User talk:Syjytg

Per this discussion, you have been unblocked. Please be mindful of our policies and take a look at the history of your talk page for specific problems you've had in the past, and be especially careful to avoid those issues. Welcome back, and if you have any questions, please make sure to let me know. Frank | talk 19:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should you have any issues regarding future editing, or need assistance or advice, you can contact Frank (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). We both will be watchlisting this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for watching my talk page, but it's probably best if you focus on editing content. Since you cannot see deleted revisions, this comment was a little off base, and this warning, while I understand was with a good intention, wasn't necessary. The user is fully aware of the inappropriateness of his edits as evidenced by the discussion on my talk page, and unfortunately his response to you was less than friendly as well. Frank | talk 15:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that he assumes ownership for his articles. If you see [1], his comments were not helpful at all. If you wonder why I went to that thread, the AFD link was near the top of his talk page, so I just went to click it. Syjytg (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point. Frank | talk 15:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Regarding this revert, where you used the edit summary Do not remove warnings, please read WP:BLANKING. When a user blanks their talk page after a warning, they are presumed to have read and acknowledged the warning(s) that were removed. There's no need to potentially incite the situation by restoring warnings. Note there are exceptions, such as block messages. Frank | talk 15:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chad & Stephanie's marriage

This did not take place during the Race, so it is not relevant to the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the reference source? Syjytg (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the two references were to the same article, which was just put on two pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hi

Re your message: I don't, which is why I let others figure it out. If you look at my editing history for the Survivor articles, I very rarely get involved in the voting tables as usually somebody else takes care of it. I focus on the episode summaries and other parts. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I'm glad that you were able to find some references (I cleaned them up a little) since if you didn't, there would probably be an extended edit war over it like there has been in past seasons. Thanks for finding them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Syjytg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

220.255.2.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Callme 92998940". The reason given for Callme 92998940's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

Blocking administrator: Courcelles (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Unblocked. Nakon 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City of Manchester Stadium

Hello, just a note to say I reverted your capacity change at City of Manchester Stadium. While it is certainly reasonable to expect that a press kit published by the Premier League would get it right, in this case it is demonstrably incorrect. Manchester City have had a crowd of 47,679 this season, greater than the figure given by that ref. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Syjytg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

ip address (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

autoblock message

Blocking administrator: blocking admin (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: There is currently no autoblock affecting this account. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attendances

Despite User:Brudder Andrusha's insinuations to the contrary, it's not a matter of whether anyone would have reason to fabricate attendances. It is, however, a matter of verifiability. All we're asking for is a source for your attendances, whether in the article or merely an acknowledgement of a print source in the edit summaries. Even a note on the talk page would suffice at this point. Can you help with that? – Pee Jay 12:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the sources that I have been getting the attendances all these while a few hours ago. What is amusing is that User:Brudder Andrusha's source has the attendances for all the matches which matches the attendances figures from my source, however, he only use his own source very selectively, for example matches involving Glentoran in the second qualifying round and Rubin Kazan in the third round. Also, for a few matches, which he quoted from the BBC, the figures are different from my source, however, the BBC has been notorious for giving inaccurate attendance, especially in the Champions League and Europa League, as can be seen from previous seasons where their figures are markedly different from the official attendance which are published during the proper rounds in the official website. The BBC are only guaranteed to be right when their own teams like Fulham, Stoke etc. play at their home ground. However, for previous seasons, my source has been giving accurate attendances, as the attendances listed in my source in previous seasons have been matching with those given in the official website. Hence, in my opinion, my source is more reliable than the BBC, especially when attendances for the Champions League and Europa League are concerned. Syjytg (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the attendances. However this exercise has given plenty of room for discussion as now the size of the page is 195K. (Way above the recommended wiki limit for page size.) Also is there any reason why you are double referencing? Or is one reference not enough? Or is your reference better than the ones already provided? You may find it amusing that I only selected specific matches - that is quite true. I'm only interested in Ukrainian teams and hence just interested in their information and voluntarily did them. This gives room for others to update the page. Initially, I was looking for only source which could/should/would suffice the source of the attendance dilemma. But since you did such a good job with all the attendances there is no complaint from my side. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the attendances has been used from the same source, we could add a note somewhere that says attendances for all the matches not published in the official website are taken from soccerway.com. This would save a lot of the space. However, as I am not very good at inserting notes, I will leave it to you or User:PeeJay2K3 to add it in. Syjytg (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that until UEFA publishes the attendance (and it does in pdf form) and since this has been discussed in Talk:WikiProject_Football#UEFA.com that if a note of source of attendance with a reference to either soccerway or scoresway was displayed that this would suffice on resolving this issue. This is an issue that the task force should resolve. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask either of you whether Scoresway is actually a reliable source? I mean, I've heard of Soccerway, but Scoresway is a new one to me, so I'm just dubious about its veracity. – Pee Jay 22:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching through different attendance figures that were done for friendly international games and came across Scoresway which is based in Holland. It seems they are very similar to soccerway. Infact on their contact page they have a link for Soccerway. See Scoresway syndication. I think Soccerway is a subset of Scoresway because the latter also has scores for other sporting events while Soccerway expands football information including live odds. Both websites are run by Global Sports Media. In any case, from what they publish it seems they are getting the information for the UEFA matches somehow from UEFA. Which now leads us to duplication of what is in the report part of the footballbox and the reference given in the attendance. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying Group I

