User talk:Syrthiss/Archive7

Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.

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 | 6 September 2006 - 3 February 2007

commons:User:Syrthiss

I assert that I am the same person as User:Syrthiss on commons. Syrthiss 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

empire photography deleted

this isnt ment for advertising and spent an hour writing the page. how does pepsi and coke get away with this. can you direct me to someone that can help me write this in a proper fashion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empirephoto (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Block

Here, it looks like you made the block anon only- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:NYkid0709 I don't think you meant to do that. JoshuaZ 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

? I thought that anon only did nothing when blocking a user account, only when you block IPs. *goes to read up on WPBLOCK*. Syrthiss 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, per WP:BLOCK

Block anonymous users only prevents anonymous users from the target IP address from editing, but allows registered users to edit. Prevent account creation prevents new accounts from being registered from the target IP address. These options have no effect on username blocks.

Unless it doesn't actually work that way in practice? Syrthiss 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you appear to be correct. I didn't know the blocking tool was that smart. I should pay more attention. JoshuaZ 03:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

*whew* I mean, I block a lot of vandal accounts... Its kind of my thing. I would have banged my head on my desk for a few hours if I had been doing it wrong ever since those changes went in. ;) Syrthiss 12:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you check to see if this user has personally attacked me?

User:Danielpi has been blocked for a week in the past by the arbitrators for personally attacking me. Last night I think he personally attacked me again by stating "Of course, I wouldn't want to infringe upon wiki's tradition of love, charity, and respect; so, I feel I should clarify my position insofar as I absolutely DO NOT regard Dionyseus to be 1) a blight on wikipedia, 2) a mental degenerate, 3) incapable of lucid reasoning, or 4) incapable of language use. He is certainly none of those things." Today he repeated the attack. Dionyseus 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that there is no other way to interpret that. It appears per his userpage that Danielpi has quit wikipedia sometime between you leaving this message and now. If I may ask, why did you ask me in particular to look into this? I'm just curious. :) Syrthiss 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I chose you at random from a list of administrators. Dionyseus 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. ;) Syrthiss 19:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

SWG?

So you played Star Wars Galaxies? Which server were you on? :) Siyavash 18:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistent long-term IP vandal 204.38.132.248

You've blocked this IP before: 204.38.132.248

Based on samples, this IP makes info smudges (changes names and numbers, adds typos), at infrequent intervals. Most recent smudge is Annie Oakley (diff). Milo 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just when you thought you were out ...

they pull you right back in. A CfD closure that you did a year ago has become a central issue in this deletion review. You may wish to comment at the deletion review. Please bear in mind that "No good deed goes unpunished." : ) -- Jreferee 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

4-time vandal: 207.241.242.150

You warned this person of blocking after his/her 3rd act of vandalism. Here's a 4th. Michael Patrick 14:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Another vandal: 86.137.41.229

This person has made four inappropriate edits to two articles. Michael Patrick 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Alternate history games

Hi dude! Could you please recategorize all video games (I think it's pretty much all articles in this category) under Category:Alternate history games to Category:Alternate history video games? Thanks a lot --MrStalker 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. --MrStalker 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Signature-Fixing

Syrthiss,

People keep asking me to 'fix my signature' but I don't know why its broken. If you have any helpful suggestions, a step-by-step method to 'fix' it, please advise.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Phlox

You blocked User:Phlox on January 3, 2007 indefinitely. This user is asking for unblock asking if the block have been long enough and this user wants to learn to make constructive edits. You can reply a message on User:Phlox's talk page. Amos Han ^Talk 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you review my block?? i have no idea? all i know is that i want to be able to make contributions and be noted for them, instead of just doing it when im not logged in. Thats right, i made CONTRIBUTIONS! sure did, yep, thats right, no sensless vandalism, oh be nice and unblock me, cummon, i'll give you a cookie Phlox

No vandalism at all. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Block

I would suggest you block 206.211.69.253 indefinitely. It is a school of 1400 teenagers, of which I am one, and I think you will get more vandalism after the next block expires. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 13:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Restore

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alex Prior. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

