User talk:Sysrpl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello Sysrpl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Securitas depot robbery[edit]

Hi, that's a better name for the article. It's best, though, to use the "move" tab to change article names, this way the history goes with the article. Rich Farmbrough. 23:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: editing to Bill O'Reilly controversies[edit]

In response to your question about edits to the article, a user named Stanley011 has done some significant editing on the article recently. To see the before and after comparisons of the sum of his edits, look here. These were all done without discussion on the talk page. It has been suggested by another editor on the talk that the earlier version might be returned to as a baseline for future edits. -MrFizyx 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I appologize for not discussing my edits in advance--I'm fairly new (though not a newbie) and so was not aware this violated etiquette. In any event from here, I think it would be more productive to discuss the content of my editing--I have replaced factual innacuracies, such as the quote that reads "...and the 82nd airborn that did it" (According to the Media Matters clip linked to in the article, O'Reilly did not say "that did it" but rather ended the sentence after "airborn."--see [[1]]) and have tried to replace POV-ish statements. However, I realize that I may have inserted my own POV instead and am therefore asking to work with you on improving, which includes shortening, the article. I look forward to your response. Stanley011 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Bill's October 28 Malmedy statements, I reviewed the video and Bill most definitely said "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two and the 82nd airborne who did it" (correction who instead of that). There was no break in his Bill's breath, all of his words were clearly audible, and when he finishes saying them his mouth was closed. Regardless of wether Bill might wanted to say more or not, those are the exact words that came out of his mouth. Please, leave his quote complete and let's not continue parse words. Sysrpl 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not at all clear what O'Reilly said because Clark cut him off at those alleged last three words--even the Media Matters transcript that accompanies the clip does not have O'Reilly saying "who did it" but rather goes: "O'REILLY [video clip]: General, you need to look at the Malmédy Massacre in World War II in the 82nd Airborne." Please address that and the other issues I raised in my original message. Stanley011 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
What video clip are you listening to? If it's the one on the site you linked to, listen closesly again, because that is exactly what Bill said. There is no alleging, in the video again you can clearly hear Bill say all those words. If you are saying you can't hear those words, in all seriousness I am sorry for you and maybe you should get your hearing tested. A simple google search will give you the complete quote [2]. As far as other different issues go (your other edits and lack of talk page usage), if needs be I will address them in due time. Sysrpl 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to strike the sentences in the Olbermann section--although I feel they are true, they are not necessary for the article. I think more concision is needed for this article. This is a good start. Stanley011 20:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Keith Olberman[edit]

The additions about his "worst person in the world" segment are factually correct. They need to be included in the article because Olbermann constantly insults Bill O' Reilly, Pres. Bush, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and many other conservatives. Look at his nightly commentaries and the foolish partisan guests he has on--Bairdso66 21:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Keith Olberman's "Worst Person in the World" (WPW) television segment, I removed the following wording from the article:
"In this segment, Olbermann designates an individual, mostly public personalities (usually a conservative), who, some time in the week prior to that night's segment of Countdown, engaged in conduct or speech with which Olbermann disagrees, as the "worst person the world."
Reason, these statements are not factual. It is true Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter often make the list because they are public personalities that grab attention by making controversial statements, but the majority of the people highlighted in WPW though are random newmakers (e.g. the woman who left her kid at Chuck E Cheese). All of this is handled with a humorous zeal as evidenced by the Keith's dramatic reading of the WPW title and the upside-down yellow smiley faces garbed in jailhouse uniforms that permeate the segment. This suggests that WPW are canidates are selected for their humorous effect and not because Keith disagrees with them. Either way, Keith's motivations for whom is picked is speculative, not factual, and as a consequence it doesn't belong in the article. Sysrpl 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not attack me[edit]

