your country? Where is your 'freedom of speech'? Jews were killed or not, that is a different story. My point is you cannot even say it in your countries!... "

That wasn't me. His signature was above his comment, sorry for the confusion. His talkpage is here Rgulerdem where I wrote the similar comment to him about it. Hitokirishinji 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. If you notice though, I don't speak arabic or any of its related languages :) Hitokirishinji 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetes Reversion?

Why did you revert Planetes when there was nothing wrong with it, and the reversion actually made the article worse? In addition, you didn't even state the reason of reversion. --TcDohl 06:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not really sure what I did. I think I meant to rollback only one change where you added something about stereotypes while mispelling "immediately", but I messed up and reverted a lot of good contributions. Sorry! —Cyde Weys 2006-02-04 17:41Z

User Boxes

I notice that about ten days you added a suggest paragraph of mine to the main Wiki page on userboxes [11], presumably having seen it on Jimbo's talk. I checked the page today thinking I'd add it myself and it's a nice wiki-moment to see ideas get acted on unbeknownest to you. Thought I'd pass along kudos. Marskell 14:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Cartoon

hey - the arab cartoon where you croped out the OS X user interface... I'm not sure if it shouldn't be left on, otherwise it's no longer readily recognisable as a website screenshot & there could be copyright issues Rajab 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we all know where you stand. You've repeatedly removed the images from the page against consensus and you've even been blocked for doing so. You were trying to remove the images until the vote was over even though it was very obvious where the vote was going and the default action before consensus is not censorship. Frankly, I don't trust you at all when you say you think this is a copyright issue. You just want the picture gone. --Cyde Weys 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary u's, as my girl says

"I don't even notice anymore when words have an extra "u" in them, for example" What, like colouur and honouur? :) WookMuff 10:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 15:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Latina

What is this about? — "Please refresh yourself with WP:V. We can't take it on your word; you must provide citations. Which you have admitted that you cannot. --Cyde Weys 03:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)" — Found on Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Archive 9, "Add language for Latina".
-Mardus 13:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me messing up and posting a comment in the wrong section. Whoops. --Cyde Weys 15:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did I vandalise?

Please tell me what I vandalised.212.138.47.24 03:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See your userpage. I'm not the only one flagging your IP for vandalism. However, since it appears you're using the Saudi Arabian connection (which shares IP with many, many people), it probably wasn't you personally who vandalized, just someone else on your IP. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think YOU are?

I don't care what you have to say or what you think about anything. And I know the Wikipedia rules like the back of my hand, so you should know that I'll never do anything that could allow me to get kicked off. But telling you right here on your talk page that I've read through your edits and comments and none of them seem to be useful at all is fairgame, and the truth.

You've earned a spot on my watchlist. I really hope you learn how to be objective fast or me and my team are gonna have a lot of work cleaning up all the foolery and false info you spread around the wiki. Don't worry---we'll be in touch.

---GB

GreatBarringtonGreatBarrington

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your watchlist.

User:Adrian/zap 01:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

AL -very funny. Cyde - Thank you for the warning on GB's talk page, this guy needs to be monitored. Once again, thanks. Wikster72 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

So you come on to my talk page and insult me, I respond, then you start insulting me on my user page? What is this, second grade? Childish. Come on, this isn't what the Wikipedia is about. If you're serious about knowledge, then you'll share my absolute committment to keeping articles free of POV and other bs. Don't hide behind accusations. I'm GreatBarrington, that's it.

02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)GreatBarrington

Not

I'm not a sockpuppet, and I will post the sockpuppet post on your user page every time you do the same to me. You're lying and it's ridiculously inappropriate and probally against wikipedia rules. I strongly suggest you stop lying on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant for the promotion of knowledge and learning, neither of which will be put forth by your childish name calling. I ask you to leave me alone. I'm here to correct mistruths and put facts on the wikipedia. 06:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)GreatBarrington

Maybe you're an administrator and maybe you'll have me kicked off. But I won't stand by while you lie about me on my user page. If you want to accuse me of something on my discussion page that is a blatant lie that is your right, but putting this unproved insults on my user page is absolutely 100% inapproriate. You are lying---I am not a sockpuppet. You may not like the way I post but I am my own indivudual and a student at HLS at that. I urge you to immediately end this. I call for a truce--not because I admit fault but because I enjoy correcting untruths not getting into pettyu arguements. 06:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)06:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)06:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)GreatBarrington

Sorry, but that's where the suspected sockpuppet notice goes. And you're not exactly my first Wikistalker so your various threats are falling on deaf ears. I know this goes. --Cyde Weys 07:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's you who stalked me....

It's you who are stalking me. I never had any contact with you before you came and posted on my talk page. Leave me alone. 13:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)~GreatBarrington

That's hysterical, you're the loonie who was posting "I am watching you" crap onto other people's talk pages. --Cyde Weys 22:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]