User talk:Syrthiss/Archive4

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Beer categories.

For Good Works on Beer Cats
Presented by SilkTork

Hi. Further to our (now archived) discussion on renaming some beer cats - see here the result of the discussion on the wiki beer project:

Beer cat vote. It's a clear go ahead for name changing and merging. Let me know what you need me to do at this stage. Cheers! SilkTork 07:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks great! If you want to place an umbrella nomination linking the wp beer discussion above on CFD we can get the ball rolling (since you know the most about exactly what categories need to get changed), or I can put it up when I get to work and link it back to you to make sure I got it right. I'll put a note on your talk page so you know I replied. Thanks for keeping up with this. --Syrthiss 11:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the ball rolling - let's now see how far it goes. SilkTork 07:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good works. SilkTork 22:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Syrthiss 01:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O man! I am as thrilled as a kitten with my award. It's quite stunning how pathetically pleased a person can be to recieve a digital picture! Thanks. SilkTork 07:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gatti (talk · contribs)

Hi Syrthiss. Thanks for weighing in. There are the requisite three administrator yeas, but now the block needs to actually be placed and the enforcement logged on his bans page. Would you be willing to do that? Thanks much either way. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 198.111.237.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is vandalising again

Look at that: [[1]], etc. I think this vandal should be banned for once and for all (his/her more serious troubles:[2]) --Constanz - Talk 14:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did self-revert the change on 1980. The subtle vandalism you linked is troubling though. I'll keep an eye on them, if they do one more thing over the line I'll give them a long block...but not indef, since I don't have any idea if the ip is shared or not (I believe its a school ip). --Syrthiss 15:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more thanks

Revert to user page vandal yadda yadda blocked the vandal who did it yadda yadda five nil now yadda yadda ;o) ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 18:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha. Did you see my lag time for that revert? ;) --Syrthiss 18:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under a minute? You're slipping. I expect to see negative response times from you. Tut tut tut. :op ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 18:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will strive to be more prescient in reverting vandalism to your userpage. --Syrthiss 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS2pcGAMER's RfA

Hi Syrthiss. I just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. Your confidence in me means a lot. If you ever have any questions about an edit or an action I have made or if there is anything I can do to assist you, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in userspace

Hi! I noticed that in your draft article User:Syrthiss/remote sensing draft you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:Earth sciences and a couple of others. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it".) Cheers, Ziggurat 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! (thought I had did that already but guess not ;) ) --Syrthiss 01:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note on Meta:Babel

Regarding your note on meta:Meta:Babel#Dispute_resolution_for_kn.wikipedia.org.3F; to be able to help I need to know the full user name of that user and if possible the question. If this is still valid. Things goes slower on Meta then on EN wikipedia. --Walter 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidefcon

Ah...was that what it was? A speedy delete tag added to Wikidefcon? Now that makes sense. Thanks. --HappyCamper 14:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:168.8.249.175

Thank you for that. Some people just don't quite know when to quit! :) Thanks again - Gl e n ^T _C 20:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not a prob. :) --Syrthiss 20:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

I dont know, but it seems to have been unprotected anyway, I will take a better look tommorow - FrancisTyers 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI - User:The Psycho, User:SlashDot, etc.

Thanks for checking up on me! Kickstart70 has left a message on my talk page which I don't have time to dig into at the moment. Kickstart is alleging additional socks of The Psycho, though these are from a while back - they have not been used today. A checkuser request may be warranted. Johntex\^talk 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That is weird. I first blocked for one month, then I came back, checked the blog log, unblocked, and then blocked again. I must not have done it right. I agree with you there is no rush though, let's see if any other comments come out at WP:ANI then we can always reblock before the one month expires. Best, Johntex\^talk 02:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Franklin

You have shown an interest in the Rosalind Franklin article in the past, I have just finished a major rewrite of the article. I have also asked for a peer review. Would greatly appreciate your feedback. Alun 13:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new CfD days

Here I was, waiting for the clock to tick over, and then discovered you'd "Precluded" the day!

Yesterday, I setup a few days in advance, as it was easier than hand building the top and bottom boilerplate around several new entries after the fact. Is there a template for the boilerplate (couldn't find any), or were we just relying on the bot?

And I hope you like the new transcluded Closing. I was making one for TfD, and figured CfD was fairly similar. I just added links to directly edit both the main and /Working pages from there, so it will be extra handy.

--William Allen Simpson 00:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehehe. There may be a template somewhere, but I've never found it. I suspect that NekoDaemon was using a template that is somewhere in AllyUnion's or NekoDaemon's userspace. Every time I've put headers on the pages I've done it with cut and pastes from previous days.

Thanks for seting up several days, and putting the closing on there. Did you see my question on the wording on the talk page? --Syrthiss 02:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I slept. Thanks for the heads up, I've replied there.

I wish AllyUnion would just give us the source to the bot. From now on, bot source should be a requirement for bot priviledges.

--William Allen Simpson 09:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, AllyUnion (talk · contribs) just made a bunch of contributions. Please ask him for bot source, as you have more status.

--William Allen Simpson 09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just setup a few more days in advance. I used allpages to try to find a template in any of his name spaces, no joy, perhaps I just didn't recognize it.

On AllyUnion (talk · contribs), near the top, yesterday he added that he was starting to rework his bots. So, I guess we muddle on until that time comes. He doesn't have a valid email, and google doesn't come up with anything interesting. He was just an undergrad.

Sadly, Cryptic chose to disappear about the same time, and I never got a response from him, either.

--William Allen Simpson 09:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, with the server problems this morning I didn't notice a "new messages" box apparently. Yah, I was going to email him when I saw that message on his page. I *do* have a valid email address for AllyUnion but I'd rather not bug him there any more than I currently have. I thought we were making good headway on the overhead, but from my glance at the list an hour or so ago it looks formidable. I like TexasAndroid's suggestion about placing templates on the categories that have been decided so that people can have a current status and perhaps help in decreasing the overhead. Syrthiss 20:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious, wasn't worried about speed of reply, as I rarely login more than once per day. (I was logged in when the site went down, very frustrating.) And I'm distinguishing between the daily routine logs, rather than the cleanup process. I thought the other bots on the /Work page could help with the latter stuff.

Please ask him for the code, no matter the state. Unless he's willing to release his existing code, I'll see about figuring out pywikipedia framework myself.

--William Allen Simpson 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of Saint Lucia -> Category:Saint Lucian politicians

Can you explain this recat? Thanks Guettarda 02:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It was listed as a speedy rename at cfd, and nobody apparently objected so it was placed in the approved Speedy Renames to-do list (not by me). I was just working through the backlog. I assume since you are asking, you are objecting? We can open a new cfr discussion if you'd like. --Syrthiss 02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the Fuck?

