|
|
Cyrius
{| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: transparent;"
|
|The Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, and Wikipedia:Patent nonsense of this article are disputed.
Cyrius is just some guy.
''This article is a Wikipedia:Perfect stub article. You can help Wikipedia by leaving your comments on the User talk:Cyrius.''
Information within this article may be false or misleading. |}
== Me ==
I'm an EE/CS grad from an underrated regional university somewhere in Texas, currently job-hunting.
== Stuff written ==
I don't believe in having a brag page, and I've had two people insult me for the small size of the mini-brag list I had here before, so I'm no longer maintaining one.
==Skin?==
== Quotes ==
I've got a /Quotes. They used to be here, but the page was getting a bit long.
== Current projects ==
* List of Atlantic hurricane seasons, the individual hurricane seasons, and specifically the Current events-type page 2004 Atlantic hurricane season. Inspiration credit goes to User:BigT27 for starting 1995 Atlantic hurricane season. Wikipedia now has a little something about every Atlantic hurricane season since 1912. I went a little
== Wikipedia milestones ==
* 2003-11-30: first anonymous edit that I can find.
* 2003-12-24: first logged-in edit.
* 2004-03-24: first time my user page was vandalized
* 2004-05-10: made sysop
* 2004-09-02: Brought an article up to Wikipedia:Featured articles status
==License==
I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
CyriusArchives: * User talk:Cyrius/Archive/2004/1/ * User talk:Cyrius/Archive/2004/2/ * User talk:Cyrius/Archive/2004/3/ * User talk:Cyrius/Archive/2004/4/ * User talk:Cyrius/Archive/2005/1/ __TOC__ == re: User:Cyrius/monobook.css == I don't want to make any major changes with the monobook design, but I HATE the left and right justification and would rather have the text only left justified (like the Classic skin?). Would you be able to help me do that? User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 16:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==You're not reading the rules very well== The page we've been talking about says: :''You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met:'' Then it lists conditions. Then it says: :''However, avoid deleting such redirects if:'' What does "such" mean? It means redirects meeting one or more of the conditions. One of the conditions was that the target page does not exist. So it's saying to avoid deleting (among others) redirects whose target does not exist if certain other conditions are met. One of those is that the redirect whose target does not exist may help avoid later creation of duplicate articles by directing a singular to a plural, a misspelling to a correct spelling, a misnomer to a correct term, etc. Therefore the long-standing policy does say that under some conditions, redirects whose targets do not exist should not be considered "broken" and should not be deleted. My edits that you called a "policy change" were therefore merely a change in emphasis, to draw attention to the exceptions lest they be neglected in haste. As for you "netiquette" comments, writing EVERYTHING in capitals is "shouting", according to a long-standing netiquette custom. Some people did that because they learned to use the internet in about 1970 or so, when everything had to be written in capitals. Thus in 1990 or so, it had long been an atavism. To write a few isolated words in all capitals for emphasis is not an instance of that sort of thing. User:Michael Hardy 22:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Broken redirects == Speedy deletion policy states that broken redirects are candidates for speedy deletion. The only exception is if they have a useful history. Your continued ignoring of this fact in favor of such insults as impugning my reading comprehension ability has now resulted in me filing you away as unable to be reasoned with. Congratulations. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 23:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Sorry; that's just not what the policy says. I've given arguments, and you've just made assertions, so you're the one who's not willing to reason. User:Michael Hardy 23:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) That is ''exactly'' what the policy says, except when you try to impose your unilateral changes. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 00:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) :As I said, the long-standing policy mentions certain exceptions. I am not the one who put those there. I just called attention to them, because a number of people -- you among them -- seem to have neglected them. User:Michael Hardy 01:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) Those are exceptions to the rules for deleting ''working'' redirects. Broken redirects are still candidates for speedy deletion. