User talk:Cyde/Archive014

NO SPAMMING

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

User:Vitriouxc

This user that you blocked has been using IP addresses to continue voting at RFA's. He has also made borderline personal attacks against you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Randall Brackett. If you could check of this. — The King of Kings 07:57 July 09 '06

Bots

The automatic vandalism bots seem to be a funny invention but could you please stop yours and visit the talk page of Muslim Bulgarians / Bulgarian Muslims?

Date linking

Whoops, my bad; I must have missed that. I thought only month/day/year dates should be linked. Looks like I'll have to revise my editing methodology. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In need of a rouge admin

Would you have any interest in restoring the deleted edits from either User talk:Wsiegmund or North Saskatchewan River? Just for your own personal viewership?—[?????] 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting, thanks for letting me know. I'm not really sure why MONGO is going around removing innocuous edits he made while logged out. --Cyde↔Weys 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view is to avoid people backtracking his ip to harass him outside of wiki. Syrthiss 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page.
Misza 13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing!

NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm.
Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Subpages of my talkpage

Please return User talk:Ssbohio/B & User talk:Ssbohio/BB to their condition before being deleted & moved. I hadn't finished my work on B, and BB doesn't belong in its place. Since this entirely concerns my talk page, please direct further discussion there. Thanks. --Ssbohio 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I was unclear, but I'm asking you to undo both your move and your deletion of subpages of my talk page. You've undone the move, which I appreciate, but I'd really like the pages back the way I had them before your work on them. Also, I'd ask you to be careful with edit summaries. The move wasn't made because I wanted a different name for the page, but because I wanted you to revert your actions taken with regard to both affected pages. Thanks again. --Ssbohio 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm done here. I don't like your attitude at all. You ask me to fix one of your pages while simultaneously writing something negative about me on that page? What is wrong with you? --Cyde↔Weys 02:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. You delete one of the subpages of my talkpage for no reason that I can determine, fial to explain yourself when questioned about it, and fail to revert your deletion when asked to. Yet, perversely, the problem is my attitude? You're the one with the administrator's tools that you're using to make deletions not supported by deletion policy on pages that relate to a controversy in which you are involved. I didn't come into your userpages and start deleting things. You came into mine. Of the two of us, the onus is on you, both by virtue of your position in this community & by virtue of you being the one who made the deletion. I shouldn't have to curry your favor to get you to restore these pages to the condition they were in before you intervened. I'm not asking you for a favor, Cyde. --Ssbohio 02:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll tell you what's amazing, that you act like a jerk and then think I owe it to you to help you out. --Cyde↔Weys 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the misunderstanding. I don't expect you to help me out. I only expect you to undo what you've done. I'm here doing what I'm supposed to do when an administrator takes an action. I'm addressing it with that administrator. I don't think ill of you for taking the original action. I've seen enough of your work here to know that you're motivated by good intentions. That doesn't mean that the deletion you made should stay deleted. You may think I'm acting like a jerk, but all I want is a return to the status quo ante, not any favor or extraordinary treatment. --Ssbohio 03:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still hoping we can resolve this. --Ssbohio 02:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A one-on-one resolution is becoming less likely as the silence passes. I'm sorry we apparently couldn't. --Ssbohio 03:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasdijj - what's going on?

Hiya, don't really understand what's happening on the Nasdijj article - is a bot malfunctioning or something? Can't see any instructions from Jimbo Wales. Vizjim 09:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous IP that blanked the page and placed the {{sprotect}} notice was actually Jimbo Wales, he was just in a remote location on a flaky satellite connection with some proxy issues that wouldn't let him log in. --Cyde↔Weys 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I've restated the question on the article's talk page (and Jimbo's talk page): still not sure what's wrong with that well-sourced and scrupulously fair article! Vizjim 13:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, how do you know? Rich Farmbrough 21:58 28 July 2006 (GMT).

What, how do I know it was Jimbo? He told me off-wiki. --Cyde↔Weys 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've asked for confirmation from Jimbo (or Danny). Meanwhile I've left the history deleted and unprotected the article, since there are no issues with IP users. If confirmation of the problem isn't forthcoming soon, I'll undelete the history, as it can easily be deleted again if required. Rich Farmbrough 22:25 29 July 2006 (GMT).

Incidentally Jimbo was logged on this morning, and yesterday morning. Rich Farmbrough 22:26 29 July 2006 (GMT).

SO basically you're not taking Cyde's word for it when he told you Jimbo asked him to do it and he's convinced it was Jimbo. That's just not a good approach in my view. Admins should hang together, should trust each other, man... I think you should leave it the way it was. ++Lar: t/c 00:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More than just "convinced" ... Jimbo came into the private administrators' channel on IRC with his cloak and everything and told us he was editing from a remote location and it wasn't letting him stay logged in long enough to edit. He explicitly asked us to watch over the page and semi-protect it. Deleting the history was my own idea because someone had just pasted back the old revision over Jimbo and I. But he most definitely wanted it sprotected. --Cyde↔Weys 00:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Template:User Gambler a T1 violation?