Sorry, i don't get it. If it's a joke, i don't care a fuck. If it's serious, explain. 82.50.25.165 16:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right. 82.50.25.165 16:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do get around! :)

Hi,

Reading closely what LV said on my talk page, it sounded like he wanted to post it, so I left it to him, especially since he went with a non-traditional format. I updated the timestamp because it was off by a day, and it is reasonable to update to exact time of accepting under the new "CSCWEM no vote before post" rule. By all means, if you read LV's words differently, post away! :) I am eager to get him his well-deserved sysop bit. Xoloz 17:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit stalking me... patience, my friend. ;-) Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) Syrthiss 18:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

It's nice to get a bit of wikilove occassionally! p.s. I noticed your bot was registered as a user rather than a bot, I have moved it now, so if you like you can use the auto mode. Martin 16:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re: Checkuser request

Thanks for your timely and decisive response to the Checkuser request by Badlydrawnjeff. Cheers, Dick Clark 20:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob. I'm not a normal checkuser, just an admin who stumbled into the report. Syrthiss 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling this. I had also wondered if there was some coordination between these accounts, who were all editing disruptively. -Will Beback 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A third thank you! The user/s you blocked had been waging similarly disingenuous campaigns in other biographical entries. If the the offending edits by these users start to reappear there under new user names, should you be notified? Projection70 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please notify me if you notice similar edits. --Syrthiss 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogerman

I've posted to WP:ANI regarding conversations I had with this user, and my proposal for a solution to the problem. I'm also unblocking Rogerman, so he may participate in the discussion. As you're the blocking admin, I obviously need to let you know that, but I'd also like your thoughts on the proposal at ANI. If you feel he should not be unblocked, please let me know right away, and I will reblock personally. Thanks for your time, and for investigating the situation. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syrthiss, it looks like the discussion regarding Rogerman was blanked on ANI. While the user has supposedly "left the project," (at least according to his own statement on the user page), who knows how true that is? In light of his penchant for puppets, he can now pop up again under a new name, with little record of his earlier name's pattern. If blanking any mention of a user's previous abuses is the usual proceedure for ANI when user claims to have "left the project," then that's fine, but I just wanted to call this to your attention in case it was not done with proper authorization. Projection70 01:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to Essjay, and Rogerman has left the project for good. I think the Rogerman account is indef blocked again as well, and there's significant scrutiny of him that its in his own best interest to not return. Thanks for keeping an eye out, and I'd say continue to keep an eye out for sock-type edits. Thats the best we can do in any case, from my experience with the mighty horde of VaughanWatch socks on another article. ;) --Syrthiss 02:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League player Categories

The category Category:English Premiership players was voted to be kept. Do you think it is worth me adding players to Category:Current English Premiership players? or do you think that this category might also be up to indecision in the future? Mark272 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. Maintenance-wise, the "Current" category might be hard to keep up with (I don't know how often people move in and out of the Premier League) and there is some redundancy between the two. If there is a football wikiproject you might check there. Sorry I'm not much help here... I just woke up and I don't really follow football. :) --Syrthiss 21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Premier League changes players every year when three teams get relegated and three teams are promoted. So that's six teams worth of players every year that will need to be added to/removed from the category. Of course, players will also need to be added/removed when they retire/make their debut, etc. If a lot of people are working on it, it shouldn't be terribly hard to keep up with. But thanks for your help, I will check the place you recommended. Mark272 22:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD closure

Hi there. Thanks for closing the Hollyoaks CfD. I just wanted to check that you knew you hadn't deleted Category:Hollyoaks characters? Thanks. —Wh o uk (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I knew I hadn't done it... I had added it to the "to be emptied and deleted", and hadn't got to checking whether it was empty already. --Syrthiss 22:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Sorry, being impatient :-) —Wh o uk (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

;) --Syrthiss 11:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Thank you Syrthiss, I will take care of that from now onwards. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 02:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2

And you haven't seen its IRC reporting yet. Normally by the time it gets to the AIV page its already blocked from the IRC alert :) -- Tawker 03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VaughanWatch checkuser

I saw Mackensen denied your request for a CU. If you look at his block log, you will see he did block one Bell Canada IP (I think for a month) back when he found the second group of socks. The problem is VW obviously knows how to change his IP address frequently (witness the number of Bell Canada anons with the same POV) so unless someone drops a range block on all of Bell Canada we're going to have to ferret them out one at a time. Fortunately he's operating at a very simple, easy to detect sock level, so it's distracting but is not likely to cause long term damage. AFAIK, IP's and reg users that behave like VW socks can be blocked without a CU now that it has gotten to this point. We probably only need to CU the smart, sneaky socks (which he seems unable to create any longer; Leo may have been the last). Thatcher131 20:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been blocking VW socks if/when I come across them (usually pointed out by pm_shef) but I was hoping that it would have been easy and we could have blocked a single ip and be done with him. There have been two more socks since Leotardo at the least, you can see their names by bringing up my block log and doing a page search for vaughanwatch. --Syrthiss 11:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.231.173.246

Sorry, meant to get back to you earlier. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers TigerShark 09:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"RobSteadman" vote on my RfA

Would it be appropriate for you to remove the RobSteadman (talk · contribs) vote on my RfA? I feel it is a violation of WP:POINT and was not made in good faith. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we atleast strike it out or something? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#::<s>You can strike it out like this</s>

--Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot and cats

Your bot removed the Category:English professors and replaced it with Category:Literary critics of English in Cyril Norman Hinshelwood. The former was used in the sense of a Professor in England. He was a chemist, not the latter. I wonder how often the "Professor in England" use was there with the cat you are replacing? I fixed it in this article. --Bduke 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no idea. Well, he was likely miscategorized as there was also Category:British professors (now Category:British academics, so you might want to toss him into that category if you think thats relevant). You do bring up a good point, I don't know what others might have been miscategorized. --Syrthiss 11:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 15

I do wish you'd finish closing, it's been several days since TexasAndroid closed the rest of the page, but he should not close this one remaining, as he was peripherally involved.

Technically, according to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting debates, the previous votes are counted ("debate will continue"). TexasAndroid closed them off (improperly). That guideline is in flux, with the recent addition that the text be cut and pasted (previously, it was just copied). But I did my best to follow examples from AfD, summarizing the previous discussion.

Anyway, most of the previous voters didn't come back, even with TexasAndroid posting on their Talk, because of the acrimony. I need to know which way this is going to be counted, so that I can properly formulate my RfAr (I'm still learning about the process).

MY count is 11 support: 5 oppose,

with The Minister of War sitting on the fence, as "Prefer a single term for all categories", "Administrative divisions also sounds good", "we seem to agree on content", which is his "conditional support").
even the David Kernow Abstain prefers "Administrative divisions".

So, the relisting was really a waste of time, nothing really changed....