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 01:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) :That's the part where you're reading incorrectly. It clearly says to delete a redirect if certain conditions hold, and then says "However such redirects should not be deleted if..." What could the phrase "such redirects" refer to, if not the items in the preceeding list? One of those is redirects with non-existent targets. I instituted no policy change; only a clarification. User:Michael Hardy 01:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) :The preceeding list does not (directly) contain the case of broken redirects. "Certain redirects can be deleted immediately without holding a vote or discussion." I find your interpretation that the exceptions must apply to broken redirects hard to fathom. If the exceptions apply, then no broken redirects can ever be deleted because "someone" (you) "finds them useful". This is obviously not the intent of their inclusion in speedy deletion policy. As you know well, I never said I find ALL redirects with non-existent targets useful. I said specifically WHICH ONES I find useful and WHY. Why is it so hard for you to admit that I have repeatedly specified those things? User:Michael Hardy 20:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) The distinction between useful redirect with non-existent targets and useless redirects with non-existent targets is that the former help prevent inadvertent later creation of duplicate articles, by redirecting a plural to a singuler, or a misspelling to a correct spelling, or a misnomer to a correct term, or one synonym to another. Are you saying those do not serve a useful purpose? Just recently I redirected factorial experiments to factorial experiment when the latter page did not exist (it still doesn't, as far as I know). If someone were otherwise to decide to write an article titled ''factorial experiments'', and another person decided to write one titled ''factorial experiment'', then possibly neither would know the other existed, and then they could not cooperate. With the redirect, the person attempting to created the ''factorial experiments'' article could either write one titled ''factorial experiment'' or, if considered approrpiate, redirect that page to the plural and put the article there. User:Michael Hardy 01:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :What value they may or may not have in preventing duplicate articles (I remain unconvinced) is outweighed by their breaking of our core navigational convention. What is that convention and why is it more important than preventing duplicates by means of such redirect? User:Michael Hardy 02:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) :There's only one navigational convention that is affected by the existence or non-existence of an article. Blue links mean an article exists, red links mean it doesn't. So if the software would be altered so that a link to a redirect page whose target does not exist were red, would you then hold that there is nothing to "outweigh" the value of redirects that prevent later creation of duplicate articles? User:Michael Hardy 21:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Hi Cyrius! FYI, there's new data up at the WP:WS that covers redirects to non-existent targets; (The reason I'm leaving this note on your talk page is that you showed an interest in this problem category during the last batch). -- All the best, User:Nickj User talk:Nickj 09:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale== Why the capital letters in "Hurricane Scale"? User:Michael Hardy 22:11 2 Jul 2003 (UTC) :It's part of a quasi-proper name, not merely descriptive. -- User:Cyrius | User talk:Cyrius 22:48, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC) ::But Richter scale, Beaufort scale, etc., are in lower case on Wikipedia, and the many thousands of Wikipedia pages titled X's theorem, X's law, X's theory, X's hypothesis, X's axiom, X's lemma, X's corollary, X's method, etc., use lower-case. User:Michael Hardy 22:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Invitation to join U.S. Regions wikiproject == I'd like extend an invitation for you to join the U.S. Regions wikiproject. If you want to join please add you name to participants, and review the curent policy as well as the current proposal and debate on talk. Thanks. -User:JCarriker 12:12, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) == Hurricane project == I know you've made a lot of articles on hurricanes, so I wanted to ask if you were interested, or know a helpful source to help, in making articles for all named storms? A long the lines of your Hurricane Frances (disambiguation) article. I thought about starting to take down notes on storms, etc. Do you think this is wise? I'll start going through the NHC archives and writing down storm name and information. --User:Golbez 09:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC) :I went and did it after noticing you were on leave; not