User talk:Vengeful Cynic

How are ya?

'Sup Cynic? What have you been up to lately? Nice to see you're a wikifan too =) I just happened across you on the LeTourneau University page... Danjayh 06:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Diamonds

VC, great contributions filling out all those red links on list of famous diamonds. The list sure needs the attention. If you're really, really bored, and interested in this topic, you can take a crack at list of diamond mines, which is almost empty right now. Those articles can be much longer though (see my Argyle diamond mine for an example of what can happen when one is tempted by a red link!). - Bryan is Bantman 21:37, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm doing the famous diamonds, but I'm not sure that I'm quite so bored to go after the mines just yet. Vengeful Cynic 21:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Citing to the Bible

As a recent participant in the TfD dicussion on whether {{Bibleverse}} and {{Bibleref}} should be deleted, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new discussion at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. The goal of these discussion is to resolve the concerns raised re GFDL, use of an external cite, etc. Additionally, this page should serve as a location for recording research about the different websites that provide online Bible information. Please edit the summary and join the discussion - thx Trödel 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: UNESCO; Pope Pius I; Pope Anastasius III; Carat (mass); Royal Jordanian; Kuwait Airways; Qatar Airways; Pope Benedict II; Antipope Boniface VII; Year of Three Popes; Pope John III; Museum; List of German popes; Pope Boniface VI; Pope Felix IV; Pope Stephen VII; Camauro; Pope Benedict XIII; Autonomous prefecture

Cleanup: Purchasing power parity; Links between popes; Mary Pope Osborne
Merge: Antipope Anastasius; If and only if; Infrastructure
Add Sources: Pope Sixtus IV; Latrocinium; Will (law)
Wikify: Franklin Leonard Pope; Robert Lowe, 1st Viscount Sherbrooke; Pontifical Accolades
Expand: Element Six; Roman Triptych; Coordinate system

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mango juice^talk 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Proposed Georgia Move

Yes, thank you. As you noted, it was quite inappropriate for the user to close the existing no-consensus poll and immediately open a new one. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the poll had run for 2 years, so I can't really blame the user for closing it on non-consensus... but the immediately going and opening an identical poll on another page seems somewhat... shady. --Vengeful Cynic 15:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Thanks for informing those pro status quo. Pædia 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, because of my overwhelming compulsion towards fairness, I informed everyone who had voted on talk:Georgia. Yeah... that took a bit, but I can honestly say that I've excercised due diligence. --Vengeful Cynic 16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Vengeful Cynic! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyra e l _{/ 06:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)} 06:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.86.56.53

so how am I supposed to contact you? Your censorship doesn't show much cynicisem. More like your everyday establishment control-of-information. Was there something I wrote that you disagree with? If it's not true, state your own facts. As far as I can tell, everything I wrote is true, so why not trying to counter it, rather than censor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.56.53 (talk • contribs) .

First off, as you can tell, showing up on my talk page works rather well. Secondly, please insert comments at the bottom of my talk page rather than at the top. Given a moment, I will seek out your issue and get back to you. --Vengeful Cynic 04:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, when you see something that you disagree with it, it is not 'encyclopedic'? Encyclopedia's are not just about the facts, they are also about understanding those facts. Any understanding, and 'facts' for that matter, are a matter of opinion. Those you disagree with -- you censor. That makes for an "encyclopedia written collaboratively by its readers". Yeah, right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.56.53 (talk • contribs) .

While it would appear that you don't much care, Wikipedia does indeed have a set of standards for such things. For instance, to take your example, if you were to want to note within American Sports that Americans have become lazy in comparison to the other countries of the world, you would find some sort of objective research or study that makes that claim and, per WP:CITE, cite that as the basis for your statement. Much like a scholarly article, Wikipedia does not allow statements that cannot be verified by research, per WP:VERIFY. However, unlike scholarly research but like an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not allow original research per WP:NOR(No Original Research. And, beyond all of this, Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a Neutral Point of View... otherwise frequently referred to as WP:NPOV.