--William Allen Simpson 04:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, sadly nothing changed. I left a note on the discussion, and closed it as no consensus. If you want my advice, or if parties wanted me as an informal mediator (I am not part of the mediation cabal so I'm not sure what the process is exactly) I'm willing to help. --Syrthiss 12:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure what can be accomplished. Students are being failed on their papers for relying on Wikipedian terminology (propagated by a small number of editors over the past year or so), instead of standard terms of art. As long as the CfD process can be hijacked by a small number, the process cannot work. It seems a case for a binding ArbComm decision. We've already had at least 2 RfCs and at least 1 mediation about related issues with the same folks. RfCs and mediation have no enforcement power.

--William Allen Simpson 03:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing CFDs

Just letting you know that work has gotten crazy lately, leaving not a lot of time for CFD work, which is why I have not been doing much on closing things lately. Sorry. - TexasAndroid 16:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh don't worry about it. :) I'm dying at work too or I'd be closing them. I'll try to close a bunch later today or tonight. --Syrthiss 17:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Army groups at CfD

Sorry, that was my first experience with CfD. Thanks for pointing out my error.

I seem to have forgotten to follow that discussion, since I didn't add CfD to my watchlist. Reading through it now, I still don't understand how American Army Groups are different from Groups of the United States Army - they both seem to contain units that are called "groups", as opposed to "divisions" or "corps" or something. Nevertheless, I trust that those of you who understood each other at CfD have it worked out, so I'm not worried. Thanks again for the correction. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, having researched it a bit, it makes sense. Within the US Army, there are all kinds of named collections and sub-collections of people. Several corps make up an army, and several armies make up an army group. A Group on the other hand, is a type of Combat service support sub-sub-unit it seems, and is entirely different. Hence, two different categories. It was the overloading of the word "army" that really threw me off. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1632

Don't care that much. Mostly want it to something less cumbersome than any of the current three categories. - TexasAndroid 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Now I can change the color of that div box back to something less scary than lime. ;) --Syrthiss 03:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP Banning

Hello. You recently banned an IP address (205.196.190.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) for vandalism, for which I commend you. However, that is my school's IP...And you've inadvertently blocked anybody at the school from making edits. I frequent Wikipedia and the rest of the Wikimedia sites while I'm at school (In a Webmastery class.), and I frequently make minor edits, to fix minor grammatical errors and the like. I was a bit irritated when I found that I could not, and I ask that you lift the IP ban and instead ban the user that vandalized whatever page was vandalized.

--Busbee --Eagleguy125 03:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I would be happy to lift the block...but it has already expired. When someone vandalizes from an IP address instead of a registered account, we *can't* block the user behind the edits (because we don't know who it is). We often have no choice but to block the ip address. All that said, we try to minimize the impact to registered users so if you find yourself in that situation again feel free to let an admin know (you can email us from the 'email this user' link on our userpages) and we can consider unblocking the ip. Sadly, looks like the ip was again vandalizing this morning and has been blocked for another period of time by a different admin. --Syrthiss 11:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was from an anon user, then go ahead and block the IP. I can wait to do some editings until I get home if it means that vandalism is stopped. If you know what time the vandalism occured, however, I could figure out what period of the day (High School, Block Schedule) that it occured in. I have a lot of friends in tech classes, so I could probably figure out who's doing this if I told my friends to watch what was going on in their periods. (Also, there's only a few rooms that have a large number of computers, and the teachers seldom let the students use theirs.)

Also, thanks for the response! I'm glad at least some of the admins here actually get online often. I've had to wait upwards of a week or two for some admins to respond. --Busbee --Eagleguy125 14:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh not a prob. I'm on a lot (I check in from work). As per your request here are the times of some of the vandalizations (you can see more from the contributions link above that I added to your original post):

14:24-14:53 April 28 (all these times are Universal Time, which is Greenwich UK time...so you might have to do some conversion)
14:54 April 27
18:15 April 20

Cheers! --Syrthiss 14:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You don't know how useful this is going to be to me. I think I may actually be able to figure out who is doing this by the end of the week, with this information.

--Busbee --Eagleguy125 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: OK, since I couldn't remember the schedule, I got ahold of it. None of the vandalism occured on a Wednesday, which is "Advisory" day at my school. That basically just fouls up the bell schedule and cuts 15 minutes from two periods. The significance of that information is that I now have a much more narrow list of rooms to look at. The incident on April 28 occured in 6th period, the incident on the 27th occured in 2nd period, and the April 20 vandalism took place in 8th Period. Judging by how spread out they are, I have absolutely no way of knowing if these were done by the same person. I can, however, ask some friends to check around tommorow; that should yield something or another.

Oh, and one last thing: On Tuesday and on Thursday, I can get on Wikipedia sometime around 11:20 to 11:30 to check up on this. If you haven't posted an update sicne the night before at that time, I'll be checking back up on the page about every five minutes or so until 12:45ish--And after that, it'll be at least until 3:00 something before I get home to check it again. If there is any other information that you can provide, let me know. (Port numbers would be great, if you could get them. It wouldn't be too hard for me to get a list of what ports go where at my school. [The admins are really, really stupid. =)])

--Busbee --Eagleguy125 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I don't have access to things like the port information. :( --Syrthiss 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm at school now, but I'm supposed to be working on a project. Any bannings? --Busbee --Eagleguy125 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've seen. There's been vandalism by the above ip today:

on Sun:

14:54, May 2, 2006 205.196.190.199 (→Solar activity)
14:51, May 2, 2006 205.196.190.199

...but Curps didn't block anyone. As you can see from the timestamps that was around 1.5 hrs ago. --Syrthiss 16:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...What pages were these on? I might not respond until later when I get home, but I'll look into them. If you have the version of the pages saved with the vandalism, I might be able to see who it was, IE if they wrote their name on the page.

Sorry, I wasn't clear... that wasn't Sunday, those edits were from the article Sun. From my casual look there weren't names given. If you click on Sun, and click the history tab at the top you can look at previous versions. --Syrthiss 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, Syrthiss. I'll be getting online later at home. I've got to log off now. --Busbee --205.196.190.199 17:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and abbreviations

From Category:WAGGGS member organization to Category:World Association of Girl Guides etc etc etc:

...That puts it into areas of closing admin discretion so I am closing this as no consensus pending some insightful outcome at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Spelling Out Acronyms. I personally agree that while insiders to the community know WOSM and WAGGGS, anyone from outside the community shouldn't (and likely wouldn't) open the category just to try and figure out what the acronym meant. In those latter cases, the categorization scheme on Wikipedia has failed. In the case of NASCAR, the popularity of the branding makes the acronym itself a proper name. I reserve the ability to reopen this debate with all votes in place if the above discussion doesn't break new ground. I await howls of Rouge Admin at my talk page. ;)

No howls of "Rogue admin!" here; instead thanks for a considered approach. Essentially I support the above, but fear new cans of worms will be opened as people argue over whether certain abbreviations are or aren't popularly/generally known. Instead, I'd suggest pitching the policy along the lines of using an abbreviation unless you or someone else makes a case that it can stand for more than one popularly/generally known thing. That way abbreviations such as WAGGGS, WOSM, NASCAR, CCABG etc would remain as abbreviations, while (shorter) abbreviations such as ABA would most likely need expanding. Regards, David Kernow 16:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Have copied the above to the Abbreviations: to expand or not to expand? thread.