all that bad. I have articles for about half of the 1953-1979 storms done (if only redirects to the season page) and all 1979-2005 storms. --User:Golbez 08:19, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::Welcome back, and too, congrats on your graduation. :) As I said, every storm name used since 1953 now has either an article, a disambiguation or a redirect associated with it. Furthermore, first-uses of names are now remarked in the name lists of each season. My next step is to go to each season page and put at least the type of storm for each name. (After 1979 this isn't a problem, but 53-79, there's no indication as to what strength a storm reached). Then I'll do all the same stuff for eastern pacific. You have it in your plans to at some point put a short description for storms on the pre-1979 pages, so I'll leave you in charge of that one. ;) It's nice to see you back, just in time too :) ::While I'm here, how familiar are you with how Wikinews works? I submitted a story on Adrian, and I think we should stay on top of the storms this year with appropriate Wikinews stories. (Adrian, not just because it formed, but because it is threatening land already) --User:Golbez 14:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC) == superscript 2 and superscript 3 == Hi - You've answered some technical questions before, and I thought you might be able to help with this one. I've been attempting to resolve a question about superscript 2 and superscript 3 unsuccessfully for several months. Latest attempt is now on the village pump technical archive here, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive#superscript_2_and_superscript_3. Do you know who needs to change what to get the javascript suggestion for these characters changed on the edit page? Thanks. -- User:Rick Block 17:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :Any idea who might know, if you don't? Thanks. -- User:Rick Block 14:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :The old archive is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive&oldid=14043414 here]. I think ² and ³ (similar to ¹) are the right characters. I could put this on the talk page now that I know where it is. If you want to just change it that'd be fine too (I can't since I'm not an admin). Thanks. -- User:Rick Block 22:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :It's actually 4 months to the day from the original query, which was posted Wikipedia_talk:How_to_edit_a_page#superscripts - but all's well that ends well. I certainly understand individual users taking breaks, but I'd think Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) should be better monitored. In any event, thanks very much for taking care of this. -- User:Rick Block 23:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC) == Congratulations == Congrats on your graduation, and good luck with the job search. — User:Knowledge Seeker User talk:Knowledge Seeker 08:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC) ==Too Long?== Cyrius, I'm writing an article called ''Florida's Worst Hurricanes'' giving a brief summery of, well just look at the title. But I'm finding out that Florida has had more bad ones than I originally thought and it's getting a little long...too long in my opinion (its up to 2,000 words already and I'm only in the 1960's). Any tips on how to shorten it? User: E. Brown - User talk: E. Brown 23:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC) See, what I'm trying to do here is to consolidate the storms into one article that can inform people about all the major storms that have struck the state in the past century, instead of them having to hop from article to article. Also, many important storms don't even have articles for them at all. Are you saying that's not possible to do to a reasonable extent? User: E. Brown - User talk: E. Brown 00:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ==Someone should say something== User:InShaneee,_award_ See other meanings of words starting from letter: CCA | CB | CD | CE | CF | CG | CH | CI | CJ | CK | CL | CM | CN | CO | CP | CR | CS | CT | CU | CW | CX | CY | CZ |Words begining with Cyrius: Cyrius Cyrius Cyrius/Archive/2004/1/ Cyrius/Archive/2004/2/ Cyrius/Archive/2004/3/ Cyrius/Archive/2004/4/ Cyrius/Archive/2005/1 Cyrius/Archive/2005/1/ Cyrius/Articles_that_need_writing Cyrius/Evidence Cyrius/Great_section_titles Cyrius/MediaWiki_extension_ideas Cyrius/monobook.css Cyrius/monobook.js Cyrius/myskin.css Cyrius/Quotes Cyrius/Quotes Cyrius/Related_changes_pages Cyrius/Related_changes_pages/Hurricane_Images Cyrius/Related_changes_pages/Southeast_Texas Cyrius/Related_changes_pages/Stuff_I've_written Cyrius/Sandbox Cyrius/Sandbox/1 Cyrius/Sandbox/2 Cyrius/The_problem_with_inclusionists Cyrius/WikiProject_Atlantic_Hurricanes Cyrius/WikiProject_Atlantic_Hurricanes
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
|
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007 |
|
|