I would greatly appreciate if you would avoid comments such as "we can safely ignore your comments." I refer you to wikipedia's policy on civility if you would like to learn more about contributing constructively to our encyclopedia. Stanley011 00:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you writing me? Do you want a response/apology or something? You posted a new section at the bottom of the controversies page using thesame subject of a pre-existing section we had both contributed to. I was polite in pointing out where you comments should go, and asked you to please to check your hyperboles as they reduce the credibility of what you have to say. It was all good until you replied that it was a joke and made it personal by telling me to lighten up. Are you upset that agreed I with your statement about making joke comments, or that people should ignore your jokes? By the way, you quoted me wrong. Either way I offer you my apology. I am sorry I said we should ignore your jokes. Now let's please drop the subject and all move on. Sysrpl 03:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion. He didn't reuse a pre-existing heading, I did. His heading was there before I added a similar headding higher up the page. Look back through the history and you'll see that his edit came before most of the other conversation. As for his "joke," calling Media Matters an "infallible", "God-sent" organization, imagine if I were to apply the same description to Fox New Network. Would you find it offensive or maybe just a little funny? I don't think that he misquoted you either. I would certainly read your comment as an implication that all of his comments were jokes and should be ignored. That implication is the thing for which you should offer your sincere apologies. -MrFizyx 04:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice that Stanley011's edit came before. I saw them on the bottom of the page (i.e. top down posting where the posts at the bottom are newer) after I thought the issue was resolved. This led me to believe it was an attempt to rehash the discussion anew elsewhere. The exaggerations in the post made it hard to differentiate what was to be taken serious, and begged the question was the sounded remotely description an overstatement as well? I believe I was polite until the joking dismissal and lighten up quip. Anyhow, if I had initially noticed the timing of the post originally, I would not have made those comments. Sysrpl 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't know that all of your previous comments have been polite. "I am sorry for you and maybe you should get your hearing tested." Seemed a bit personal and unnecessary, but I agree that "Lighten up and take a joke," isn't any better. You should both tone it down a bit from here on out. You both seem like pretty good editors who would rather be constructively building a better encyclopedia without getting into flame wars. -MrFizyx 05:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sysrpl, could you post some sort of note to explain the templates at the top of your talk page? I think {{POV}} and {{current}} are intended for article pages, and their meaning here is not clear. Was this a respose to my last edit here? -MrFizyx 03:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann[edit]

Believe what you will, but if you don't pick up on Olbermann's clear bias toward conservatives, you aren't paying much attention to to his nightly "news" cast.--Bairdso66 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

a point of information[edit]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate that you are forthcoming in your statements at Talk:Scientology#codebot.org. I read google's cache of your article. There is a statement at the end of the second paragraph of that article which states; they believe they are able to remove these bad thoughts from your body. As a point of information, the Church of Scientology does not remove thoughts. A person might, of their own volition, examine a thought. A person might then, culture the examined thought, dismiss the thought, view the thought in a new perspective or even realize something afresh by reviewing a past thought. The Church does have procedures to aid a person in their own examination of their own thoughts. The Church does not propose exactly where thoughts exists. The Church does not deal with body at all. As a point of information, the statment is untrue. Terryeo 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Though I no longer have the ability to maintain the document to which you are refering, I shall attempt to address the issue you bring up. I believe I chose those words desrcibing the auditing process in brevity using laymans terms. I understand the Scientology process is complex and apologize if you found the simplifying words I chose offensive. Sysrpl 06:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientology intro edit[edit]

Hi Sysrlp, could you rewrite your line in the Scientology article: Reasoning of Scientology alledged cult status can be linked to its recent history in comparision to other religions. ? It contains a few spelling and grammatical errors, but I can't understand what it is trying to say in order to fix it. Also it seems like unsourced opinion. Thanks, Ashmoo 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert[edit]

The Stephen and Melinda Gates foundation, which you inserted into the Stephen Colbert article, is fictitious. Makaristos 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I heard him talk about it at an event. Sysrpl 10:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a joke. Makaristos 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Kind of. It's a parody of the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation".

Administrators[edit]

Kindly inform me of their user names and I will contact them directly about this matter Stanley011.

As the one who feels threatened, do I at all have any place in the chat?Stanley011.

In one of your edit summaries you wrote, "warning Stanley01, watch your injections of off-topic, superfluous, and sometimes incorrect observations¨". The use of the word "warning" made me feel threatened. What accompanies a "warning," definitionally, is an "action." How am I supposed to know what action you will take against me if I do not abide by your "warning" to "watch" my "injections" of what you consider to be "off-topic, superfluous, and sometimes incorrect observations." Stanley011.

