Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:49, 13 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)

I'm sure nearly half of the Americans don't believe in Darwinism, and no one has proved Darwinian theories either. Let's face it, we all don't know where we come from, there is no need to be patronizing like this. Wooyi 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because reality is really affected by what stupid people believe in. And you have an incredibly warped perception of science. --Cyde Weys 13:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you know what, that's not fair. You're young and you simply haven't gotten the truth from whatever biased people are around you warping your education. So here's a chance to learn some real facts. Check out the evidence for evolution as well as the index to creationist claims. Get reading. It includes answers to the fallacious claims that "a lot of people don't believe it, thus it is false" as well as the claim about "we don't know" — because the fossils don't lie. --Cyde Weys 13:49, 13 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)

Cyde, can you specify which provision of Erik's former views are changed, and why they are wrong? Thanks. I personally do agree with that "m:Avoid copyright paranoia" page that a picture painted hundreds of years ago is not copyrighted, and the other views posted by him at that time, like the one sentence copyright, seem legit. I don't understand if there is any wrong in "avoiding copyright paranoia". In a reasonable sense, any paranoia isn't something good. Wooyi 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, generally paranoia may be "bad", but surely you see the logical flaw in calling something paranoia and then saying it is bad because it is paranoia, when the actual underlying behavior isn't paranoid. You've cherry-picked some of the good things from that essay. There are also many bad things. Misplaced Pages is first and foremost a freely redistributable free content encyclopedia. The WMF isn't going to be around forever, but thanks to the GFDL, the content always will be, and you will be guaranteed to always have the freedoms to modify it and redistribute it under the terms of the license. I wouldn't call worrying about these legitimate concerns "paranoia". We do have to watch about non free content slipping into the encyclopedia and basically corrupting it, making it less free and non-redistributable. --Cyde Weys 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What exactly constitute "paranoia" is vague and open to interpretation. In my view labeling Leonardo da Vinci or Raphael's painting "copyrighted" is copyright paranoia while deleting a clearly copyrighted modern picture is not copyright paranoia. Of course, GFDL helps a lot in maintaining our encyclopedia free, we should thank Richard Stallman for that. Cheers! Wooyi 22:41, 12 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)

Okay, I've brought the bot up and running again. Hopefully it should be fixed. If it stops running at this point, let me know. --Cyde Weys 22:53, 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)

Johnny the Vandal sockpuppets

We had some of these on wikibooks today, using a different IP than the one you identified... your bot created Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Johnny the Vandal, so are you "in charge" of this case? The IP in question has a history of vandalizing "according to pattern" here on wikipedia. --SB_Johnny||_books 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're really confusing something here. Cydebot modified over a hundred sockpuppet categories. It was the result of a huge blanket WP:CFD. I am in no way, shape, or form maintaining these things. If you'd like to do so, by my guest. --Cyde Weys 22:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no thanks :). We just have another IP for him... I'll talk to one of the local CUs about it. --SB_Johnny||_books 09:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)