User talk:Sycthos/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Hello, Sycthos/Archive1, 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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy ^(talk) 02:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opium vandalism warning

Be careful with those vandalism warnings. You ticked off a newbie, who was trying to make a good-faith edit (although I have no idea if it was appropriate to the article or not). No biggie, but we do want all the users we can get. ;) -- SCZenz 06:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The message was removed. Thank you for alerting me and I apologize for the inconvience. SYCTHOS ^talk 22:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TestTemplates

Hiya,

re {{mess2}} it is intended to be part of a series but a computer crash meant that the others were lost and have to be created. They were being created because I have come across quite a few edits where people were posting messages in pages — for example: one user posted the message "I can't find a book on this topic in my library" on a host of pages. Another I came across wrote "this is badly written" in articles. Another user posted 6 messages in 6 articles. They weren't vandalism, just someone making a mistake. The idea is to have a template with an automatic explanation of why messages should not be left in articles. I came across 5 messages in one day lately. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recategorizing the template. I completely agree with your actions. SYCTHOS ^talk 00:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You're doing great work too, BTW. I think we have a great range of template now, both specific and general. So it means we can co-ordinate messages rather than have them written once-off every time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

How so?

How am i vandalizing pages? When i first came here i saw tons of broken links and vague information or typos. So i try to fix them or expand on them if it is a topis i have knowlage on. That is not vandalism.

If anything i have added has offended you. thats on you, not me. Some articals i come across in here i dont like but i dont try to belittle them or accuse them over it.

As far as guide lines, i keep within them. I dont go out of my way to break anyones rules.Larquitte 17:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in Wikipedia. Sorry for not being specific, but I was referring to the article Chocolate Cheese Pie. Please note that the message I posted in your chat is a template and may not be very accurate. Just take a look at what Wikipedia is not and you'll be fine.

Also, note that "If anything i have added has offended you. thats on you, not me" is not the right attitude. Any offensive material you add to Wikipedia can and will earn you a warning. If I have offended you in any way, please accept my apologies. Thank you for your time. SYCTHOS ^talk 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:PostScript

i don't think PostScript (talk • contribs) really exists. --71.143.232.143 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No matter, please do not fill up talk pages with irrelevant information. Your contributions, if done correctly, can be put into good use and you will become a welcome member of the Wikipedia community. Thank you for understanding. SYCTHOS ^talk 02:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above page is an archive of User talk:Sycthos. Feel free to browse the contents above or to view another archive.

Archives: 1

no clue

Sycthos I am adding very important and useful and relevant information to the Westmount Collegiate Institute site. I do not understand as I post relative information you consider to be "vandalism" but is true. It says that I am welcome to put helpful information which it 100% is.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.29.96.99 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not a domain for advertising. Please take your play ads elsewhere. Thank you. SYCTHOS ^talk 03:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

On Wikipedia:Templates for deletion there is a vote to delete thee template called behave. It is designed to deal with kiddie vandalism and works excellently, but by the usual WP mob are trying to delete it. (I'm all in favour of deletions of unencyclopædic content but the scale of deletions on WP is out of control. I'm on the brink of quitting WP at this stage I am so fed up of it. WP has gone to the dogs IMHO.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't quit. You are an important portion of the Wikipedia community, effectively reducing the number of vandals and keeping the site clean. If you have a major obstacle in life, I understand why you want to quit, but you are a Wikipedia administrator whom everyone looks up to. (By the way, if you are in this kind of mood, you may want to change your WikiStress level.)

Also, my vote has been cast to keep {{behave}}. Thanks for alerting me. SYCTHOS ^talk 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Accusation

What on earth are you accusing me of vandalizing? Do not try to scare me into not posting. I haven't vandalized anything, and I will continue to post as I have been doing. You threatened to have me banned after I updated the Punk'd article by removing the information about the Rock as a Non-US/Non Canadian Star. The article had him from New Zealand. The Rock is not from New Zealand, he was born in California. His father is Canadian. His mother is not Hawaiian, but is Samoan (U.S. SAMOA). So take your threat and shove it. And by the way, I already reported you for falsely accusing me. --208.254.174.148 04:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Unwarranted_threats_of_blocking --208.254.174.148 04:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I read your talk page, and I see there are others who have no idea what you are talking about. I will certainly be advocating for your censure. You cannot be allowed to create a culture of intimidation here in Wikipedia for calling people vandals when they certainly are contributing constructively. You disagree with a contributor, you should discuss it first. I am not going to ask for your permission, nor defer any control or respect to you in Wikipedia. Please keep a regular tab on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Unwarranted_threats_of_blocking for further updates as I continue to post and respond to your content against myself and other innocent contributors. --208.254.174.148 04:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not violating any policies in Wikipedia. First of all, I am not an administrator. Only administrators have the ability to ban others. However, I do have the power to report and vandals for administrators to ban, and to post warning templates to attempt to stop vandals.

Second of all, I am not using any method of extortion. I saw the one warning template on your talk page, and the one I posted was one level higher. This is standard procedure and is not, in any means, a threat. In fact, the tone of voice you used on my talk page is even more of a threat than the template I used. That warning I posted on your talk page is used extremely commonly to deal with regular vandals.

Third of all, the vandal fighter application is used to track down recently modified pages and to produce a rating of how commonly it is vandalized. I picked a higher-rated page, checked for any factual changes, and reverted believing that it was vandalism. I apologize for this error and any offense or inconvience it has caused you.