Recent Deaths

Hi,

For old times' sake, I have cleared the month one last time (the Wiki is slow this hour too.) The only detail you missed is to add the category to the bottom of the old month's page after the transition. Nothing really arcane. :) Anyway, I now gladly pass the baton to you, and may you have fun as the unofficial "keeper of death." Be careful -- I learned the hard way that spending lots of time at RD can make one's outlook very morbid. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) Heavens, no -- WP has actually been running very smoothly lately, and I have absolutely no cause for discontent. I have mostly disengaged from Recent Deaths, though, both because it exacerbates my "anal" tendencies, and because I started having dreams of "notable deaths." ;) Besides, I'm so pleased with climate around here, I have been thinking of seriously writing new articles, something for which heretofore I haven't had the time or the energy. So, don't worry, I'm still haunting this place -- although, unlike you, I haven't figured out how to be omnipresent yet! Best wishes, Xoloz 16:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROUGE admin

Ha. I assume the mispelling was purposeful. I actually wanted to commend you for your closing of the discussion. Although I voted to rename, I really don't think the consensus was there. Reserving the right to reopen the dicsussion is fine as well; some ethically challenged Scouters (no names!) often like to feign annoyance when issues are revisited. It's no trouble really; more important to get it right. 1,000 CFD discussions if necessary. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its an intentional misspelling of "rogue". Thanks! :) Syrthiss 11:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teh pope

I believe User:Teh pope2 is a sockpuppet of User:Teh pope. Teh pope has been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly blanking the article on Mario with nonsense. Teh pope2 blanked Mario with "im back". Another admin has already blocked Teh pope2 indefinitely as well, but I figured I should tag the user as a suspected sockpuppet or impersonator incase multiple accounts do start popping up. I'll go ahead and list that both users have blanked the Mario page in similar matters in the suspected sockpuppets category. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support on my RfA!

File:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg

A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! It passed 54/2/3, much better than I expected! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by 195.194.240.66

Hi.

Could you look at the recent vandalism of 195.194.240.66? You can find his 'contributions' here. He has already been warned four times to stop vandalising, but it has continued.

Thank you very much.

The Halo (talk) 16:11, 2006 UTC

Hi. I looked at his vandalization, and he hasn't vandalized for ~4 hours. I have his page watched now, and will see if he vandalizes again. Thanks! --Syrthiss 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response, and for watching the situation.

The Halo 15:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism: 195.93.21.72

He/she vandalized the Turkey portal --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 12:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problem to the above listing. That vandalism was yesterday, and while this user does have the history needed for a block...its an AOL ip address. Since AOL ip's change multiple times in a browser session, blocking this one IP wouldn't do anything to stop the vandal, and would hurt other valid AOL contributors (see Special:Contributions/195.93.21.72, there have been valid edits today already). Also, while I'm certainly willing to pop in to check on these types of issues I'd prefer most normal "they've vandalized, please block them!" requests to go to WP:AIV. You have a much greater chance of an admin looking at the situation, since I'm not always around. Frankly, I don't know how you realized I was online. I only made two little edits to discussions at WP:CFD so far today. ;) --Syrthiss 12:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

attributing statements

Sorry, my bad about the image on the Bee Gees thing, it wont happen again.
Goonmaster 13:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA by newbies

Thank you for your message. I found Goonmaster's RfA at Special:Contributions/newbies when randomly inspecting new users' edits. I found how to access Special:Contributions/newbies at English Wiktionary. Do you know if there is any similar list for anonymous edits? I ask it as anonymous vandalisms have become rampant.--Jusjih 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by person

Just a follow up on the category:Categories by person discussion. My read is that there was, after a long debate about options, consensus on category:Categories named after people. Pretty everybody who supported a different option came around to that one by the end of the debate. Then it veered off to "What do we do about category:Categories by topic?" and anyone would have been confused by that. So I'd propose that you take another look and see if you agree that we had reached consensus around the "named after people" option. Thanks!--Mike Selinker 14:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just went through the thread and there wasn't anyone who wanted it kept the same. I came up with this tally for the suggestions for new names:

JeffW: Person categories or Categories named after people

CalJW: People who have their own categories

Carcharoth: People who have their own categories or Topical people

Mike Selinker: Person categories or Categories named after people

Hawkstone: Topical people

David Kernow: Categories named after people

SeventyThree: Categories named after people

Sept...list: Personal categories

So it looks to me like Categories named after people was the consensus choice. --JeffW 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, having also tried to make some sense of the outcome; see below. "Who administers to the administrators?" Thanks for your work! David Kernow 18:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Category:Categories by person to...

Hi Syrthiss,
I don't know if sharing this will you is of any help, but working through each alternative mentioned for the above, my read is:

Category:People who have their own categories (original proposal, struck from heading without subsequent complaint)
- 5 initially supportive (proposer JeffW (assumed) on Apr 29; CalJW on Apr 30; Mike Selinker on 30 Apr; Carcaroth on May 1; Hawkestone on May 1)
- but only 1 patently remaining supportive by end of survey (Hawkestone on May 1)
Result: 5 → 1

Category:People with categories (Mike Selinker on Apr 30)
- 0 patently supportive (Mike only suggests it)
- 1 patently opposed (JeffW on Apr 30) (-1)
Result: 0-1 = -1

Category:Person categories (SeventyThree; replaced the above in heading, later struck out within discussion)
- 3 initially supportive (SeventyThree on May 1; JeffW on May 1; Mike Selinker on May 1)
- but only 1 patently remaining in favor by end of survey (Mike Selinker)
Result: 3 → 1

Category:Topical people (Carcaroth, later withdrawn)
- 1 initially supportive (Carcaroth, later withdrawn) (1 → 0)
- 2 patently opposed (JeffW; Hawkestone) (-2)
Result: (1→0)-2 = -2

Category:Categories named after people (Carcaroth)
- 5 explicitly supportive (Carcaroth on May 3, myself on May 3, Mike Selinker on May 4, JeffW on May 4, SeventyThree on May 6)
- 1 implicitly opposed (Septentrionalis on May 5)
Result: 5-1 = 4

Category:Personal categories (Septentrionalis)
- 1 explicitly supportive (Septentrionalis on May 5)
- 1 explicitly opposed (JeffW on May 5)
- 1 latently opposed (myself, as of now)
Result: 1-1(-1) = 0(-1)