I noticed your recent edits to the page removed my references, particularly the Czech Republic game against Spain, where the official attendance was 17,873 as previously referenced. I don't know why you felt the need to delete this in order to replace it with a different value from an unofficial source, but I have removed your contribution in accordance with wikipedia policy. Have a nice day! Cloudz679 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was most unfortunate to see you again added incorrect information to the article. However, I have managed this situation and your source now contains the accurate attendance data. This has been updated in the article accordingly. Cloudz679 (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Trafford capacity

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but Old Trafford's capacity is 75,957. Please stop changing the 2011-12 Premier League article to incorrect info. – Pee Jay 08:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Features/2011/Mar/Old-Trafford-attendances.aspx?pageNo=2 from the official website written on March 2011 states 75,797. The source on the Old Trafford Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Trafford) was on March 2010 and clicking it doesn't show the content. I think one has to pay it to view it. Even so, I assume that those that can view cited the correct info from that source. However, the source which I showed you was later and from manutd.com, so that source that apparently shows 75,957 is outdated. http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/4f/53/0,,12306~152399,00.pdf is the 2010/11 Premier League handbook, which states 75,797, which was correct at that time. I know people have been claiming that the premier league handbook has been notorious especially for attendance, however, they got it right for the 2010/11 capacity which was 75,797. http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/4f/53/0,,12306~152399,00.pdf which is the 2011/12 Premier League handbook states 75,811. It is possible to add 14 seats? Yes, it is. It may not be correct (it may still be 75,797), however, we should take it until we find a better source from the official website itself. http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Features/2011/Mar/Old-Trafford-attendances.aspx?pageNo=2 shows that the 75,957 info is outdated. Syjytg (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

75,797 is a typo. The correct capacity is 75,957. – Pee Jay 01:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium capacities

Please do not use UEFA as gospel on this. There are several stadiums where the capacity has to be reduced for UEFA competition games due to the height of the perimeter advertising boards. See UEFA_Champions_League#Sponsorship. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing references

Hello. Please would you be more careful in future when you change a reference in an article.

If the reference replaced is "named", i.e. of the format <ref name=PLHandbook>..., that usually means the same reference is used elsewhere in the article. Just ovewriting it with your new reference means that you end up breaking any subsequent use of that named ref, as you did at St Andrew's (stadium). Check out your version: there's a big red Cite error at ref #2 in the references list. When you delete a named ref, please find where else that ref is used in the article, and make sure it's properly defined (see WP:NAMEDREFS).

Also, in this edit to Birmingham City F.C., you altered the sentence As of 2010, the stadium capacity is 30,009.<ref name="BCFCrecords"/> to read As of 2010, the stadium capacity is 30,016., the figure you got from a 2011 UEFA source. Before your edit, the sentence was sourced and verifiably accurate, albeit not bang up-to-date; after it, it was unsourced and probably inaccurate.

With regard to the Birmingham City and St Andrew's edits, I've reverted yours, and also changed the stadium article to use the same club website figure and ref as the club article: thanks for bringing the discrepancy to light. As JMorrison says above, UEFA isn't gospel, and there are several different figures available for the "current" capacity of the stadium. Club site says 30,009, Football League says 29,409, which is very strange, but perhaps takes UEFA reductions into account where the UEFA figure doesn't. Etc, etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance for ECL and Europa League

It looks like your suspicions that soccerway.com gets the attendance from UEFA is correct.