DRV has been closed. The Alex Prior I whacked was someone from Brisbane, not the one mentioned in the sources. Cheers. Syrthiss 18:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:English students' unions

I have nominated Category:English students' unions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hiyas SWATJester. Stopped by the discussion, but I'm really undecided on the matter so I'll have to decline to comment. :/ Syrthiss 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Erik Eastaugh

I note you voted for delete last time... I have renominated this article, and it is currently being voted on, I would invite your views. Cheers.JJJ999 05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Category:Beer and breweries in Europe

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Beer and breweries in Europe, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Beer and breweries in Europe is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Beer and breweries in Europe, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Maya Angelou

I do not recall editing that page. Possibly it was another user of this IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.159.73 (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup on May 17th

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot activity

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that Syrcatbot (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fish out of water films

Category:Fish out of water films, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Members of the United States armed forces

Category:Members of the United States armed forces, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Beer category decision

As you took part in the last Great Beer Cat Discussion, I thought you might be interested in this one: A discussion has been opened on changes that have been made to the existing Beer category system. The changes reverse the decision made by the Project in April 2006. The changes were based on agreement by only two people, and by a discussion that took place outside the Beer Project. There may be some merit in the changes, and to prevent future conflict it is important that there is some discussion of the matter. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Brewery_cats. SilkTork *^YES! 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You're invited...

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Sports in American Samoa

I have nominated Category:Sports in American Samoa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Sport in American Samoa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Dudesleeper / Talk 01:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Sports in Guam

I have nominated Category:Sports in Guam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Sport in Guam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Dudesleeper / Talk 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional Asian Americans

Category:Fictional Asian Americans, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

LOOK AT WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO THE JIMMY HOFFA PAGE

Its a shame. The page is missing valuable information. Since I was involved in the case, I can't make any edits. I'm hoping someone will take a look at the information and put it back the way it was.--Spectre7277 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!

Wikipedia Loves Art! (February 27) The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be holding a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. This is a photography event involving Wikipedians, along with Flickr users and others, to generate content for Wikipedia. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. There also is a signup list here, along with detailed information. The museum is conveniently located across from the Gallery Place-Chinatown metro station. DC 6th Meetup (March 7) The DC 6th meetup will take place on March 7th at Pizzeria Uno's at Union Station, one level up from the main floor. The meetup will start at 5pm, and people usually stick around there for several hours. You can RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 6.

This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting a bit annoyed

You have once again told me to not vandalise, However, i did not vandalise i simply put up a page about my beliefs about what i have seen. It is the same as putting up a page about a mermaid (which there is a page). it is a modern myth in the bidston area and have written about it in some phenominon magazines. all i want is too keep this page up so the people of Bidston can learn more about the creature that is drawing in tourism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephimoss (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Provide substantive reliable and verifiable sources and we'll be happy to have your article about your cryptozoologic find. Otherwise it will be deleted, by me or some other editor. Syrthiss (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain who I have personally attacked or threatened legally or otherwise? I am only trying to keep information open. The Bollywood and Plagiarism page has been around for several years and had been been worked upon collaboratively by several users. This page has now been deleted on the request of a couple of users who don't seem to want others to have this information for some unknown reason.

Pepe962 (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are stating that an entire industry is guilty of plagarism on your userpage, which looks to me like you are trying to Right Great Wrongs. All of your edits seem obsessed with this issue. So, I tagged your page to get another administrator to look at it. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have re-worded the page. I hope it is acceptable. Pepe962 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thats fine. You can be critical of wikipedia all you want. :) Syrthiss (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for unprotection

User talk:Ckilla021994 and User talk:Shalom Yechiel. I don't see why either is fully protected. As far as I'm aware, user talk pages are not supposed to be full protected. Thanks, Enigma^msg 20:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The first is an indefblocked vandal who was using his talk page as a toilet after his block, so there's no reason why the page would need to be unprotected. The second isn't even my protection... Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The first does not require full protection, as the user was reblocked with talk page editing disabled, as I tried to explain at WP:RfPP. I know the second isn't yours, but I was hoping you could unprotect. Enigma^msg 15:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