So, I'd say Category:Categories named after people is the consensus, if consensus can mean "that alternative retaining most support by the end of the survey"... What do you think? Phew, David Kernow 17:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was pretty impressive, David.--Mike Selinker 18:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for following that up... and I agree that now I know what I am looking for (from the above and the original discussion) it looks right for Categories named after people. Thanks again everyone, I'll go change the closing and add that to the queue. --Syrthiss 20:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we just went through a purple patch of admin! Best wishes, David 21:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Um. I just discovered this debate, as you can see at Category_talk:Categories_by_person. :-) I took the liberty of correcting the announcement there, hope that is OK. I'm a bit bemused by the appeal here for people to help move the subcategories to the new category - I thought that was what bots were for? Carcharoth 21:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I had forgotten to get back to that. And yes, that is what the bots are for... I forgot that the template I put on it has that in it. For a while there we had no automated bots for it, and afaik I was one of the few people working on clearing out the backlog. We created templates to show that a rename had been approved, but that we were backlogged so it might not get moved soon unless someone with an interest in the category did the dirty work themselves. Cyde's bot will do the move, so don't worry. ;) --Syrthiss 21:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want some more wiki-work? :)

Howdy,

I normally bother admins who regularly contribute to DRV to close old debates there from time to time -- but it seems like most of these old hands are taking a break! :) While acknowledging that it isn't your usual thing, I trust your judgment completely, so if you'd like to wander over to DRV and close out old discussions from April (!), consider yourself bugged. To remind you, a simple majority at DRV is all it takes to either endorse an XfD decision or relist it. To perform a specfic extra action, like "Overturn and delete," for example, requires typical consensus (70%+). I'd do this myself, but a) not admin and also b) I "vote" in most of them. Of course, if you're too busy for this, I understand. :)

If Splash doesn't return soon (he has done the lion's share of these for the last year), I might actually submit to an RfA, because backlogs like this stink. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can. I am but a simple admin, city life with its multiple of votes and possible sockpuppets is not for me. ;) I already want to shake my fist at some of the debates. --Syrthiss 21:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, those are some of the reasons I wiki-love you: a sense of perspective, natural humility, and you always respond within an hour! :) Xoloz 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww :) --Syrthiss 13:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant vandals

Hi, thanks for blocking the user. There seems to be some confusion among other admins as User:JzG removed that user when I placed them on the main AIV page. Arniep 13:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. JzG is probably more forgiving than me. ;) --Syrthiss 13:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Thanks for the fixup, I'd forgotten about that spaces thing. --W(t) 13:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob. :) --Syrthiss 13:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. You were faster to get there than I was. :p --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the fancy buttons to help me. :) --Syrthiss 18:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A down payment

<violently retching at thought of eating them> :o) ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name

At the moment I have no idea what these people are talking about, because I haven't talked to anyone on the phone. Searching to see if maybe I talked to anyone via OTRS. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. (Am talking to Danny at the moment trying to see what's going on.) Thanks for the heads-up. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. Someone sent a complaint, and my response was telling the person either to send more information so I could see what happened, or to bring up the concern with the original admin involved. (I got no reply to this message and considered it closed.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That seems to be their standard mode, threats of something with no follow up. :/ --Syrthiss 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz's RFA

I'm glad you liked it. Like you, I can't quite believe people will oppose based on the number of nominators. Steve block Talk 18:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British people by ethnic or national origin

Hi, you said there was a consensus to delete these but I only counted 5 delete-3 keep which is a no consensus. Also, I didn't even realise the Jewish British cat was included here as the cfr template was withdrawn on the 29th [3]. Arniep 22:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are under the false impression that XfD discussions are a vote. I think I stated my views on that discussion explicitly in my adminstrator note at the top of that closing: most of those cats were orphans, or poorly named, or both. If/when someone wants to populate properly named categories, we can cross that bridge. As for the Jewish British cat, I'll accept that it was withdrawn since it was tagged by someone different than the nominator for that umbrella (who then withdrew it) and it was properly populated...though I am not fond of the name either. Cheers. --Syrthiss 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks Arniep 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for autoblock advice

Thanks Syrthiss for recent timely advice on aol autoblock problems which now have ceased.Solo999 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look?

at Talk:Juan_Cole. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2 forged warning

I'm not sure about that, it does show up in Tawkerbot2's logs as a revert, not sure how its forged, could you explain a little more please :o -- Tawker 23:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puppets

Hey, I'd just like everyone to keep an open mind and hear me out. I hope that's not asking too much. I've replied in (boringly long) detail on AN. Thanks. IronDuke 23:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

Hi -

how many months ought to pass before a discussion is reopened? Is there any precedent for what sort of arguments or evidence should be brought forward to warrant a new discussion? Just curious. Hasdrubal 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a set time. I think the most recent successful one that was renominated was the Beer cats one, and that waited at least a month...but that time was taken up with gaining consensus for the new categorization scheme at the beer Wikiproject. If there is a wikiproject related to the category you are trying to rename, thats usually a good place to start to gain a consensus base and get an idea for new arguments. If the category you are talking about closed as a 'no consensus', or used administrator discretion... you might have more of a chance bringing it again soon than if it closed with a high majority of keeps. Cheers! Syrthiss 11:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You thought I was one? Now I am!

Dear Syrthiss/Archive4 — Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 72/2/0 and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any adminnery I can help you with in the future. —Wh o uk (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Hello, this is Eagleguy125 again. If you're wondering where I went after the whole IP banning bussiness, well, I pretty much exploded off of the face of Wikipedia. Sorry about that. Anyway, there's a new article that I'm not sure if I should create or not. For the past week or two I've been working on a writing project over the internet with about seven or eightish other people. It is progressing very rapidly, and it seems like the project will be ready to go public within the month. (In well under two weeks, our personal forums have accumulated well over 1,000 posts among less than ten people. That's not too shabby, eh?) The end result of our efforts will be a public free form role playing game called The Tabrien Chronicles. You may or may not know much about the genre, but here it is in a nutshell: You fill out a form to create a character which describes how he/she looks, acts, their past, their goals, etc. Then, you read up a bit on the lore of whatever nation you chose to start in. (That's our main job right now, typing up pages and pages of lore. It's going quite well, actually, and I've come up with about three solid, compacted, and fully edited pages of text myself. We also have two amazing artists coming up with maps and pictures of creatures, cities, etc.) You then go out, starting out small, and work your way up in the world by roleplaying through narrative prose. Our goal in the project is also quite ambitious: We wish to, abou every fifty to one hundred paragraphs, go thorugh and edit the players' posts and correct spelling, grammar, etc., then lock the entire thing up and call it a "Chapter." We'll just keep building up and away with the project until it's a sizeable amount, and then anybody on the internet can come in a read a varied, well-written book for free.

