User talk:Cyphase

I-35W Bridge Vandalism?[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to I-35W Bridge . Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tomj 00:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is really late, but I never figured out how either of my two edits could be construed as vandalism. They weren't even reverted. Was it because I made a second edit to correct the first, instead of doing it correctly the first time? Cyphase (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITN Credit[edit]

On 18 April 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article West Fertilizer Plant explosion, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boston[edit]

Yes, I deleted that message the first time, hoping it wouldn't be necessary to do it a second time. That's a serious BLP violation: what you are doing is throwing someone with a Twitter account before the wolves. Maybe it is his, maybe not--all there is right now to prove that it's him is some internet rumors. And if it is him, what purpose does it serve on a talk page? We'll never link to it in the article, or any other one (it's primary), and we can't use it as a reference for factual statements (that's OR). Please be more mindful of WP:BLP, and consider that actions here may have real consequences. The Sandy Hook shooter's brother had to go into hiding because someone threw his Facebook account out in the open, and some random guy in the Boston affair had the same happen to him. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake; it was done in good faith. It looked like it been accidentally deleted when you replied to FunkMonk. If the edit had said "Removed for BLP violation", I wouldn't have re-added it (not blaming you, just saying). Can you explain why the VK (social network) link is okay (no hurry, whenever you can)? -- Cyphase (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't want to be mean, I suppose. Sorry, should have been more clear. Anyway, that other link had his name on it, didn't it? The Twitter one didn't, at least not as far I could see. If it were up to me none of those links would be provided on Wikipedia, but I'm in the minority. Thanks for asking, and take care, Drmies (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]