True. I agree on the first count, so unprotected. Doesn't stop them from coming back as an IP and playing with it, but we'll take that as it comes. For the second, I'm going to decline. One talkpage protected for a retired user doesn't raise my eyebrows, regardless of guidelines for protection. Cheers! Syrthiss (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Brecht

Sorry if my edit summary seemed dismissive of your improvement to the article, and thanks for working on it. I assume you don't mean that there was some reason to retain the reference to the Italian news source just because it happened (yes, randomly) to be the first report of his death on the Web? -- Rbellin|Talk 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page revert

Thanks. You can see why I have disdain for scene kids. At least, the very obnoxious ones. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: phase diagram of boron

Dear Syrthiss. Upon discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (section 21 "request for a correction"), you have corrected the phase diagram of Boron, for which, without any offense taken, I would say this:

1. I have filed the 3rd round of GFZLab sockpuppet investigation. First 2 resulted in immediate bans, 3rd has no response yet. Meanwhile, given vast amount of negative emtions I'm getting from this case, I am avoiding confrontations as much as possible, especially with user:Aoganov. For this reason, I prefer to talk here, but I would join public discussion if you advise so.
2. Regarding the diagram, would you please look at the original article , the inset of Fig.3, and find the description in the caption "Inset, schematic phase diagram of boron, based on present results and previous experimental14,27,29 and theoretical10 studies." Then, would you please look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Borphase.jpg and check the description I gave there.

This part is somewhat scientific, but I hope you get the point: Oganov provided the drawing, which I adapted for the boron paper (a-Ga phase is beyond its current scope). Phase diagram is always a compilation of huge amount of data. References by all means provide those data, as easy to check by reading, and that is why I added them. If you agree, would you be so kind as to reconsider your edits or discuss this further. Important note is that I declare I have no prejudices against this case, but as a keen and professional scientist I oppose false statements (see User:NIMSoffice). Thank you.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at the three references above in depth (or at least as in depth as I can, being ~10 years removed from my physics graduate work). #2 above doesn't directly provide data regarding phase transition of Boron, but I'll allow that information given in the body text has lexical cues that could be used by someone familiar with materials science to infer phase information. Your diagram certainly doesn't appear in any of the above works, and the transition points are quite a bit different (in my unfamiliar view) than Oganov's diagram. For example, the vertex at the top end of the alpha state in yours is at ~8GPa and ~1000C while Oganov's is ~15GPa and 1500C (owing for differences in scales). There are other differences that to my mind show that it may be based on (as references) Oganov but is some synthesis of multiple sources...and also different enough that I wouldn't call Oganov's paper the sole source.