Now that the explanation of the project is out of the way, I need to ask my original question: Would it be okay to make an article for Wikipedia about this project? Once we go public, we'd like it if people could look us up to see what we're about. The problem is that I think the moderators would lock it if they didn't know what it was. Would it be okay to create this? (If you do say yes, we wouldn't be uploading for a good while anyways.) I'll check back for your answer later. Ciao! --Eagleguy125 02:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'd have to say: no. Sorry if this gets long, but I wanted to give you a full explanation of why. :) There are two main hurdles that a subject needs to get over to warrant a Wikipedia article: verifiability and notability. Verifiability means that we need to be able to find reliable sources (trusted news sources, books) that confirm that what the article says is true. In your case, until you were able to get some buzz on RPG news sites there would be nothing to confirm that you were actually running the game and weren't just hosting a website as a hoax. Posts on blogs and a bunch of people from forums coming and saying "Its true, we've played it!" don't count as reliable sources either.

Notability is different and harder to give a firm rule about. As an example, Benjamin Franklin is notable: to many people in the english-speaking world, if you mention Ben Franklin they will likely have some idea of who he was. On the other hand, your old kindergarden teacher is not notable. She may have been a really nice woman who gave you cookies whenever you asked, but nobody aside from her students, her family, and her friends would have any idea who she was if all you had was her name. So in your case, if your site has been running for a while and hosts 100,000 unique accounts with articles on CNN and CNET it would have a good chance at having an article. At this point, while it may go that far (so why not write an article now)... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there's no way of predicting the future.

So, hopefully that answered your question. You can of course ignore everything I've said and make the article, but as you said it is very likely that someone would either delete it outright or bring it to articles for deletion where people will raise the same concerns I just did (and probably be not-so-nice). Cheers! Syrthiss 12:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your block of Rogers12345

Argh, you know what, that's my error, apparently. I went through my browser history and apparently was getting two different users mixed up. Good catch. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 13:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I recognise what you are saying. However, when something serious is mentioned, people turn it into a joke. I can assure you that some younger people take themselves all too seriously. Clearly, as you are in your mid thirties, you would also be considered geriatric by the ones I am complaining about. It is just that I seem always to have problems with undergraduates. They are usually admins, and are very quick to ban those they disagree with. I note that one person mentioned that Mr. Wales is against older people. I find that disturbing. Wallie 19:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I do appreciate you writing to me though. Kind regards. Wallie 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Culture CFD

Howdy. I noticed you closed the discussion about the urban culture category as already delted. While Category:Urban Culture was deleted, Category:Urban culture was also nominated for deletion. If you're not comfortable making a ruling on it, I'd be glad to bring it up for discussion again - just let me know. Thanks! - EurekaLott 03:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, looked reasonably clear to me. Urban culture is slated for deletion in the current cfd/w. Thanks for pointing it out. :) Syrthiss 12:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing CFD keeps

Oops... indeed. It's good you found it, and thank you for your message. Conscious 05:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ABCL programming language family

I think you misunderstood JeffW's comment at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Working. Two categories were renamed to Category:ABCL programming language family (Category:ALGOL dialects & Category:ABCL dialects). Category:ALGOL dialects should have been renamed to Category:Algol programming language family instead. Most of them had been already caught and fixed. I fixed the last one. Category:ABCL programming language family is still a valid category and shouldn't be merged so I'm removed it from the queue. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 6 or let me know if that didn't make sense. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For being a tireless vandal and sockpuppet fighter!!

--Sunfazer | Talk 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and bar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For being a good admin!!

--Wallie 20:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for the revert and the block [4] [5] --Bachrach44 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thanks

Syrthiss/Archive4, thank you you so much for validating my RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support. Deizio talk 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible without you

Thanks Syrthiss,

Why was I not at all surprised that you were the first person to offer congratulations on my adminship? :) I was touched to hear that I had an early influence on your wiki-career; Rest assured, that among your many influences on me, I will endeavor to emulate your omnipresence -- truly, you are the sharpest eagle-eye and quickest responder on all the 'pedia! If a position for chief of the wiki fire department ever opens, you'll be a sure first choice. Your own humble competence far exceeds mine (or anyone's), and I think it is fair to say that this place would fall apart without you. :) Your dedication keeps Wikipedia running, and inspires me to edit at least a little, even on my worst days. Although quirky voting trends prevented you from formally co-nominating me, I will always consider you as having done so, and remember fondly the honor of your kind words.

When I screw up (for this is inevitable), please let me know. I need observant wiki-friends like you to keep me from looking like a complete fool! :) Your servant, Xoloz 01:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Since you'll probably watch my talkpage anyway (you watch everything!), I'll give you the heads up that I'm going to attempt to thank every RfA participant personally (in part because I am a boob with templates.) I am likely to take tomorrow off work to do this, a measure of both how crazy I am, and how much I hate desk jobs. ;)

YIKES! =D Syrthiss 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further note - Did I mention to you that for the first two days after I got my adminship I was paralyzed wiki-wise? I was reading everything I could re policy and how to do adminny things, and barely touched Wikipedia for fear of screwing something up. haha. Syrthiss 12:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cfd reminder

You closed a CfD, Category:Kurdish cities, with delete ^([6]) and perhaps forgotten to delete the actual category, if thats not the case my apologies (I am not failiar with cfd closure procedure too well). :)

Thanks. Cat ^chi? 13:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got it now. Looks like something slipped between my action (putting it on the "to be emptied" list), and someone either deleting it outright when they finished emptying it or moving it down to the "to be deleted" section. In any case, its deleted. Thanks for letting me know! Syrthiss 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you

Yes, thank you for your concern, I was unblocked. Sorry I didn't respond sooner.Travb

Thank you!

For fixing vandalism to my pages... BD2412 T 18:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAH! IT BURNSSSS! Obviously I'm not used to seeing such a thing considering how often I'm reverting vandalism. ;) Syrthiss 18:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism

I didnt take part in the debate to delete the category war on terrorism. I think the debate was politically motivated. The term is a policy of the current administration of the US govenrement that has had both negative and positive consequences. If you dont like the consequencesyou should add that to the discussion rather than deleting the category which will be usefuil for future research into the effectiveness of hte War on Terror.Mrdthree 02:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are laboring under a misconception that I have a viewpoint on the discussions I close. It was deleted by community consensus (at least those who were interested in voicing their opinions). Syrthiss 02:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an administrator?; i didnt take part in the debate. I restarted it under the move category name. the consensus isnt he rule anyway is it? I am sure if people dont like an issue they dont get to eliminate it. Doesnt there have to be a reasoned debate?Mrdthree 02:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the vote was 3:6 and 2 of the negative votes said merely "Bushite propaganda phrase". If I voted on the 18th it would have been 4:6. Hardly a consensus, especially since two fo teh negaitves are point of view critriques.Mrdthree 02:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. The debate was held at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_6#Category:War_on_terror, with a total of 7 deletes to 3 renames (no keeps). If you had voted on the 18th, then you would have been at least one day short of the time frame alloted (and considering they are supposed to run for 7 days, you'd be 5 days short). Consensus is almost always the rule, though closing administrator judgement plays a part (ie if I had 10 delete "votes" with no explanation and 3 keep "votes" with well reasoned arguments I'd likely keep). I see that you 'restarted' it under the proposed move name, which is against process. If you feel that I closed the discussion improperly, you can take it to WP:DRV. Syrthiss 02:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems evident to me that Foreign policy of US: Foreign Policy of Bush Administration: War on Terror, is the current category structure.Mrdthree 03:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case...

