Revision as of 12:06, 25 August 2007 editCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →Very disappointed← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:11, 25 August 2007 edit undoCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →Attack siteNext edit → | ||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
::::::Evidence ≠ attack site. If the page said "SlimVirgin sucks" (in more explicit terms), I'm sure Cyde wouldn't have linked it. Please drop it Crum375. ] ] ] 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | ::::::Evidence ≠ attack site. If the page said "SlimVirgin sucks" (in more explicit terms), I'm sure Cyde wouldn't have linked it. Please drop it Crum375. ] ] ] 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
Just because it says something critical about a Wikipedian does not automatically make it an attack site. It's not. You need to get over this naive view that everything can always be solved simply by sweeping it under the rug, pretending it didn't happen, and then threatening to block whoever brought it up. These revelations of SlimVirgin are ''hugely'' important and you can't simply make that go away by trying to suppress the link. --] 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Protection of ] == | == Protection of ] == |
Revision as of 12:11, 25 August 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
C++ examples
You were the original creator of this page, and I thought I should let you know that I have nominated it for deletion at AFD. -Hit bull, win steak 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me, but I shall not be protesting its deletion. I created that article way back in 2003, before I knew a tenth the things about Misplaced Pages that I know now. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Curious About Your Bot
He made this edit to this and some other images I have uploaded. Is there something wrong with the images or where I got them? -WarthogDemon 01:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Click the link in the edit summary of the diff you just linked to. --Cyde Weys 02:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
exxon valdez
why did you fully protect the exxon valdez oil spill article? Randomfrenchie 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It was mentioned on The Colbert Report and history seems to indicate that anything mentioned on that show is heavily vandalized. Don't worry, the protection will end soon. --Cyde Weys 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why didn't you just say this in the edit summary? It would seem appropriate to mention why, rather than "here we go again" and "you know why", the summaries you left for Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and ExxonMobil, respectively. Not everyone owns a TV. As there was a broken link on ExxonMobil, I've had to do a protected edit request to get around this, and I'm a little annoyed. Pro crast in a tor 06:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- In fairness, I think all admins are more than a little jaded of Colbert's antics & the whole silly memes thing. It's just a lot of hard work for us & it really is a case of "here we go again" - Alison ☺ 06:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Category deletion
Ummm... how come you're using an essay as justification for deleting a category. Isn't there supposed to be a vote or discussion or something before you can do that? Or am I misconstruing something?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, practically speaking, what effect does deleting a category before actually emptying it have? Doesn't it just change the font color of the Category name from blue to red?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
How come you're so vandal-obsessed? That category was deleted awhile ago by consensus and its recreation was a mistake. --Cyde Weys 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you point me to the deletion discussion? I don't doubt you; I'm just having trouble finding it myself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Animal births
Thanks for letting me know about that. What I think I'll do is put them under the year category. That was I thought of doing first, but looking at animal deaths I saw that most of those had been placed under <year> deaths. Those will need to be moved too, as for example all I had done was sort the category rather than put in the 2007 deaths. Tim! 06:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved those which were still in the human deaths category into the year category and left a comment on each one so noone makes the same mistake :) Tim! 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Cyde Weys 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yo!
What's Up! Cyde Normalmichael 23:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, not bad, what's up? Who are you, by the way? This seems slightly random. --Cyde Weys 23:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Slim Virgin talk page...
What on earth is this all about??? Georgewilliamherbert 00:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep your eyes pealed on WP:ANI, I'm preparing a post. --Cyde Weys 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone through the edit histories for all the claimed abuses that Bagley called out. The only violation of WP:SOCK, assuming that the two accounts are related, is the dual votes on Featured article candidates/Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. All the other edits were innocuous, even if they're socks. They weren't really 3RR, supporting each other to create false consensus, etc. For the most part they were all unrelated editing.
- I am assuming here that there weren't more edits in there which were later oversighted, but the dual voting seems to be the only actual WP:SOCK violation to stand up to examination. Georgewilliamherbert 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you accidentally undo someone's AN/I edit?