In short, I have a problem with your above-cited post in that it used rather unencyclopedic and slanted language, violating WP:NPOV. The statements were uncited and unverifiable, violating WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY, and you drew conclusions based upon your own experience and beliefs, violating WP:NOR. If you're still reading, I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you might have. --Vengeful Cynic 04:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

I don't see any of those things on the page I edited. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.56.53 (talk • contribs) .

Any of what things? The guidelines themselves or the applications as I saw them? - --Vengeful Cynic 05:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standards you cite as your reason for censoring my entry were not used on that entire page. You might as well delete the whole "Sprots in the US" page, because none of it is cited, verified, etc.

Why not just own up to it? You are a censor. Just like the guys in the whitehouse, TV boardrooms, and military. You see something you don't agree with or like? Just hit 'block'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.56.53 (talk • contribs) .

You raise a valid contention. In addressing this concern, I have tagged the page in question with {{unreliable}}, a tag which will attempt to address the concerns of unreliability and a lack of solid sources. That said, an important difference between the encyclopedic (albeit unsourced) writing on Sports in the United States and the paragraph you inserted is that the writing you did could be referred to as intentionally provocative, or trolling. While I perceive your attempt to irritate me as more of the same, I do hold out some small hope of your maturity getting the better of you and causing you to attempt to do some small good for Wikipedia. In any event, I'm done with this for now... have a good day. --Vengeful Cynic 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you have a good day too. A little provocation can go a long way. Maybe I'll grow up, and maybe you will stop being such a control freak.

BTW -- your Ren and Stempy page is great, but it really needs some citation and verification ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.56.53 (talk • contribs) .

God, don't I know it... that page needs way more help than I have to give to it, but I'm trying with my spare time. If you want to play with it, give it your best shot. --Vengeful Cynic 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 66.44.123.53

Hi! Thanks for the amazingly quick catch on the Caulkin article. I admit that I didn't look carefully enough - I saw a negative sentence, and assumed it was a one-letter typo. After looking again, of course, I see that I missed a prior negative in the same sentence. Thanks again for taking care of that! You are quite vigilant. --66.44.123.53 16:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:69.144.80.187

RE: link Hi VC, Yeah I wasn't sure if the link to the page would be appropriate. In the beginning I was trying to upload a video of the throw, but it was first in the wrong format and then when converted to AVI is was 17 megabytes! So long story short, I then read more about policy and that Wikipedia suggests a link to a host file of the video. In this case, I should have just made the link go straight to the video file, rather than such an "unotable" page, eh?

An external video link would be appropriate at the bottom of the page, but not linked in-line into the encyclopedia entry. --Vengeful Cynic 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded Threats

I was browsing a single page on this site and got this message:

"Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Searchlight Magazine, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Vengeful Cynic 16:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"

I made no such edit so I'm not sure why you're so keen to blame me in this manner. Is it policy to libel innocent visitors with such wild accusations or just a personal hobby? Please feel free to take your high-handed tone and shove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.112.140 (talk • contribs) .

Sir or Madam, regretfully you are using an ISP which randomly assigns IP addresses to its users and are visiting wikipedia using an IP address that was last used by a vandal on 15 July 2006. I am sorry that you are the unintended recipient of this instruction to cease and desist and assure you that no slight against your person or your reputation was intended. In the future, howevever, please consult the date of the communique in question on your talk page should you be using a randomly assigned IP address to ensure that comments to which you take offense weren't addressed to another, days before. --Vengeful Cynic 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GHe's RfA

Hi Vengeful Cynic!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Ultimately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. I will definitely take time and look into your constructive criticisms. Thank you again for participating.

G.H e 21:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LU page

Hey VC. Here's a good article by the venerable Dr. Ken Durham with some LU history. Might be a good source for the entry here. Thanks for your recent edits. The thing really has grown so much since my original entry! Eliot 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Letulogo2.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Letulogo2.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Vengeful Cynic! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Alvin O. Austin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]