Fourth of all, when you posted "I see there are others who have no idea what you are talking about", two of the messages of my talk pages are vandals trying to deny their vandalism with replies of what happened. The PostScript vandal repeatedly edited out the talk pages of other Wikipedia users, replacing them with irrelevant links. The "no clue" vandal constantly edited Westmount Collegiate Institute, adding multiple advertisements about a school play, which others have repeatedly reverted and warned. Both were true vandals.

The "How so?" user posted a cookbook article, and I informed Larquitte about Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Finally, the "Opium vandalism warning" is a mistake I committed. The user posted a name of an opium smoker I had identified otherwise. However, I handled all of these with templates and responded civilly, without harassing the user.

Lastly, the "You disagree with a contributor, you should discuss it first" message you posted is definitely incorrect. A vandal definitely would not take his or her time debating over an issue.

Again, I am sorry for the mishap. SYCTHOS ^talk 22:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to dispute the POV of an article, you should first discuss it on the talk page. Thank you. Are you and Will Beback the same person? Morton devonshire 03:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am in now way a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeteer. No, I have never heard of Will Beback at all.

Secondly, I did not think that was a POV violation, but a vandalism attempt. Vandalism attempts are, by standard Wikipedia policy, to be reverted immediately. However, our situation was that I mistakenly interpreted your edit as vandalism, and immediately reverted it. SYCTHOS ^talk 03:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, you were the author of Fry Mumia? Wait... I'll make a section on your talk page about that.... SYCTHOS ^talk 03:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank you

I never thanked you for welcoming me. That was rude. Sorry. Thanks.--◀Puck^talk▶ 04:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. You're welcome! Many people do not respond to these welcome messages, but you're an exception. Thanks for responding! SYCTHOS ^talk 02:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was because I welcomed someone and they didn't respond to me that I realized I had never said anything to you. I think the template is fine, but it does appear automated, at least that's what I thought when I first got here. The next time I welcomed some one I just added a couple of lines after the template remarking about something they had said on their user page. That one got a response. It seems a little personal touch is all it takes. Take care.--◀Puck^talk▶ 06:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Google God?

Sorry, this "Google Test" is NOT Lord & Master over Wikipedia nor should it.

Also, not sure what "template" this is, but the LAST thing you want is blue on blue or black on a dark shade of blue in terms of text and background. It's plain sloppy. Kmac1036 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the Google test is THE final factor in everything on Wikipedia. However, it does serve as a valid argument for AfD. I apologize if I have used it too much.

I'm too tired to correct the color scheme right now.... I'll consider it later, but thanks for the input. SYCTHOS ^talk 06:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can close AFDs!

Hi Scythos, I noticed you commented on a few AFDs with "already deleted, close this". Did you know you don't have to be an administrator to close AFDs? Especially already-deleted articles' AFDs can be closed with no contest. All you have to do is use the {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}} templates. (See Wikipedia:Deletion_process for details.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 08:38Z

Thanks! This really helps. SYCTHOS ^talk 21:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Baptist University

The reason I did a copy-paste vote on the various articles up for deletion was the fact that the nominator had done much the same - mass nominated a list of articles related to one university on the basis that the university was non-notable Cynical 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks! SYCTHOS ^talk 21:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dayboy

Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 13:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! SYCTHOS ^talk 17:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

You could just call it what it is (selective removal of comments) and leave it there for people to see and make their own judgements, without calling it vandalism. Guettarda 03:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a policy to match with selective removal of comments. I agree that the term vandalism is too harsh, but I can't seem to find anything else for the RfC yet. SYCTHOS ^talk 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything covered by an RFC has to be policy. It's a request for comment on a general pattern of behaviour. Even though you won't find policy to support that, it can be misleading to other editors. And, after all, we don't own our user pages. Altering comments isn't acceptable (see for example Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop#Removing_comments_on_Talk_page_in_violation_of_Guidelines

Guettarda 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section filed against WP:OWN and WP:3RR. Thanks! SYCTHOS ^talk 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments to me

In many places, you said, "Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)"

This is a complete lie. I never admitted using sockpuppets to "aid myself in AfD"; nor have I ever done this, even when I did use sockpuppets in my first days in Wikipedia!

If you look at the history, an admin checked IPs and confirmed that I never did this to sway a vote and I still never have done this.

You need to get your facts straight and show that you care for the folks at Wikipedia. This atrocious lie/accusation at the top of many pages is inexcusable and I'd like an apology; and I think the good people that you may have influenced with this lie should receive an apology as well. --Jason Gastrich 04:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your attempts to evangelize Wikipedia, but your argument will not stand without a statement disputing against it. First of all, if your statements remain true, then why is Wiggins2 blocked 24 hours for "external campaigning group spamming talk pages to pack Wikipedia debates"? User:Big Daddy is another one of your main sockpuppets. If you look at its contribution history, there is no doubt that you have violated WP:SOCK for using sockpuppets to create an "illusion for a broader support" for your position.

I do not appreciate your constant and veiled use of euphemisms and words/phrases with a slightly more negative connotation when used against others. This is a complete lie is not correct, as you have, in fact, used sockpuppetry for AfDs. Also, I, in fact, do care for the folks on Wikipedia. If I didn't care, I would not even mind editing any mistakes I catch in articles, reverting and simple vandalism I see, or voicing my opinion in Wikipedia debates. I openly apologize to you if I have offended you, but I would also request you to conform to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Thanks. SYCTHOS ^talk 05:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]