I'd say that because your original graphic is not a direct copy of the one in Oganov's paper, and its not like phase diagrams are the sole provence of his, the references should be restored as to the original list in your citation. The thing I don't understand is he claims that it is a low-res version identically of the one he published (in the discussion on ANI), but I only see one available version and it is the colored, dissimilar one to the one that exists here on commons. If that is the case, why does your graphic say it appeared is his paper? Is the version on commons a cartoon or actually using data from the cited references for the transition points? Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding ref. [2], you are absolutely right that the pressure-temperature values are just typed in its text. To the best of my professional knowledge, there is no other complete published drawing of the boron phase diagram (i.e. including all a,b,g phases), except for [1]. Absolutely, this diagram (and all other phase diagrams of elemental solids) is a valuable peace of knowledge, protected by copyright law of the journal Nature. What I've done, I have attempted to combine all the sources, giving credits to everybody. The attempt is not perfect, and I am open to discussion. All I've got so far is repeated messages from Aoganov that he has "discovered" that phase diagram, and must be solely credited for that; that I "stole" it from him and must be punished for that. His later argument is that his contribution there is 90%. I don't know, I'm ready to admit if I see an evidence (his word by no means qualifies as such), he is indeed the first to draw the complete diagram. What I see in his paper is the statement that the diagram is based on several references (without "90%"); and I cite them all. That diagram a "cartoon" and no detailed data are mentioned in the text of [1]. Other refs (such as [3]) provide extra data for those who need them. Anyway, my editing gamma-boron content immediately induces his opposition, which is treated as edit war. It is no good for boron, which should go to GA and FA, as all element pages do. Thus, I would really appreciate is someone else takes over and fixes the damage. Ah, just in case you missed that, he refers to your edits as "An independent editor looked into this matter and found that I am right" and "Another editor, after carefully checking the subject, confirmed that I was right and made proper referencing", and here on Admin board too. Thanks and best regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, and reading what Uncle G has to say on ANI (about the worry of this turning into another Boganov affair), I believe my position is this: being that the diagram that exists on the article is a synthesis of other works (no slight to you, it was a good faith attempt to add information to the article), and that the article doesn't totally hinge on that diagram (the article is on Boron, not on the phase complexity of Boron), and in my opinion having a stable well sourced article is better than a hugely reverted article with a nuclear sock cloud around it (not saying this is the case currently, but that could be an outcome)... I believe the diagram should be removed from the article. We most definitely do not want an external academic dispute to spill over into the encyclopedia, and if that means curtailing the article to a less controversial state then I am all for it. This is my opinion only, so if consensus leans to another solution I will support whatever other resolution we find. As to Oganov's touting of my support, I am nobody's authoritative source. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: any scientific result is based to some extent on previous research. This does not mean that we have to give a thread of citations to Newton, Archimedes, etc. when we talk about relativity theory. Our paper gives proper credit to all data we've used to create the phase diagram, but the diagram was created by us and we should be credited for it. NIMSOffice just doesn't understand how science works. In all his edits, he consistently works against us. He even stated our phase diagram relies on papers that appeared afterwards - this makes no sense. Either delete the phase diagram or say where it comes from. Aoganov (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The diagram should be removed in its current form because it is a synthesis (again, in good faith) created by NIMSOffice solely for the article. If it was exactly taken from one of your papers (which as of yet I have no proof of... it certainly is not exactly the one from the cited paper in Nature), it would be able to be included. Syrthiss (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Hello.jpg

File:Hello.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Chocoraspcake.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Chocoraspcake.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

75.154.186.241‎

Thanks! Much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All About Men

How can I add a page about All About Men without overwriting the existing page? Also, yes I am linked to the website but I'm just here to write a short description of it, not to be any form of advertising. I didn't realise I was not permitted to include a link, i will remove it, although there must have to be a link somewhere since it is a website i'm writing a description about. Should I name the article All-About-Men.co.uk? As is done in ASOS.com's wiki page? All-About-Men-Store 13:56, 14 May 2009 (GMT)

You could do something as simple as All About Men (store) or All About Men (retailer), but if I can offer advice: you are permitted to put a link in, but if the only source that you have for your article on your store is your own link... your article will likely end up deleted and you'll be blocked for spamming. We need reliable 3rd party sources (newspaper listings, articles from trade magazines saying what an impressive newcomer to the online retailing scene you are), and evidence of notability (for example, being an online retailer isn't notable but being the 2nd largest online retailer behind Amazon.uk would be). In general, we heavily advise against writing an article on anything you are associated with. If you are notable enough, someone else will eventually create an article. I hope that helps. Syrthiss (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Block

Hello, I go to a very urban public high school. I realise my IP was banned yesterday. I love Wikipedia with a passion and would never vandalise. There are lots of ne'er do-wells in my school who do this kind of thing. Thus, I'd reccommend you would not ban public IPs so rudely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Putin's Dog (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

or what? Syrthiss (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that rude behaviour really necessary? Vladimir Putin's Dog (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2009

If you took the time to ask about how our blocking system works, you would have found out that I didn't block your 'very urban public high school'. I blocked a certain user, and when he next tried to vandalize the blocking system blocked your school's ip because it was used by him (as noted in the block notice). If I had blocked your school's IP, you likely wouldn't be able to be posting here...but autoblocks only last 24 hours. Syrthiss (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"If you took the time" what in the world are you trying to get at here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Putin's Dog (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Stop

You keep reverting an edit I made to the story of the year page. I removed a section which is a duplicate of another section but under a different name and you keep putting it back up. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.100.241 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sam Millar

Hello, Syrthiss. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, afaict I don't. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Elk

Hello Syrthiss,

I understand why my Zombie Elk article was deleted; blatant hoax. Would it be possible for me to get that content back? I did not save my doc. If not, it's fine I understand that it may be gone forever.