Cyde, with reference to this edit, did you unintentionally undo someone else's unrelated edit? I was going to revert because you didn't mention anything in your edit comment about reverting that other unrelated comment, and it appears to be a botched edit conflict (or something), but I wanted to check with you first. ATren 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, the editor who originally posted it reposted. ATren 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Attack site
- Cyde, if you persist posting links to attack sites, you will be blocked. Please stop. Thanks, Crum375 00:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- He's posting important evidence for a case that quite frankly, could make the Essjay controversy look like a tempest in a teacup. Respectfully, I see no problem with what he is doing. SirFozzie 00:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree and reposted the link. A block over this would frankly be out of order. Majorly (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- He can provide evidence without linking to an attack site. Crum375 00:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that a block would be wildly inappropriate here. Seraphimblade 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence ≠ attack site. If the page said "SlimVirgin sucks" (in more explicit terms), I'm sure Cyde wouldn't have linked it. Please drop it Crum375. ⇒ SWATJester 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Just because it says something critical about a Wikipedian does not automatically make it an attack site. It's not. You need to get over this naive view that everything can always be solved simply by sweeping it under the rug, pretending it didn't happen, and then threatening to block whoever brought it up. These revelations of SlimVirgin are hugely important and you can't simply make that go away by trying to suppress the link. --Cyde Weys 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Protection of ExxonMobil
Hi Cyde, it looks like you've protected ExxonMobil with the reason "you know why". Actually, I don't, and I've been the most active editor there the past few days, and there have been no reverts to my edits. I've been reducing redundancy and reorganizing, I don't think it's anything contentious. So, um, what's up? Did you mean to do it? I'm going to request that it be unprotected as I see nothing untoward happening. Pro crast in a tor 04:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not unprotected - Please give Cyde an opportunity to reply - Alison ☺ 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, will do, Alison. One possibility is that ExxonMobil just appealed to the Supreme Court, which is no surprise there as the 90 day deadline was today. It doesn't seem to be a good reason to protect the page to me, as this isn't a big news event, just another chapter in a 14 year legal battle. Pro crast in a tor 05:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me. It was mentioned on The Colbert Report, and sometimes when that's happened in the past, pages become a target for vandalism. My cryptic protection message was a form of WP:DENY. I've removed the protection now. --Cyde Weys 12:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Very disappointed
So, based on your comment here, your subsequent post at AN/I indicates that "springing" this, well incredible evidence (pun) of sockpuppet activity by SlimVirgin, (what 2 to 3 years ago!!!!) seems to have been done for malicious purposes. We are talking about edits made a long time ago..and there are pretty few as well, no? So, you post that to discredit someone that you have had numerous disagreements with. I see...I am very disappointed, but frankly, I am not surprised...the longer I watch the noticeboards, the more they start to look like WR and ED, thanks in no small part to your latest contribution.--MONGO 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise. That you were crowing about it in advance, can't help but lead one to ponder the motivation behind your choice of forum for this "expose". SV isn't perfect, but knowing fine well the unhealthy interest others take in her, she of all people deserves the courtesy of an email to check this isn't a huge misunderstanding before hanging her out to dry. You have done yourself, and our project, no favors here. Rockpocket 08:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
My first comment on her talk page was utter disgust at learning what she had been up to. Then, realizing what I had learned, I couldn't keep it quiet, and decided it would eventually be brought to community discussion anyway, so why not centralize it. "SV isn't perfect" is a freaking understatement. I guess you don't know what happens to editors who get in her way, but I've tasted it. It typically involves an intimidation campaign, both on-wiki and through email, coming from her and her friends. It didn't work on me, but it has worked on many others. You've seen it happening, admit it. We don't have to put up with it any more, especially now that even more wrongdoing by SV has been revealed. At some point you need to ask yourself: are you going to support her, or the site? No one deserves your infinite, unwavering loyalty, especially as more and more misdeeds come to light. --Cyde Weys 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)