| Revision as of 16:38, 12 April 2007 editCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →On endorsements← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:54, 12 April 2007 edit undoZamkudi (talk | contribs)685 edits →On endorsements: cmmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| Hi. While I appreciate your concern, I've got to wonder why you haven't left similarly outraged messages on the talk pages of everyone who has labeled Kelly's suggestion as "simply ridiculous", "a joke", "shrubbery", etc. Now you've been here long enough to know that to propose a change to the RfA process such as requiring WikiProject endorsement, the usual way to do things is not to post a "Neutral" on every possible RfA until someone notices but rather to engage discussions on the Village Pump or something of that form. RfAs should stick to the evaluation of a candidate and Kelly is transforming them into soapboxes for her proposed endorsement system. ] 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | Hi. While I appreciate your concern, I've got to wonder why you haven't left similarly outraged messages on the talk pages of everyone who has labeled Kelly's suggestion as "simply ridiculous", "a joke", "shrubbery", etc. Now you've been here long enough to know that to propose a change to the RfA process such as requiring WikiProject endorsement, the usual way to do things is not to post a "Neutral" on every possible RfA until someone notices but rather to engage discussions on the Village Pump or something of that form. RfAs should stick to the evaluation of a candidate and Kelly is transforming them into soapboxes for her proposed endorsement system. ] 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Not responding to the merits of any of the points you have bring up, ''you have still not shown how Kelly is purposefully disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a ]''. She isn't. So don't accuse people of things they aren't guilty of. If you don't agree with her methods of trying to modify the procedure then you can say so, but it's unaccpetable to accuse her of violating some policy that she hasn't. It's like accusing someone of vandalism when their intent wasn't to vandalize (e.g. they just messed up); you simply don't do it. --] 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | :Not responding to the merits of any of the points you have bring up, ''you have still not shown how Kelly is purposefully disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a ]''. She isn't. So don't accuse people of things they aren't guilty of. If you don't agree with her methods of trying to modify the procedure then you can say so, but it's unaccpetable to accuse her of violating some policy that she hasn't. It's like accusing someone of vandalism when their intent wasn't to vandalize (e.g. they just messed up); you simply don't do it. --] 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Mayybe, he is saying that because Kelly ''appears'' to have taken this stance so as to bring about a some kind of change, which she wants in the community as a whole, or the RFA process. A much better way of proceeding with this idea, she should have proposed some changes on the appropriate venues of discourse, like the Village Pump. But equally astounding is the fact that a ''neutral'' stance by another user, which is not really a cause of ''disruption'' would attract so much pettifoggery. A better response would have been, even if they presumed for once that Kelly's ideas were unworthy of consideration, they should have left her on her own, which might have forced her, somehow, to consider her stance. --] 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:54, 12 April 2007
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
Thanks
Thanks for dealing with the whole PatPeter thing. I also have no clue what his (is agenda the right word?) agenda is. I was about to write something on his talk but removed it after taking another look; that's probably not the most constructive thing to do at this point. Skult of Caro (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated death information
An editor has posted that state senator of South Carolina Bill Mescher died, but I checked google and found nothing about his alleged death. I'm afraid another Sinbad would happen, so can you please take a look at it and revert if needed? Thanks! Wooyi 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- This one appears legit. NoSeptember 22:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Assistance needed
Hello, I am asking for your assistance in regard to an individual named User:Virgil Vaduva who continues to censor information listed as 'criticism' in the article about Rob Bell. He has broken the three revert rule as I and another individual reported here, and has extended his reign. He has experienced temporary bans before - he'll just come back to continue under other registered names like Armothe. If that weren't enough, he has now deemed fit to invade my personal user discussion with moral judgments. Aside from appearing to be an unbalanced individual on his personal website, I believe his aggression on Misplaced Pages will not end unless he is dealt with accordingly. As evidenced by reporting me, he is a typical example of those seeking to use technological savvy to oppress opposing opinions. It is the nature of "redefined Church" followers (like Rob Bell) to be heavy computer users, so an example must be made of Virgil to set example of what will happen to other members of 'modern Church' who use their tech-knowhow to silence criticism. One additional note - he has sought aide from another admin who has been previous sympathetic with his religious views, claiming I have threatened him by noting on-the-job bandwidth waste while appealing for upholding the censorship of criticism on the Rob Bell article. Here you can see where another user noted his antics. Please help! Thank you so much.
- I find it interesting that you find time to research my personal life or call me "unbalanced" but you don't find time to discuss contributions to an article in a constructive manner in the discussion section of the article, which is meant for that purpose. I trust that Cyde can judge the situation for himself and see past your ad-hominem attacks. --Virgil Vaduva 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Portal:Creationism
You're an administrator, and I think childish vandalism is not what is expected of you. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Aw c'mon, that's from seven months ago, and was reverted almost immediately. Why is this being brought up now? --Cyde Weys 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's not just vandalism, it's also egregious POV-pushing. Wooyi 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't consider science to be a "point of view"; rather, the way the world is. --Cyde Weys 13:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Joebengo
Hello Cyde! I've replied your comment, please check and update. Thank you! Wooyi 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion
Cydebot seems to have stopped running, as the list is two hours out of date. --Coredesat 04:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is a week out of date and Cyde's notice to us about it has already been archived. NoSeptember 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
On endorsements
Hi. While I appreciate your concern, I've got to wonder why you haven't left similarly outraged messages on the talk pages of everyone who has labeled Kelly's suggestion as "simply ridiculous", "a joke", "shrubbery", etc. Now you've been here long enough to know that to propose a change to the RfA process such as requiring WikiProject endorsement, the usual way to do things is not to post a "Neutral" on every possible RfA until someone notices but rather to engage discussions on the Village Pump or something of that form. RfAs should stick to the evaluation of a candidate and Kelly is transforming them into soapboxes for her proposed endorsement system. Pascal.Tesson 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not responding to the merits of any of the points you have bring up, you have still not shown how Kelly is purposefully disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. She isn't. So don't accuse people of things they aren't guilty of. If you don't agree with her methods of trying to modify the procedure then you can say so, but it's unaccpetable to accuse her of violating some policy that she hasn't. It's like accusing someone of vandalism when their intent wasn't to vandalize (e.g. they just messed up); you simply don't do it. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mayybe, he is saying that because Kelly appears to have taken this stance so as to bring about a some kind of change, which she wants in the community as a whole, or the RFA process. A much better way of proceeding with this idea, she should have proposed some changes on the appropriate venues of discourse, like the Village Pump. But equally astounding is the fact that a neutral stance by another user, which is not really a cause of disruption would attract so much pettifoggery. A better response would have been, even if they presumed for once that Kelly's ideas were unworthy of consideration, they should have left her on her own, which might have forced her, somehow, to consider her stance. --Zamkudi 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)