It seems to me like it just describes a hobby, and I don't know how it could be divisive or inflammatory. If possible, I'd like to see the code so I can Germanize it. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sir Crazyswordsman 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this to me???

Why have religious userboxes been deleted? I'd like a clear explanation. I sense some hostility towards religious people by the Wikipedia staff. --Rambone (Talk) 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:GUS. They are getting moved to userspace and then deleted. The consensus was that they were not appropriate for an encyclopedia. αChimp ^laudare 04:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T1 deletes

Hi. WP:GUS is new to me but at first read I see that the userboxes are to be transferred not outright deleted! Could you please supply me with the code for these boxes please: Template:User Alternattiva Demokratika and Template:User Partit Nazzjonalista. My humble suggestion is that you create a user subpage and throw in all the templates you delete -- users can then, on own initiative, copy the userbox to their own /Userboxes/ directory and delete it from your subpage; and you may also make a sort of automatic removal after say 1 or 2 months. Thanks. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete

Template:User atheism - 1 protected link. Rfrisbie^talk 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User slm... - 1 protected link. Rfrisbie^talk 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User religion Rfrisbie^talk 01:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User religion interest Rfrisbie^talk 01:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User religion psychological Rfrisbie^talk 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User religion anthropological Rfrisbie^talk 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User religion aesthetic Rfrisbie^talk 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User religion metaphysical Rfrisbie^talk 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User religion... Rfrisbie^talk 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User religious pluralism Rfrisbie^talk 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User zoroastrianism
Template:User zoro Rfrisbie^talk 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User Zen
Template:User zen Rfrisbie^talk 02:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User Mikkyo
Template:User mikkyo Rfrisbie^talk 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User Chinese Traditional Religion Rfrisbie^talk 02:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User Hinduism Rfrisbie^talk 02:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User ayyavazhi Rfrisbie^talk 02:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User Chinmaya
Template:User chinmaya Rfrisbie^talk 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User bahá'í Rfrisbie^talk 02:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User Christianity
Template:User christianity Rfrisbie^talk 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User Eastern Christian interest
Template:User Eastern Christianity
Template:User eastern christianity Rfrisbie^talk 02:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User Judaism Rfrisbie^talk 02:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User chaos Rfrisbie^talk 02:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User unun Rfrisbie^talk 02:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User angel Rfrisbie^talk 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User destiny Rfrisbie^talk 03:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User Ghost
Template:User ghost Rfrisbie^talk 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User Karma
Template:User karma Rfrisbie^talk 03:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User luck Rfrisbie^talk 03:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User reincarnation Rfrisbie^talk 03:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User pilgrim Rfrisbie^talk 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User tarot Rfrisbie^talk 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antivandalbot wrongfully waned me

Antivandalbot warned me for reversing rightful vandalism by Simple Thomas. Could you please remove the warning tag?--Gdo01 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a wrongful warning you can just remove it yourself. --Cyde↔Weys 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an astroturfer?

