User talk:Syrthiss/Archive6: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
Thank you, [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]]. The author of this page created this page as part of an attack another page [[Alpha Phi Alpha]] via sockpuppets by linking to the pages he created and reverts he did on other website as citations. Another admin told me to submit it for AfD, but after placing it, i thought "dispute" would probably be more appropriate (the page would be valid if factual. I'm new to wiki editing, but I am trying to make sure to observe the ettiquette & comity rules! which is not easy when you have a persistant vandal who is determined to game the system. I even entered my account this morning to be welcomed to an anonymous blatant vandal warning. oh well. [[User:Robotam|Robotam]] 12:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
Thank you, [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]]. The author of this page created this page as part of an attack another page [[Alpha Phi Alpha]] via sockpuppets by linking to the pages he created and reverts he did on other website as citations. Another admin told me to submit it for AfD, but after placing it, i thought "dispute" would probably be more appropriate (the page would be valid if factual. I'm new to wiki editing, but I am trying to make sure to observe the ettiquette & comity rules! which is not easy when you have a persistant vandal who is determined to game the system. I even entered my account this morning to be welcomed to an anonymous blatant vandal warning. oh well. [[User:Robotam|Robotam]] 12:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
sorry, just saw your "post notice" up top. :) [[User:Robotam|Robotam]] 12:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:33, 15 September 2006
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.
It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.Archived pages: July 2005 - Jan 2006 | Jan 2006 - Feb 2006 | 20 Feb 2006 - 3 April 2006 | 3 April 2006 - 7 June 2006 | 7 June 2006 - 6 September 2006
CfD Talk Page Deletion
Hello, I saw that you deleted out the categories that I cleared. Could you please also zap Category talk:French presidential election candidate, 2007? It is currently a redirect created as a result of moving the talk page to the new category. Thanks --After Midnight 0001 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Got it. --Kbdank71 13:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- hehe thanks! Syrthiss 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I saw that Syrthiss removed the entry from the working file, I forgot to notice that Kris actually did the deleting. I'll check the Deletion log next time.... --After Midnight 0001 14:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- No worries. Syrthiss 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm the one who missed the talk page, sorry about that. --Kbdank71 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- No worries. Syrthiss 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I saw that Syrthiss removed the entry from the working file, I forgot to notice that Kris actually did the deleting. I'll check the Deletion log next time.... --After Midnight 0001 14:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- hehe thanks! Syrthiss 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Possible need for adjudication in roadnames
Hi. This note is a heads up that you might be called to help adjudicate/decide how to apply PI to part 1 of the Highways naming poll. As you know all of us judging admins selected P1, but it turns out that there is a question of applicability. You should read the threads yourself, but my summarization is as follows. Some states are not currently in conformance with P1, and do not want to change if they don't have to. They are saying that P1 only applies in cases where there was controversy, and if the state's road project/key users are with staying put, and if they set up redirects for all the articles so that P1 style searches find the articles, that ought to be enough. (in some cases maybe they'll switch later if they want to)
There seems to be agreement that if a state is in contention about conventions, P1 will be imposed, but disagreement about what "in contention" is. In particular, NJ participants are split about whether they are or are not in contention. I gave them all (arbitrarily, unfairly, etc, etc, because I'm being a bit of a hardass to keep things moving) until about an hour from now to come to consensus voluntarily or else... the or else is that we would canvass, decide, and impose our choice. Right now my read is that it may be less contentious overall to allow modified P1, that is, allow states that don't want to switch, the option not to do so (as long as redirects exist) either "right away" or "ever"... So please get ready to participate, I think we do it as another poll perhaps. I'll seek those of you on IRC out later, but probably we need to do the actual voting on wiki.