I was on a camping trip, and a fantastical campfire story/legend of the Zombie Elk arose in conversation.

If I wanted to post a Wiki about this mythological creature, what criteria would it have to meet? What criteria does a Wiki about a mythical creature have to meet? Is this established? Do eye witnesses count as sources?Kjellj (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Flandrensis

Greetings,

You just delete my article when I placed a 'Hangon'. Could you please put my article back so I can further discuss why I disagree with the speedy deletion?

Respectfully,

Lyam D.--Lyam Desmet (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, a hangon is not binding in any way. I read your rationale. Self referential sources are not sufficient for an article. I find it exceedingly dubious that you just happen to arrive here, edit an article just after a previous proponent of the micronation in question edits it, and recreate this article. Syrthiss (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the reasons why the page a few weeks ago was deleted. But I have nothing to do with this micronation and I'm not part of it. I'm from the Netherlands and write an essay about Dutch micronations. Flandrensis is the only Dutch speaking territorial micronation. Therefore I find that they may have a page on wikipedia amongst all the others like molossia, Westarctica, ... I have nothing the do with the last person that create a page about Flandrensis.

Grtz Lyam D.--Lyam Desmet (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Find independent, reliable sources that assert the notability of that micronation and we'll see what we can do. Syrthiss (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A micronation is a nation that don't really exist! But I will do my best and search other sources that can convinced you. If you delete the article about of Flandrensis because independent, reliable sources you can delete all micronations here on wikipedia?--Lyam Desmet (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ignition Consulting Group

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ignition Consulting Group. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignition Consulting Group. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock of Special:Contributions/82.20.31.163

Please block Special:Contributions/86.27.81.200 as well. It's reinstating the same edits. Enigma^msg 22:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like PhilKnight got it already. Syrthiss (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rilliotrix

Just a query regarding your deletion of this page. While I support the deletion under PROD (WP:MADEUP) I didn't find it fell under WP:NONSENSE; it was neither meaningless or incomprehensible. I'm not going to question the deletion (lord knows it needed to go) but I find the initial tagging and deletion somewhat problematic in that I don't feel the article met the WP:NONSENSE criteria. Could you expand on how you feel this article fits within WP:NONSENSE? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What would your threshold of nonsense be? A definition, however well argued, without sources isn't really different than someone repeating 'p00p' 50 times on a page. It was either nonsense, a test page, or vandalism...and calling it nonsense or a test is the most AGF conclusion I can make. She/he may have intended to make it as their userpage, where it probably could have existed, but as you agree it wasn't fit for mainspace (tho perhaps on Wiktionary it would have, for all I know).

We shouldn't ever feel bound to process for the sake of process. If the author complained, or wanted me to restore it to their userspace so they could source it out, I'd be amenable. Syrthiss (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nonsense is either a collection of gibberish or something that isn't gibberish, but isn't understandable, according to the policy anyway. I think this was (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm wandering off down the garden path with this one) an IAR deletion to AGF and avoid slamming the user with a tag for vandalism or something. Ironholds (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean it certainly was prettier than p00p repeated 50 times on a page. :) I did give her a test1, but thats about the level I'd give to someone adding trivial unsourced info to an article. Syrthiss (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine, I just wanted to query whether you felt it met the criteria set out in WP:NONSENSE or you were trying to avoid hurt feelings and scaring a most-likely good faith user away? Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov

Please see and comment here. --

Taimak Page Inquiry

Hello – I will be editing the content for the Taimak page and would like to ensure that the page edits are in accordance with the standards set forth by WikiPedia. I have no interest in fabricating any information; my only responsibilities are to document the information that is available to me. Therefore, please confirm that in order to meet the requirements and remove this page from the deletion list, references need to be provided in the career timeline section of the page. Once I receive confirmation, I will provide the sources. Thanks! TheTaimakEditor (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically the page will be 'removed from the deletion' list most likely (without any action from me). Several other editors in that discussion think it should be kept, and I agreed that if it could be properly sourced then I have no problem keeping it either...which was my position all along. In all things, references need to be provided...not just when an article is threatened with possible deletion. Thanks very much! Syrthiss (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