Protocol[edit]

Don't forget edit summaries. They make it easier for other people to figure out what you were doing. DS 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not write religiously insensitive comments in edit summaries[edit]

Writing ´´Further proof of Stanley011's one sided jihad´´ in an edit summary for Redux´s talk page is offensive and I would greatly appreciate if you cease that sort of behavior immediately. Stanley011.

It has occurred to me that the use of the word ´´jihad´´ has fallen into non-religious parlance and I am therefore retracting my statement above. However, I still urge you to keep your comments as civil as possible and I also urge you to use edit summaries for what they are actually intended for: summarizing the change that you just made. Stanley011.

Hi Stanley, please sign talk pages with four tildes "~~~~" or at least some method that includes a time-stamp. It makes it easier for one to determine which comments are of current relevance and generally makes discussions easier to follow. Thanks, -MrFizyx 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OOps sorry Sysrpl, I meant to put this on Stanley's page. I'll move it now. -MrFizyx 20:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Read my last edit. I admitted I made a mistake. Now let´s move on. Stanley011 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Catfish (saltwater)[edit]

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Catfish (saltwater). It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. King of 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology article[edit]

I would like to get into communication with you regarding the Scientology article. Not because of what you should or should not do there, but to aquint you, briefly, with what you could read if you read through the archived discussions. As you can see, it is an active page with a lot of editors who do a lot of discussion. The article might seem to be in active editing, the article editors might seem to be simply reverting some of your edits. I would hope to talk to you about how the situation comes about. "cult" has been discussed for quite some while. As you see, there are quite a few Scientology articles and at one time a concensus of editors hammered through about where and when and whether to or not, present Scientology as a cult and particularly in the Scientology and Church of Scientology articles. Because yeah, there are personal websites which say almost nothing else. But an examination of what is published by reliable sources led to presenting it without a status, either "cult" or "bonafide religion" or any other status assigned to it in its introductory paragraphs. I'm just letting you about the past discussions and a high point or two of why it isn't presented as having a "cult status". Basically, the assignement of a status is done by some authority or alternatively, by everyone. There's no religious authority to assing a status, so the default "Does everyone thing Scientology is a cult?" comes into play. It was decided based on various governments recognizing Scientology as a religion and by some other things too, that we couldn't introduce "Scientology, which has the status of a cult ...". But, just because I let you know a little about past discussions does not mean you shouldn't discuss it on the Scientology discussion page, or anywhere you want to. I'm just letting you know about past discussions, ok? Happy editing. Terryeo 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Spine2ks2.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Spine2ks2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. RexNL 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Bill O'Reilly-Opinions on others politics[edit]

The section was moved to the talk page. The removal was not due to vandalism. You can see why through this discussion. The content is still on the talk page to discuss what to do about it. MrMurph101 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Eddie van halen.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Eddie van halen.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Colbert Bump[edit]

A tag has been placed on Colbert Bump, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image of the Resolute desk[edit]

Hello Sysrpl. I note that there is no source data for the Resolute desk image you have uploaded. Can you please add the source, and the creator? Thank you. CApitol3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The image was taken from the whitehouse government site whihc is funded by public tax dollars and therefore it is a public domain image. Sysrpl (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

File:My kitty.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:My kitty.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGatalk 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). 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/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). 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) 01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:Eddie-awards.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Eddie-awards.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ebert-and-wife.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ebert-and-wife.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


File source problem with File:Owen hippo.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Owen hippo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion regarding your image uploads here [3]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright warning[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

File:Ebert-and-wife.jpg, which you uploaded on 4 March 2010, has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appeared to be a blatant copyright infringement of [4]. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material.

A number of images that you have uploaded since 2006 have been deleted for copyright concerns. You may not upload images that are not legally yours to license. You may not upload images with false claims of their origin, as you did with File:Ebert-and-wife.jpg. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Nowake.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nowake.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

July 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Casey Anthony has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Igoldste (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)