Hi Syrthiss,
Always enjoy reviewing CfDs recently closed by your good self, wondering whether or not your rephrasings of the relentless "[result of the debate was] delete"s are as I guessed they might be – so, this query not representative: "'ename! 'ename!" this one...?
Best wishes, David Kernow 10:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, it should be 'ename 'ename. I at least wasn't stupid enough to put it into the delete queue. :/ Syrthiss 12:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may enjoy my edit summary... [7] 12:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

User:Hawkestone has posted a deletion vote Vote without posting the Cfr to the +cat first. In other words, he tried to sneak it through. Unfortunately, many people followed his lead and posted delete before others could rally the Keep vote. My suggestion would be to cancel this vote and start over following Wikipedias rules and stop this kind of abuse. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I added a cfd notice to the category on the 17th, and that an anon vandal removed it. I have restored it. next time, assume good faith. I will not be cancelling this discussion. Syrthiss 17:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oz categories

I'd like to complain about the way this vote went.

I (As well as many of the others major contributors to Oz's articles) had no idea the vote took place and couldn't participate. (It should have been noted in the categories and/or the Main category's talk page and/or in the main series' talk page - preferably in all of them)

I believe that most of these categories are very important (Some, such as the bikers and irish which hold only 2 or 3 articles, aren't, but most of them have many more) - It makes sorting easier, and allows much info to be said about the gangs without creating a different article for each one. (See all the text in the articles you are about to delete)

I intend to restore those categories soon, and would like that any more votes for deletion will be public so that everyone may vote in them. OzOz 12:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, I'm sorry about the horrible English. :) It doesn't sound well to me, but I don't have the time to work on my phrasing at the moment.) OzOz

Well, its not my duty to inform people that something is up for deletion. At the best, the person starting the discussion should have placed a notice on the talk page of the main article. However, your assertion that the discussion wasn't public is incorrect. CFD is a public part of Wikipedia, and its not like some shadowy star chamber where the fate of millions is decided. If you have a problem with how it was handled, you are welcome to complain to the person who started the discussion but I don't recommend restoring those categories in the fashion you described... Categories aren't supposed to contain information that would "allows much info to be said about the gangs without creating a different article for each one". They are a way of organizing articles, ONLY. If you'd like to create an article Gangs of Oz that describes them all, feel free. Otherwise, with the decision in hand I'd have to delete them as recreated content. Your other option is to bring them to WP:DRV. Syrthiss 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moo!#

--217.134.237.125 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Hello, you and I have a different opinion on what spam is about. Please do not post any further messages on my User Talk page, I have nothing further to discuss with you. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi. I saw you recently added a vote result template on Category talk:Far right political parties in France and others. Could you please point me out to the final results of the vote: I cannot seem to find it on the vote page, and it has been so since before the vote ended (perhaps because the link for "this category's entry" malfunctioned. Many thanks. Dahn 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_10#Category:Far_right_politics_in_France :) Syrthiss 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dahn 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bptdude

Thanks for the note telling me he's been unblocked. You may also want to note that in two e-mails he stated that he holds me responsible for blocking him. In one threatened; "...if you take an action against me, my new hobby might be to document exactly what happened, and find out who can tug in YOUR reins...." and in the second,(before I answered the first) "You have become that which you state you crusade to supress(sic), a whackjob." Since these two missives were obviously meant for you, I thought I'd pass them on. --DV8 2XL 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think he was very upset (tho not to that level) when he wrote me. I think he's cooled off now. I'd say if you see any other problem editing by him come talk to me first and I'll check into it. Thanks! Syrthiss 11:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review request

Hi

This is about a category merger you performed a few days back. The decision was taken with a "consensus" of only 3 people (nominator +2 voters) and somehow the discussion completely slipped under the radar of all Indian editors who would have something to say about it. We started discussing 2 days later and the consensus is that the debate should be reopened and the decision reversed, either fully or partly. I looked up the Deletion review guidelines and it appears to say that we should ask the deleting admin first before listing it for Deletion review. Is that correct? The other question is that if a consensus is obtained to undo the action, is it technically possible to reverse the merger of categories? i.e. the original articles that were under the deleted categories should continue to be under them. Thanks. — Ravikiran 10:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ravikiran, thanks for contacting me about this. The guidelines suggest contacting the admin involved because (1) there were a lot of cases bring brought to WP:DRV that the closing admins had no idea of and who might have changed their mind with a simple note (as you wrote here) and (2) most of the content on DRV is articles, so its a simple click of the admin buttons to restore the article. Sadly that isn't the case with the categories. I could undelete the cat, but restoring the articles to the category would take a bit more work (basically searching the bot's contributions and reverting them for the relevant categories).

However, I'm afraid that I have to agree with the debate concluded. Freedom fighter is a POV-laden term and while activist may not completely nuance the aspect of these people's contributions to modern India, leaving a category called Indian freedom fighters I believe sets up an ambiguity that could end up with the category populated not only with the people you admire but with perhaps modern-day rebels. I saw in the linked discussion the idea for Freedom fighters against the British Raj, and think thats reasonable (because it can state more clearly what they were fighting, tho I am still not completely good with "freedom fighter")...and several others that could work.

My suggestion to you is to see if you can come to a consensus on that India-related discussion page (which I will try to monitor). With a consensus, someone could create the new category(s) and begin populating it(them). If you feel the freedom fighters category was too many articles to recategorize into the new categories by hand, then we can try restoring the freedom fighter category NOW with the caveat that its final destination will be decided in a timely fashion (and if not, the currently decided merge will be reinstituted).