Reguarding Wikipedia:Categories_for_Deletion#Category:Gangster_Wikipedians, I found your closing statement to be totally out of line. It's a blatant personal attack on myself and other users, and you closed the vote barely a day after it opened. There wasn't really consensus in the vote; Mareino had made an excellent point that I'd wanted to expand on and suggest a solution. Instead, you closed the vote and made a sweeping accusation about everybody who had voted to keep. I'm assuming good faith here, and it's not a big deal if the category is deleted, but I'm a little worried about the repercussions in other CfDs because of this, and the close (to me) seemed premature. syphonbyte _(t|c) 01:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Gangster Wikipedians"? Get serious. We're writing an encyclopedia here, we don't have time for infantile nonsense. --Cyde↔Weys 01:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually the 3rd result on Google for Mad Gangster, so to some degree there is a reason for my place in such a category. At any rate, my point was that you closed the CfD barely a day after it was started, which makes no sense. Discussion was still going on, and as I said before, Mareino made a good point about the German Userbox Solution, and I wanted to point out that this could probably apply to categories as well. That category was entirely within user space, so whether it was unencyclopaedic or not is somewhat irrelevant. All userboxes are unencyclopaedic by nature, since they aren't included in the encylcopaedia, hence the German Userbox Solution to keep them in userspace. This was the point I intended to make, however I didn't expect the CfD to suddenly be closed. Whether it is infantile nonsense or not isn't the point, the point is the precendent that can be set here. Anyhow, I can still have the category on my page and show up on it, it's just a redlink now - the category still lists Raven and I in it thanks to MediaWiki. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "userspace categories". --Cyde↔Weys 05:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for picking a term in my message out of context. What I meant was that the category is not referenced outside of userspace so it does no harm to article space. My point, once again, is that it may be a good idea to investigate something similar to the German Userbox Solution for these types of categories, and I would hope that you would actually respond to this, as well as my point that you closed the CfD barely a day after it was opened, thus totally destroying the chances of a good discussion of the point I just mentioned. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German userbox solution won't work for categories because there is no such thing as a userspace category. --Cyde↔Weys 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category that is not referenced outside of userspace does not exist as far as article space is concerned and is as good as a userspace category. If the opposite is true, though, then we might as well delete every category describing Wikipedians. I still don't really get why you closed the CfD after a single day, though. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Browse is linked directly from the main page and it doesn't make any distinction over pages that don't have any namespace zero inclusions. There is no such thing as a userspace category; all categories are the same. --Cyde↔Weys 05:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'll give you that then, however the category was still within Category:Wikipedians by condition and clearly was a category of users. As I said before, the solution for this would be similar to the German userbox solution, but not exactly the same because it deals with categories. There is obviously a way for these types of categories to exist, because they've been around for a while and nobody seems to have a big problem with them. I wouldn't mind if the Gangster category was deleted as much if it weren't for the fact that the CfD was closed so early - other CfDs on that page are still active, and some of them appear to be far more clear cut than this case. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, people have had a "problem" with these categories for a long while, you just haven't been aware of it. And I've been deleting spurious user categories for awhile now, so don't just say this is coming out of the blue. --Cyde↔Weys 05:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but the fact still remains that you closed the CfD after a single day and mad a blatant attack on the users who voted to keep the Category. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but the fact still remains that Fram figured out your bloc and called you out on it, and CfD is a discussion, not a vote. --Cyde↔Weys 13:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a discussion, that does not mean that people who have an interest in the category can't come to discuss it. That's why the issue of a bloc isn't that big of a deal. There was nothing insidious intended there, and it should have been very apparent that we all know each other. Anyhow, Fram has as history with me and the other users and has made all sorts of accusations in the past, but that was the past. I figured that he had moved on from that as well, but perhaps he didn't. Anyhow, I have never met the user with (what I thought was) the best point, Mareino, so he is not part of any sort of bloc. syphonbyte _(t|c) 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mareino really doesn't have much import with me because I've consistently seen him make some very questionable decisions (the latest being defending the "Gangster Wikipedians" category). There's only so many bad decisions you can make before you risk discrediting yourself. This whole treating discussions as a vote is really not helping things because people think they can make spurious "votes" and then they don't realize that administrators notice consistently poor judgement and discount it. I would highly suggest finding something other than "Gangster Wikipedians" to expend your effort on. --Cyde↔Weys 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give one "accusation" I made that wasn't the truth? Apart from that, your argument that you came on third (now even second) on Google when looking for "mad ganster", and that therefor it is a relevant user category, is extremely circular, as it is the link to Wikipedia (your user page) that comes third, and that is only because of the popularity of Wikipedia. This does not indicate that "mad gangster" is a valid, useful, interesting concept, or that you are well known as a mad gangster. You have given no indication that presenting you or any user as a "mad gangster", and the creation of a category for it, is anything but an inside joke. Anyway, discussions of deletions are best done at WP:DRV. Fram 14:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde Weys: Not to worry, I spend time working on many other things. This simply caught my attention last night. I agree that treating these discussions as votes is a bad thing, which is why I see no problem with notifying others of discussions so that they can voice their opinions. If this caused trouble, then forgive me, that wasNot to worry, I spend time working on many other things. This simply caught my attention last night. I agree that treating these discussions as votes is a bad thing, which is why I see no problem with notifying others of discussions so that they can voice their opinions. If this caused trouble, then forgive me, that was not my intention at all. syphonbyte _(t|c) 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC) not my intention at all. syphonbyte _(t|c) 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fram: I'll respond on your talk page, no need to clutter Cyde's any more than it already is. syphonbyte _(t|c) 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 31st


Volume 2, Issue 31	31 July 2006	About the Signpost

Onion riff prompts some to cry for change	Professors criticize, praise Wikipedia in listserv discussions
Wikimania last-minute information	Report from the Polish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert et al