PayPal links

FYI: you may be interrested in this: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#paypal.com/mrb/pal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ah, cool. I had forgotten about the blacklist. Syrthiss (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

update: it appears that Versageek (talk · contribs) updated the blacklist just before I created that report, but after you had reverted the most recent spamming. A quick test on my userspace sandbox indicates that the blacklist is working now to prevent those referral links ... so, I don't think the semi-protection is required any longer on the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go remove it. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mimi Lesseos

The second time I had created the page, I had taken care to rephrase the text. Are you sure that it was an "unambiguous copyright infringement" as you have said ?. As an admin, would it be possible for you to temporarily bring back the page and compare the two articles for copyright infringement ?. I'm confident that the majority of the text was rephrased and thus, original. --Roaring Siren (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See DRV here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Syrthiss (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

BOROS page

Hello, I will not create the "Janos Boros" page again under "Janos BOROS" as you seem to have it before. Being new to Wikipedia, was curious to know if that was the reason, or policy issue. Do let me know when you find time. Thanks, Warm regards Hangakiran (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a style issue. In English, we usually will refer to people as 'Firstname Lastname' (or 'Propername Surname'). The capitalization of the last name just looks odd in this context. I figured it was a good faith error. Cheers! Syrthiss (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bill Dally

Thanks for the prompt move of the Bill Dally article. Gareth Jones (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a prob! Syrthiss (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote

Concerning this, please see this. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay -- Please check new article

It's here: User:JWilliamCupp/ivanhoesandbox

Bill Cupp (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your review.

Duncan millichip

Hello!!!

I got little late in tagging this article with CSD. Its got recreated while you deleted it. Kindly, delete it again.

Thanks

Hitro 17:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

hehe no problem. Syrthiss (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User pages

When you see adverts on userpages for spamming accounts like User:CSPC you should report to UAA to make sure they don't spam again. Cheers, Triplestop x3 02:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, or I can just block them myself. Syrthiss (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick

Because of an editing war that has raged this weekend, please state further your reasons for disputing the evidence offered. Thank you. Otherwise, you will be reported. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thats not how it works. You need to support why your source is reliable, especially since this involves WP:BLP. It looks self published. Either provide a source that is well regarded (not the pdf of some organizations spring update, lawl), or cease attempting to introduce the material. Syrthiss (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're disputing the Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge's regular newsletter? (Here's the latest: http://www.cedarrun.org/newsletter/Winter2009.pdf) Can you assert with authority that no such newsletters are cited as sources anywhere on Wikipedia?

I'm asserting that when one thinks of reliable news organizations, Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge is not a name that easily comes to mind. Syrthiss (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But you don't dispute the organization, correct? Or that it does publish a regular newsletter, correct? Or that it ran a photograph of the individual in question, correct? Identifying her, her parents and...her then husband, correct?

And, again, you assert with authority that such newsletters are never cited as Wikipedia sources?

Credibility is getting crucial here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you asserting with authority that the editorial staff at the Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge rigorously checks their facts and don't happen to see someone standing next to someone else in a photograph and assume that the someone is the other someone's husband and publish it? If this material is really incredibly important, some reliable news outlet somewhere will have covered it. I make no such assertions about any other article not using similarly bad sources. If you were using that source as say, proof that WCRWR publishes a newsletter then it might work out. However, since the material you are trying to support is potentially objectionable you absolutely have the burden of supplying the highest quality sources per WP:BLP. Without that sourcing, any editor can remove the information with no restriction on reversion. Syrthiss (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And are you really asserting with authority that the source is bad enough or shoddy enough to support removal? That a simple, published photo caption accurately identifying an individual is at the same time erroneous and/or unreliable in identifying her pictured parents and her then husband? You are asserting that here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Syrthiss (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion has a finality, based solely on source...quality? (Not accuracy, eh?)