As a reminder here's the poll for part 1: Wikipedia:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part1 and sure enough it says nothing about what states it applies to (only that two states get an exemption) ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thats fine with me, and my read on the situation (I've been following along at least until my nose starts to bleed from banging my head on the desk) is the same as yours. Syrthiss 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your input is requested here. I had hoped the participants might arrive at a consensus but they have not yet. They still could do so before we finish! Please comment or reshape the process if it's not to your liking, as well as refine my statement of the questions, and then comment as you see fit. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
DYK
--Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You're here (as always) and you're sleepy :)
Hi,
Feel like closing those three annoying bottom DRV's that I can't, because I've commented? I wouldn't bother you, but I notice from Quadell's talk that you're in fine spirits, so this could truly be an adventure! ;) Wiki-love, Xoloz 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- No wai. I don't want to do anything that requires involved thought at this point. I'd just as likely undelete a page and ban all the commenting editors or something equally idiotic (for example, it took me 8 tries to spell equally correct and I just screwed it up again writing this note). I can take a look tomorrow though. ZzZZzZZZzzzzZ --Syrthiss 16:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're not giving yourself enough credit: You, sleepy, are still worth at least a million normal minds! :) Nighty night, Xoloz 16:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
thank you for adding the link to the photo without actually making the photo appear. Most appreciated Dean randall 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thank you for pointing me to the Wiki definiton of a troll. I am shocked by the accusations he is making. I do not fit the criteria for a troll. He really needs to respond to my comments so we can resolve the situation. Dean randall 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, he really does not. Really, whether intentional or not...you are trolling him, and I suspect it is intentional (the "you're making us angry so we're going to keep at this until we get an answer!"). Other users here are not your mates at school, and joking with an administrator in ways that might be appropriate for your mates is very likely to not come across well. You've been cautioned by JPS and me before about leaving Redvers alone. Syrthiss 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as i can see, redvers is the troll but i am happy to follow the advice given. Also as Redvers is not happpy to confirm the copyright from Colloquis would you like to? jimothytrotter will you give you there phone number if you wish.
- I am in the united states, so I'm disinclined to call the company. If Jimmy wants, he can forward the email to me using Special:Emailuser/Syrthiss (he'll have to cut and paste) and I can begin follow up with them over email. Guinnog I see has talked with you as well, and might be willing to assist with this as well (and is at least on your side of the ocean ;) ). Syrthiss 12:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm happy to help in any way I can. --Guinnog 13:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
redvers
Hey, I am getting fed up with redvers' attitude towards me and my friend Darren_randall, we have accepted that some of our past edits were not ideal and have apologised for this, we have written several comments about this which we have asked him to look at, he did not instead he deleted our comments without even bothering which to me is a personal attack, by doing this he is basicaly saying "you are a complete swine, i don't wanna waste my time on you as I Hate you so much" (the reson for this hartrid is unknown)
My last to commetns on his talk page were serious comments which i would ahve actualy liked him to answer, but yet again he is discriminating against me, if i could reach him i would ask him what this discrimintaion is about but i am unable to talk to him as he deletes all ym comments, I am not only offended but disappointed in him for being so RUDE, because to em that is all it is. There is no need for him to be so horrible to us, and i am now left in a really annoying rpoblem, I only wanted him to help me out of a problem and i put it across in a nice manner.
Do you understand him? maybe you could ask him what his problem is for us.
I make a habit of never hating anybody and hope that he can do the same.
thanks mate JIMOTHY
- I'm sure he doesn't hate you. You however stepped over the line by vandalizing his userpage, and the only reason you aren't blocked by me is he got to it first. Step back from the situation and realize you're walking in the rain uphill on mud. Syrthiss 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not - that block was way back in July. And I'm not going to do it: DNFT. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- DARN THESE D#MN ENGLISH MONTH NAMES. JULY LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE SEPTEMBER THAT I DIDNT NOTICE! Syrthiss 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
hello, why is redvers being so uncooperative? Is he annoyed my bann was reduced to 12 hours. We really need an administrators help because a company has emailed User:jimothytrotter granting him permission to write about the company. Dean randall 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd need more information if I was to help you with that. You can also put a {{helpme}} template on your talkpage to get the attention of other editors. Syrthiss 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the rvv!