Would it kill you to not revert pages and then protect them unless it is actual vandalism? The section on wikiality or the Idaho's Portugal thing isn't really vandalism. Do it all you want with the three times more on the elephant pages. Kotepho 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the "Oregon is Idaho's Portugal" was vandalism of the purest form, done at the behest of some of Stephen Colbert's comments from The Colbert Report. --Cyde↔Weys 04:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I would consider something more along the lines of replacing an article with "PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS..." being the purest form of vandalism, but this edit I'll give you as vandalism. The other edits were in good faith and it isn't a good idea to call it vandalism. I find it especially funny that you reverted and then protected a vandalized version anyways (official site was changed to http://www.articleonramp.com). Kotepho 05:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please go find something better to do than chewing out an admin who did his best to deal with a hard and heavy vandalism spree and possibly made a few mistakes like protecting before reverting vandalism rather than reverting vandalism before protecting. --Cyde↔Weys 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a difference between reverting vandalism and then protecting or protecting and then reverting vandalism; both are fine. Protecting things at something other than the Wrong Version is not OK though when you are not dealing with vandalism, as with The Colbert Report. Kotepho 06:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between editing an article protected due to vandalism and editing an article protected due to a content dispute. --Cyde↔Weys 06:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loxodonta is not really semi-protected, contrary to what the boilerplate claims. The other species are. Carson 07:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center

Your bot has twice reverted my reverts to this article. I won't try to fix the article a third time, but I thought I'd let you know. -Merope 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating sigs

Because I'd rather my previous username be unknown, as I intend it to be deleted when I've finished. Most of the "New Message" alerts shouldn't effect users as the messages are quite old and are archived.--Andeh 15:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it to be unknown then you are going at it exactly the wrong way, because running around updating every occurrence of your old username to your new username is about the most visible and conspicuous thing you can do. --Cyde↔Weys 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused you, I have now finished.--Andeh 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of course you have, I asked you to stop, you didn't, and now that you've finished, you're done. --Cyde↔Weys 16:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No NYT account

You mentioned on the Israel-Lebanon war (should be called that, anyhow) "talk" page that you don't have a NYT account. You need Bugmenot. Self-explanatory once you browse it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do know about (and use BugMeNot), but the vast majority of our readers don't, and it's doing a disservice to them to link to content that they can't even view without going through the rigamarole of giving up all of their personal information to a large corporation. --Cyde↔Weys 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gangster Wikipedians on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Gangster Wikipedians. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. syphonbyte _(t|c) 18:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mindrot, AfD

Hello! I have done some cleanup on the above article and provided reasons it should stay on the corresponding AfD. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

This user, Hectorhector, vandalized your page. Do you think it's vandalism? Take a look at this: [1] If you think it is vandalism or not, please contact me. Thanks! --Big top 19:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if Cyde was an Elephant I wouldn't have been so harsh. ELEPHANTS DO NOT WIKI. It is a defence mechanism. Hectorhector 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the population of Elephants and other such matters that should be taken seriously

Cyde you have recently accused me of vandalising the elephant page on the popular resource website Wikipedia. Ho! This is not true! I have muct interest in [Elephants] and I would do nothing to skew the publics perception of these fine beasts. In fact, my interest in Elephants is what led me to study their population in the first place! I went to Mexico to observe them in their natural habitat. this is a picture I took six (6) months ago and here is a picture I took recently in the same location. As you can see the population rose by 2 1/4!!!! I apologize for not explaining myself before hand but as you can see, the evidence clearly supports that the population has roughly tripled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorhector (talk • contribs)

Whatever, just don't you dare insert this joke into the encyclopedic content. --Cyde↔Weys 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good idea Hectorhector 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK

Just a short note to register my wholehearted support for your sentiments regarding WP:DICK, even if I personally wouldn't use such strong language in response. --David Mestel^(Talk) 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop

I assume your comment on my talk page was directed to Michael, not to me? Just in case there is any confusion, I have not called for nor supported desysopping over this. I firmly believe Ed was in the wrong and that Freak was wrong to lower the block less than 3 days. Ed violated 3RR on 3 seperate articles. 3RR can only be violated in the case of blatant vandalism, which this was not. Desysopping is certainly not warranted, however. Johntex\^talk 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was directed at Michael, not you; as you have just stated, it was he who made the call for desysopping, not you, and the signatures involved weren't so elaborate that I couldn't discern who they matched up with :-P Cyde↔Weys 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I thought so, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't be associated with such an extreme position. I appreciate you taking the time to reassure me. Johntex\^talk 23:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up on The Colbert Report

I'm reducing The Colbert Report down to a sprotect; keeping it locked over what is essentially a content dispute is ultimately an untenable situation, and in the long run isn't the best thing for the project. As you were involved in cleaning up this mess throughout the day, I thought you would like to know. JDoorj a m Talk 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, but judging by a strict interpretation of WP:3RR it looks like I've run out reverts ... which is really an untenable situation, because there's only a few of us but dozens of people trying to add in the navel-gazing to the article. --Cyde↔Weys 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing Hypocrite

I find it simply amusing that an admin has a rather long block log for user-page vandalism yet he assumes other of vandalism when they're actually posting real information. What are you like 16? Seriously grow up and quit acting like an infant, this is a encyclopedic website. -24.92.46.16 01:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]