It is exactly the same as http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/StatDoc/competitions/UCL/01/67/63/60/1676360_DOWNLOAD.pdf and http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/competitions/UEFACup/01/67/58/86/1675886_DOWNLOAD.pdf. Syjytg (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your follow up on this as I was sure that UEFA would finally publish the attendances of the qualifying games for both competitions somewhere. This leads us back to our massive all reference pages (Europa League & EC League). In reality the one reference from UEFA should be good enough for the whole page. However, that's a massive edit that noone probably now will want to undertake after the fact. Again this should be brought up in our wonderful talk area. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

conversion

Do you have a good reason for converting metres to feet rather than metres to yards as in most other PL pitch sizes?J3Mrs (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced information

Hello. Please stop removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced, as you did with the capacity of several South Africa World Cup stadiums. If the capacity is no longer correct, please include a reliable published source for your amended figure at the same time as making any changes. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roadblocks

The maximum number of Roadblocks thing is not a specific rule for that episode. It is a rule for the whole race that players cannot perform more than a specific number of Roadblocks. Also, it makes absolutely no sense to tag all of them with that footnote. We do not need to say who performed that particular Roadblock, which is what your edits effectively do.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

If you're going to edit pages - and especially RV referenced material like you did on the Old Trafford page - you need to explain yourself in the edit summary. Just RVing without explanation isn't helpful. Haldraper (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refuse to explain your edits in an edit summary? Haldraper (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both of you are going to get blocked for edit warring unless you stop soon. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove my posts at ANI. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

In addition to the silly edit war, you've removed another user's post at WP:ANI three times ([2],[3], [4]). That's unacceptable behaviour, so I've blocked your account. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Syjytg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Haldraper was editing against consensus. Other users like PeeJay2k3 has already explained to him and he did not listen. I was just helping PeeJay2k3 to revert the article back to the good state. Furthermore, Joshua Scheunemann PhD (talk) also removed a section from WP:ANI among other offences and he was only blocked for 31 hours. This shows that the administrators are not consistent in handling out the punishments and that the block of 2 weeks is grossly excessive. Syjytg (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, WP:NOTTHEM. You have admittedly taken part in a tag-team edit-war, which is detrimental to the project. You then hid evidence by trying to remove posts to an admin noticeboard. We don't do punishment...you have a block log longer than many people's watchlists: Wikipedia's blocking system works on a concept of escalating blocks. Indeed, 2 weeks is rather short, considering you know better than to edit war. Grossly excessive? Heck no - you seem to think you're entitled to edit war and remove posts (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Syjytg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block for 2 weeks is disproportionate to the offence and it is grossly excessive. Furthermore, I already gave evidence that I am unjustly treated.Syjytg (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At the very very most generous, I'd cut your block down to a week, but I won't, so I see no reason to decide this until then. I warn you that if you continue to ask for an unblock before a week has passed, you will probably lose talk page editing privileges due to not taking the hint. Golbez (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Syjytg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Firstly, if a person would kindly look at the edit history at the Old Trafford page, one would see that a few others have been reverting him with good and valid reasons. So, he was making edits that was against consensus, and I reverting back to the good state (i.e. the version that has consensus) did not break any policy as I was following consensus, which is exactly what one is supposed to do! So, since I am not guilty of the first charge, I cannot be guilty of the second charge of removing evidence against me, because there is no evidence against me since I am not guilty for the first charge!Syjytg (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unambiguous edit warring. Content disagreements are not vandalism, and hence are quite subject to our policies against edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There is nothing wrong with reverting edits that are clearly against consensus. Syjytg (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. The 3RR does not have a consensus exception. Edit warring is in itself more disruptive than violating consensus. If you think someone is editing against consensus then, after reverting once fails, you bring it up with higher authorities. No exceptions. I'm quite confident another unblock request will be very detrimental. --Golbez (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using anymore templates for a while, but I hope an admin can understand the point I am bringing across. I was trying to put the article in its good state, so I hope an admin could understand that there are mitigating factors to this case. Syjytg (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by doing so, you made the entire situation worse. A vigilante may stop crime, but his methods are still unsound and he is still punished. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this is not helping your case at all. --Golbez (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was solicited via email by Syjytg about being "unfairly treated". I am neither the blocking admin nor am I officially reviewing the three (!) unblock requests; nevertheless, I concur with both the block and the denials of the unblock requests. This is a clear case of edit warring. That's a "bright line" offense, and one which you should be well aware of. I suggest you sit on the sidelines for two weeks quietly. Frank | talk 00:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aviva Stadium capacity

I have your reverted your change to the capacity of the Aviva Stadium. The UEFA press kit you referenced is demonstrably wrong, as evidenced by the two other references you deleted in order to put it there. Even your own list on your user page lists Ireland's largest capacity as being 50,411 during the Euro qualifiers - how would this be possible in a stadium with a 50,000 capacity? Kindly use the article talk page before making any further changes. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 02:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. – Pee Jay 10:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for three months

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for vandalism, for a period of {{{1}}}.
If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]