- Heheh no problem. :) Syrthiss 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page
Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that my only edit to that page was a recategorization per CFD, I don't see that I have a view on this matter. Syrthiss 02:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Help needed
Hi, I want to upload some photos.
- 1. Photos taken by me - Can I put the copyright to myself? Thus by restricting others from changing/altering the image and not using for profitable purposes.
- 2. Photos taken by some other person - He/she agreed to release the image for publishing in wikipedia. But still wants to hold the copyright of the image for restricting others from using the images for profitable purposes.
Can you please guide me to put the appropriate tag for these pictures ?
-- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 07:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Image copyright tags is where you want to look, but I can tell you that neither of those two situations is compatible with Wikipedia. While Wikipedia itself is nonprofit, because of the licensing (GFDL, Gnu Free Documentation License) someone could take the content...perhaps publish it on a CD or DVD...and sell it as long as they don't attempt to portray themselves as the original copyright holder. The GFDL licensing still allows you to hold the copyright and be credited with the work, but someone else can modify the image and can use it for profit. Does that help? We do still allow fair use images, which are basically unfree images used to explain the subject where no free image is available (ie your {{promotional}} photos from a while ago). Syrthiss 11:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your response.
-- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 06:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
I've decided not to spam a thank you template on to everyone's talk pages, but this is just to let you know that I really appreciated your first support. It's a bit of a leap of faith to be the first supporter, especially in a self-nom, and I expect sets the trend for all the other !voters. Many thanks, -- Steel 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem, glad I could be that first vote. I was very pleased to see the turnout you got, as my own self-nom only had 21 votes. Congrats again. :) Syrthiss 13:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was surprised that so many people were willing to support a self-nom when I've only been here 5 months. I've seen users fail under "lack of experience" when they've been here 6+ months. I must be super-awesome ;) -- Steel 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I've just been dealing with AIV requests. It's really nice not being helpless anymore.
- I was surprised that so many people were willing to support a self-nom when I've only been here 5 months. I've seen users fail under "lack of experience" when they've been here 6+ months. I must be super-awesome ;) -- Steel 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, good to see you enjoying your PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER!itty bitty living space. I remember being paralyzed for 2 or 3 days after I got admin, afraid to do something and screw it up. :) Syrthiss 13:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're completely nuts. -- Steel 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, question. Do you normally check both boxes when blocking people or just use the default option (just the bottom one). -- Steel 13:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was the same. Terrified I'd screw up. I'm a bit more relaxed now. I personally don't really check the first box, but just keep the second one checked, unless I see a collateral damage warning on the talk page. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think I might just march around using my best judgement until someone moans at me. -- Steel 14:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I *try* to remember to check both boxes on anons. I still often forget and leave the first box unchecked. I don't know how it works when blocking registered users, so I leave it unchecked...but now that you bring this up I better go look it up. Syrthiss 14:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- The options do nothing on registered users. Syrthiss 14:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Block account creation should still block account creation even when a username is blocked. -- Steel 14:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain this edit please?
[1] has an edit summary of afd, but you didn't place an afd template on the page. Did you forget it? Syrthiss 11:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Syrthiss. The author of this page created this page as part of an attack another page Alpha Phi Alpha via sockpuppets by linking to the pages he created and reverts he did on other website as citations. Another admin told me to submit it for AfD, but after placing it, i thought "dispute" would probably be more appropriate (the page would be valid if factual. I'm new to wiki editing, but I am trying to make sure to observe the ettiquette & comity rules! which is not easy when you have a persistant vandal who is determined to game the system. I even entered my account this morning to be welcomed to an anonymous blatant vandal warning. oh well. Robotam 12:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
sorry, just saw your "post notice" up top. :) Robotam 12:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)