Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cyde

message: I am one of the users explicitly named in the this RFC. As for the statement that "Users are repeatedly using the ref converter on certain articles, despite requests on the Article Talk page and commented into the Article to not use the ref conversion", when I converted the J.K. Rowling article to the cite.php format I had no knowledge of prior conversions or agreements to not use the cite.php format. I also checked the talk page for discussion about the format before did made any conversions, which was comprised of complaints that the alphabetical format was difficult to follow. As stated about, I commented on Evilphoenix about the format, where he/she informed me of a preference for the ref/note format (which I did feel conflicted with WP:OWN). I didn't care to make an issue of it, and I have converted the article citation format only once. As for the conflict between the cite.php and ref/note format, as stated above neither is "better" per se. With the current Rowling article, footnote numbers do not correspond to the note at the bottom of the page, and clicking on the note does not always bring the browser to the correct footnotes, such as with higher resolution browsers like my own (1280 by 1024).--Fallout boy 19:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to say that when I converted J.K. Rowling, I did not realize that there was a comment on the talk page concerning conversion to cite.php. I assumed that cite.php is the new way to cite things and I thought it would be beneficial for everyone if I converted it. Like Fallout boy, I had no knowledge of prior discussions discouraging the usage of cite.php. I apologize for any damage I have caused. Nooby_god | Talk 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nooby_god's comment is exactly the point of this RfC.  By actively deleting any accurate description of the status of WP guidelines for referencing off of the project page for Ref converter (and by, in fact, making false statements), Cyde encourages improper use of the tool.  All it would take to solve this is a minor modification of the project page, and perhaps some minor warnings in the tool itself.  A warning doesn't 100% guarantee that the advice is followed, but a refusal to allow one pretty much insists on such innocent misunderstandings by well-meaning editors like Nooby_god.  If the tool simply encouraged users to check whether consensus exists on a given article, there would be zero remaining issue... this is exactly what Cyde is stomping his feet against allowing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, Lulu, you are leading the witness. --Asterion talk to me 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: By the way, the user3 template works fine if you replace the spaces in the user name with underscores.
* See? Thatcher131 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, aesthetics aren't everything....usually...in this case though, aesthetics win. •Jim62sch• 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: By the way, Cyde

message: : "(Some) Other users of Ref converter"
Notify and name the users or they might not participate, or be punished without knowing what they are participating in.  (SEWilco 06:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I 100% agree with Cyde on this point.  No punishment will, can, or should result from this (or any) RfC.  The most we can hope to obtain is some agreement on how to behave going forward.  I think it would be counter-productive to try to name specific users of Ref converter; I'm not trying to argue about every edit that anyone performed.  Moreover, I have no way of determining who is a user of Ref converter (perhaps Cyd does via his own website logs).  If the tool itself carried clear recommendations to use the tool with restraint and caution, and generally respecting consensus on articles, that would be everything that can be done... yes, sure, some editor in the future might still misuse it.  But if so, it might well be someone who has never used it thus far.  Only Cyde controls the tool's operation, and the project page (since he treats the project page as his personal property, rolling back any wording changes that contain caveats). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do have logs.  And no, they're never going to be made publicly available, as that would be a privacy infringement upon my users.  I have let a few select Wikipedia admins see them for analysis and they all say Ref converter is doing a terrific job.  --Cyde Weys 08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  If those users are not notified, they can not participate and thus will not be part of the "we" who create "agreement on how to behave".  The "Other users" part of the RfC is too ambiguous.  Name them.  (SEWilco 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- name them.  Who are they?  What are their egregious sins against mankind? •Jim62sch• 01:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Who? 

message: Is this RfC limited to partcipation by administrators only?  If so, please excuse me. I have only been a Wikipedian for a few months.  I really have no opinion, one way or the other, regarding any alleged mis-conduct by anyone.  I just want to make one point.
Fairly recently, Cyde used his tool to change the references on Ammonia to the Cite.php method. I posted to Cyde's Talk page and asked why the changes were made and also asked if we had the option of using  and  instead of Cite.php. I quote part of his Talk page reply here: "... the reason why is because Cite.php is the only non-deprecated references format. So no, there's really no choice." Being a newcomer, I took him at his word that Cite.php is the only non-deprecated references format. 
I very much dislike the Cite.php method because it clutters up the Edit page of an article to the point that the page becomes almost incomprehensible where there are a number of closely adjacent references. Having now read all of the discussion at Wikipedia:Footnotes, I see there really hasn't been a concensus that " ... Cite.php is the only non-deprecated references format."  The point I want to make here is that until such a concensus is reached, the use of Cyde's tool by anyone should be prohibited. - mbeychok 06:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mbeychok: no RfC is limited to administrator participation.  We would very much welcome a statement of the relevant issues you have encountered and/or any signature of agreement with any of the existing statements.  FWIW, I personally actually do not support prohibition of use of Ref converter: I think it's a useful tool that has sometimes been misused.  Likewise, I'm very fond of the GPL browser Firefox, even though many vandals have used it to make destructive edits.  It sounds like Cyde's behavior on Ammonia was way out of order, but that's a question of user conduct, not of the tool itself. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is interesting: "It sounds like Cyde's behavior on Ammonia was way out of order, but that's a question of user conduct, not of the tool itself"...uh, have you looked at your own RfC? •Jim62sch• 01:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From a non-administrator

message: This is probably the wrong place to ask, but...
The main complaint that has been raised against Cite.php is that it clutters the text with the full reference, making it difficult to edit.  As a happy convert to it, I fully agree.  Is there any underlying reason why the text must be between the tags?  At present,  leaves the reference itself out of sight in repeat uses of the reference.  (Of course, the ideal would be a pop-up window that the ref would reside in...but that's another issue).
Anyway, my point is, rather than fight about the use of the ref converter, why not do something productive and have a discussion on what's good and bad with cite.php and figure out how to fix it.  Guettarda 13:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is currently going on at wikipedia talk:footnotes#The ideal reference/footnote system wishlist (and other sections on that page). Feel free to join. --Francis Schonken 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: I have reverted Lulu's addition of my name to the RFC as it is a violation of WP:POINT and WP:AGF and is petty revenge for me removing some info he added to Cyde's Ref converter subpage.  Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lulu's additions to RFC 

message: Lulu seems to have gone on WikiBreak with a mesage of "Just can't take the thuggery for now. I'll un-watchlist all the RfC matters, and just hope the "reference vandals" don't do too much harm. Keep an eye on Citation Tool though, I might play with that more."  So, what now?  I'm happy to discuss and address the issues with Ref converter, but this user conduct RfC against me hardly provides a constructive atmosphere!  Can we start over again on my talk page?  --Cyde Weys 01:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He took a wiki-break?  That's like starting WWIII and then hiding in your bunker. •Jim62sch• 02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What now?