User talk:CyberAnth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk archives

[edit] What Essays are supposed to do

You reverted my reversion recently to WP:WIF. In doing so, your edit comment states that Essays are supposed to espouse a POV. That is not true. User pages are for espousing POV. Essays fall under WP:OWN, WP:POV, WP:EANP, and WP:SOAPBOX. Those are the problems with WP:WIF -- all of the above. Heathhunnicutt 22:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Point me to an essay that does not contain the author's POV. Even if this should be in user space, you would be bing a DICK to trip this up over a technicality. Do the contrasting essays (e.g., why WP is NOT failing) contain a POV? In point of fact, I suspect you know this and concede to the truth of it. But like most users trying to bowdlerize the essay, could give one rip about anything but your own agenda to here. CyberAnth 22:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, essays can have POV and WP:OWN does not apply either when as an essay or in userspace. JoshuaZ 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Josh, let me make a point. It is one thing to in good faith improve an essay while retaining its point. That is not what is going on here. The thing going on is more like - well, re-read you message, feel how you feel about it, and then do revert the change...just as people are doing with the essay. CyberAnth 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention of reverting or not, my comment was purely an observation of policy. JoshuaZ 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Although actually WP:OWN does cover essays. If an essay is being abused as a soapbox, and other editors won't allow it to continue to be abused as such, it can be nominated for deletion. Given the long-term idiocy at that article I think I will rouge it up a little. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is that is tripping up something very important over a technicality. How about we simply set up a re-direct from its current location into Worldtraveller's user space? CyberAnth 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-paste moves

Are a violation of the GFDL. If you want to move the essay, use the move tab. Hesperian 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never used it, so...don't wanna mess somthin' up. CyberAnth 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well you're in a bind then, because copy-paste moving is messing something up. Hesperian 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big red boxes on top of essays are a great idea

Firstly, it looks attractive. Secondly, the message of this article really has been made into something other than what the author has said. Whether the few hacks who call themselves "the community" here agrees or not, we should make sure the core message of the essay is not changed. I should point out that I, too, know how it feels to have my words twisted into something they are not. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand how that would feel. If people were twisting my words into the something they were not, I'd be reverting a lot too. CyberAnth 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Consider this a strong warning to immediately stop accusing good faith editors of vandalism. This is totally out of line. You have done so repeatedly regarding the "Wikipedia is failing" page. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it's vandalism. This is a wiki and everyone can edit it. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not done that to any good faith editors or admins. CyberAnth 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't care for your weaseling word games. Do it again and you'll be blocked. --Cyde Weys 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a good faith statement. CyberAnth 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey...is your email turned on here? MetsFan76 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure is! CyberAnth 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok I just sent you one. MetsFan76 03:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay article

See the discussion on the talk page - I disagree with you and I strongly feel the inline citations are required. If you you would like to rewrite the current version WITH inline citations please do so; But until such time I strongly urge you to reconsider you edit Glen 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree inline citations are better. However, the text of this article is a vast, VAST improvement over the prior version. The text really does not seem to go beyond the available sources - and believe me, I have followed this mess extremely closely since it began. Certainly nothing in the text appears made up. CyberAnth 10:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Now yet another editor has joined in the reverting, so I've protected it. See Talk:Essjay controversy Glen 10:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Good job. Take a look at the talk page. The exact quote of Sanger's response is more accurate with full in line citations. The quote colors the picture quite well. Thanx. QuackGuru TALK 07:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonny Hicks

I notice from your contributions you have not been very active lately, but I'd still like to inform you that I'm renominating Bonny Hicks, an article you expanded, for Good Article status. Resurgent insurgent 09:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the note

I really think you might get a different perspective if you actually look at the diffs and read the whole conversation. I know we've had our disagreements in the past, and I thought you were gone but while you're here I'd like to take the opportunity to apologize for overreacting re the Penny Arcade thing. I shouldn't have dragged you onto ANI like that; I should have just let it go. I'm sorry for the trouble I gave you that day.

As regards this current ANI thread, though, I really think you're wrong. If you're taking an interest in this, please look carefully at everything I've actually said to that user. If you find a diff that you feel is out of line, well, please point me to it. — coelacan — 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DOM

I tried to add a well sourced item to the article, but it immediatley got reverted because I'm considered pro DOM. Also your sandbox got forwarded to the main article because it was considered a forum for promoting DOM's interests after I played with it. It seems that the article will never be completed without your impartial help. I give up on trying. Harvardy 17:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/b/User_talk%7ECyberAnth_ce13.html"