If so, is there something akin to a Wiki-court of higher appeal? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

I appreciate your speaking to Gavin.Collins about his unwarranted call for a block of AlbertHerring. Unfortunately, I do not think it will change Gavin’s views at all. Gavin is very firm in his opinions and interpretations of policies, and does not change them no matter how many people show him he is wrong. Gavin is still firmly convinced his actions were right and the correct interpretation of policy. [1]

This is nothing new as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender and the associated links clearly show. Edward321 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Unofficial sequels

I have nominated Category:Unofficial sequels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. magnius (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your message to me

Thank you for pointing that out - I've gone and rectified it and will keep an eye out for missing such obvious things in the future. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dandy Desmond deleted

I just realized, that you deleted the article stub for Dandy Desmond. There is still a discussion going on what to do with this article. --91.43.126.78 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That should probably be closed. I don't have the widget set up to do afd closes tho, so I'll have to just comment. Syrthiss (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see some misunderstanding probably, I thought, the article will be deleted or kept, according to the decision made by discussion group. So, I was wondering why the article has been removed although there is still some dispute about the topic going on - which might end up with a keeping-decision...--91.43.126.78 (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Looks like a misunderstanding on your part. Even though an article is having a deletion discussion, articles that fit the criteria at WP:CSD can be deleted without further discussion. Seeing the lack of significant google hits, I determined that either the article was a non-notable band or musician (CSD A7) in the best case or a deliberate hoax (CSD G3) in the worst and deleted it. If you wish to recreate it, please provide reliable sources that can assert the notability of the subject or it will likely be deleted again. Cheers! Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, I get the Idea. Ok, let's see if I can find something. Is a PhD Thesis or a contribution to a scientific conference a significant source?--91.43.126.78 (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If the thesis has passed I'd think that would be ok, as would peer reviewed scientific papers. Syrthiss (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Allopass us

Hiya Syrthiss, I just want to run this by you. You left a COI warning at this new user's talk page. I softblocked the account with the new shortublock warning, and left an additional message, as I often do when someone with a promotional username shows signs that they're at least reading some of the rules: "Hi, I know you're getting overwhelmed with messages here :) I had to block this particular username because we don't allow usernames that represent organizations; your account name should just represent you. But please do create another account name and continue your work, it only takes a few minutes. Thanks." Question: when you add a COI or similar warning to a new user, does that mean you've considered a username block and rejected it? If so, then I'll be happy to talk with you first if the username has shown up in the G11 queue or at UAA before I take any action or leave a message. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats a good read on it. I know the username was outside policy, but they seemed to be writing an article solely within their userspace and the article looked pretty neutral. I think your solution was the best one though: they can create a new account, and continue working on it without an obvious stain on COI. I haven't fully integrated the new username policy changes into my mindset. Thanks for the note! Syrthiss (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

I didn't mean to remake that page, you deleted it while I was tagging it for AfD. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yepyep, not a problem. Done it myself in the past. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick (revisited)

Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married

Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.

The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.

You rejected previous evidence of a published photograph of Quick with her then husband as insufficient proof. Is the above good enough now to note in Quick’s Wikipedia entry that she was previously married? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm skeptical that anything with 'gossip' in the URL is portraying anything close to the truth. However, the [2] entry is intriguing. If she's married there to a computer programmer, and clearly the man she is married to now is the producer guy I don't think its a horrible stretch that he's not a computer programmer. So, essentially we have two sources for the article...and neither of them mentions her current marriage to the producer. You have my apologies, IP single purpose account. You have my blessing to reintroduce the previous marriage information, though you will likely still have to convince others. You might open a section on the talk page and make the step by step explanation (without the gossip column as a reliable source, tho you can use that as a basis for your argument that the current marriage is to the producer). Technically this is still original research according to Wikipedia's standards...since no one reliable source as of yet says that she is now married to the producer. Syrthiss (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No need for apologies. (Let's take the Gates-Crowley approach!) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quickie

It wasn't just 1 or 2 tiny fundamental things that were missed (like the notice); the handling of this is/was (potentially) horrible all-around. I trust that my underlying message, both here and there, is received? ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I completely agree. All joking aside, I was serious that BMW should have warned the editor before escalating, even if vulgar terminology was used. I suspect that this particular editor wasn't here for editing, but for fighting, but I cannot know for sure. If any concerned admin is reading this (after visiting the user's page, or ANI) and feels that they should be given a chance they're free to unblock. Syrthiss (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick (re-revisited)

I believe I took the right Wikipedia steps to source and verify a minor edit, to contact editors previously involved in the dispute, and address this through a talk page. Yet for this trouble the response is: I've semi'd the page again. Please stop the edit warring User:William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk)

it should be noted that the above comment was added by 162.X, not by WMC

I think you jumped the gun on what I said. I said that you had convinced me (ergo, I would not oppose any attempts by you to reintroduce the information to the article) but that you 'likely had to convince others' and suggested that you open a discussion on the talk page outlining step by step the logic that showed the source to be at fault. Thats one of the key principles of wikipedia - finding consensus. You know from previous attempts to introduce the material that people were skeptical, so if you really think that the material is important to the article you really need to do homework to prove it to them.

Essentially, I think you have one good aspect of the puzzle: the article used as the source for her marriage information states that her husband (in 2006, when the article was) is a computer programmer. If you find another quality source that says that her husband now is the producer of her show then the obvious inference is that this is another marriage. As I said, though, this is STILL original research. We only include information that is explicitly found in outside sources. It is possible that the other editors of Rebecca Quick would let it through, but its also possible that they will not. I hope that is helpful to you. Syrthiss (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

It's amazing from this experience that anything new at Wikipedia gets created and anything old gets changed. A single "editor" and a peeved administrator can tie one up in knots, no matter how much good rhetoric or logic.

Might make a good newspaper article someday.  : )

162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

RE: Redirect

Just part of the initial setup for Eoin G. Harty. Handicapper (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Done

Sorted. Knepflerle (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu Manchu

Hello, Syrthiss. You have new messages at Tckma's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tckma (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Broadway Theatre (Mount Pleasant, Michigan)

I undeleted this article because A7 doesn't apply to buildings, places, etc. John Reaves 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ah, my bad. Syrthiss (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored the talk page as well, though it only has a standard template. Syrthiss (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

NMDC Protocol

Hi,

Could you please tell me how can we improve the article about NMDC protocol, so it doesn't get deleted because of "notability" ??

The url of the page was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMDC_Protocol

We really need a page for this protocol, so instead of just deleting it, could you please help a little bit, so we can write an article about NMDC protocol that meets the Wikipedia criteriums?

Thanks in advance.

Burek021 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we typically have articles on things...not a listing of routines (which is what the content appears to be). If your protocol is itself notable, you could write the article ON it (Blablah was created in 1998 by SoandSo and XYZ at DARPA. It allows a user to do soandso useful thing, and it used by game developers everywhere (citing a NY Times reference)). However, I have to ask - why do you 'really need a page'? Is it just because you need it documented somewhere? Do you need the publicity? Syrthiss (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

re:Otto Schindler

You are. Chris (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mass_Movement_(Magazine)

Hello and good morning. I removed your speedy nomination on this page and proposed it for deletion per notability guidelines instead. I removed the advertising language. I did this in the spirit of Wikipedia:WIHSD.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Loss

Would you consider closing this AFD, since sources have been provided establishing minimum notability? Thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, as nominator I will not consider performing administrator-like actions on it. I try to never close discussions that I have participated in. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Considering that the two disputant masters involved in most of the controversy at Tien Shan Pai are Willy Lin and Huang Chien-Liang, do we want to do anything about Huanglow's username? I wouldn't see (for example) Obamalow as acceptable for a US politics SPA. I'm not going to report it, since I feel a bit emotionally involved. -- Pakaran

Also, you might have a look at this [3]. -- Pakaran 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I could see it being a personal attack but its gray-area enough that I wouldn't feel confident acting on it alone. Oddly, I had an acquaintance who was unconnected to anything martial arts who used the same username in a game we once played. It may just be made up to sound suitable Chinese, with no malice behind it. The editor hasn't posted since the warnings so maybe he's realized the jig is up and left. Syrthiss (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please update your status with WP:VG

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

• Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Villarruel Architects, Inc

Anything I can do to have the page kept up? The firm is incorporated and has been working on projects for over a decade. (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)