How does that sound to you? Deletion review is still an option, tho in my opinion it would be somewhat redundant (in that I realize there is a larger community that objects to the merger and am cooperative). I'm also going to copy and paste this to that discussion and your talk page, tho I'd prefer if we continue this either at the India-related discussion board of here (for completeness). Syrthiss 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Congregation of Holy Cross

Hey "Surface"

I just noticed that the category:Congregation of Holy Cross is up for deletion. Sorry, I did not catch this earlier. Anyway, I have attempted to clear up the confusion with the category:Congregations of Holy Cross on its talk page. I dont know if it is too late to save it, but I believe there is good reason to do so. Can you give me a hand on this? Thanks, --Vaquero100 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sorry. I was away from Wiki for a couple days. It looks like the articles have already been moved out. Were there many articles in there? If not, did there need to be? You don't have subcats for the other three of the Congregations. If there weren't many articles and you want to repopulate then just recreate the category and I'll put a note on the talk page saying that I've consented to the undeletion (to avoid it being speedied). If there was a lot of articles in there, we can go back through cydebot's contributions and revert. Let me know how you want to proceed. Thanks! Syrthiss 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.63.46.219

This IP address is one you have blocked before for vandalism. Well, I caught him vandalizing blindspot. Since he's again vandalized, do you think it would hurt to block him off?68.51.38.48 16:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All ethnicity category pages

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 20#All ethnicity category pages

Please skip ahead to this entry. I'm hoping you have time this weekend to close this. There seems to be a strong consensus to delete them all and set a category guideline that these should be lists (for annotation) instead. Even the abstainers note that "The ideal Wikipedia would not have these".... We've had a lot of category revert warring in this arena lately.

There are several other subcategories in the queue that depend on this closing result. For days, I added a pointer in each of them to this entry so that everybody would come together and decide, and I think we've had fairly good participation. (But not as many as I'd expected.)

I'll be happy to update the various guidelines afterward, but I'm not an administrator, and thus not able to close anything "controversial".

--William Allen Simpson 18:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SirIsaac

I see what you mean from looking at your own talk page. Thanks for your comment on mine. :) As far as I know deleting others' comments from one's talk page is kind of a grey area. Warning tags, such as for vandalism, seem to be a different matter in the opinion of some editors. Kasreyn 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. This IP adress has been given his last warning, and is still vandalising. Could you please step in and see if it's time for a block? Thanks. Th e Halo (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, blocked them for 3 more months... tempted to block for 6+ months. Thanks! Syrthiss 14:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, Thank you! Th e Halo (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfPP

The page should now be auto-archived when 6+ answered request are made (it removes the last x, where x is the number of request past 5).Voice-of-All^Talk 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. You might make a notice of that on the talk page for RFPP if you haven't already. ;) Syrthiss 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Steadman

Hi. I know you are acting as mentor for Rob in his current reincarnation. I have a real problem with him at present. We are engaged in a not-very-nice exchange of words at Talk:Ruth Kelly#Irish descent which feels extremely vicious to me. I have just returned to my wachlist to find that he has been to 8 of my most recent edits[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] and just made a small change, fixed a link usually. No edit summary. No pattern. Seemingly no rhyme or reason. I feel stalked. It is not a nice feeling. I don't know what I have done (other than disagreed with him) that warrants this. I have asked him what I can do to improve relations but without response. Can you do anything about this behaviour? Frelke 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that (1) I'm not a mentor to him, just the holder of the conditions of his unblock and (2) I'm looking into both of your interactions, but I'm also about to run off to a meeting so it may be a little bit before I can dig deeply enough to feel I can judge the situation. Syrthiss 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the stalking, I've found that with me as well. A while ago, I edited/reverted a page then he might show up to make a minor edit. Rather than shouting "Stalker!!!" and getting uncivil etc. I thought "Let him. As long as his edits are constructive he can follow me around all he wants". Robertsteadman has shown a certain amount of irrationality before, but I can't comment on whether he's being irrational now because I don't really understand the situation completely. I'll try and delve into it a bit more. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 16:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And about references to the Wikipedia:Harrassment policy: Following someone to an article technically isn't a violation of the policy, provided the person that followed you isn't disruptive. WP:HA states it is only harrassment if they follow you there to continue being disruptive. Two arbitration cases included the fact that the person in question was following someone else around Wikipedia, but only based on the fact that it compounded other problems with the user. Aside from the fact that Robertsteadman is reluctant to accept what you're saying, there don't seem to be any major violations of policy regarding your exchanges. To be honest I think you're both being fairly civil to each other... If you can show me diffs of him being uncivil then I will investigate further. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nine[16] now. Its rather disconcerting but I guess thats the point. Frelke 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you is to put up with it. Like I said, that on its own is not an offense. I feel kind of sorry for anyone who wastes time checking someone's contributions then finding a way to edit all the articles that that person has contributed to. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out for completeness that Frelke unbeknown to anyone kept copies of the archives of Rob's old account and refused to delete them when AnnH asked him to [17]. He described Rob as "a dangerous moron". Please bear this in mind with your investigations. Sophia 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked by Frelke to clarify my comment as he of course is unable to delete pages without sysops privileges. Sophia 20:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And obviously I therefore could not refuse to delete the pages in question. Frelke 20:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the archived talk pages are a nonissue for me. I was concentrating on the here and now, and just turned them up in my digging. Syrthiss 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, I haven't had this many 'you have new messages' boxes ever. :)

Now thats out of the way, I'm going to ask Robertsteadman to try and not follow your edits. It would be very hard for me not to see the pattern. At the same time, the edits are productive and in areas that don't nessecarily seem outside his areas of interest. You were both very impassioned at Talk:Ruth Kelly, but I don't see any incivility...and if I was an editor on that article I might have made the same questions on that content. I did discover the archived comments and the dangerous moron quote on my own so that information from Sophia doesn't nessecarily change my advice: As Deskana said, if he's not doing anything disruptive I'm going to ask that if my request to him doesn't alter his behavior that you try to put up with it. I think you both (Frelke and Robertsteadman) may have an increased sensitivity to each other but until it interferes with editing productively the only way to minimize it is to try and edit articles away from each other. Syrthiss 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Sophia has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Userpage reversion

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my pages! :D Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prob :) Syrthiss 19:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An inspiration

I appreciate your kind words. I was going to wait until after the 9th to say this, but I think it is ok to say it now that you have weighed in. Your approach with me, giving me corrective feedback as well as a wlecome with links was KEY in inspriing me to learn more about what wikipedia is all about. I appreciate the way you approached me (and the way you continue to approach others) with civility, warmth, information, support and clarity. I hope to be able to live up to the example you have set. Thanks again. Warmly, Kukini 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwwwww. What a great comment. :) Syrthiss 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it. If the RfA continues positively for the next few days, I will be seeking mentoring on occasion to be sure that I do good and do no harm. I hope you will be willing to serve as one of my mentors for me. Kukini 12:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly! Syrthiss 12:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Graham

Thanks for helping deal with User:72.242.65.58, but now User:65.4.73.246 is making essentially the same edits. Do we deal with this as a sockpuppet situation? Any help/advice is appreciated. thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, thats how I treated it. If we see another unconnected ip doing it I'm going to semiprotect the page and block them all as open proxies/zombie computers. I wish the confirmation tools weren't down. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. Syrthiss 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we have another IP in the mix: User:65.87.132.70, [18]. --mtz206 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like semiprotection has been applied to Lindsey Graham, and I've blocked that ip as an open proxy pending confirmation. Syrthiss 12:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Stemonitis

You have posted a final warning on my userpage. Can I ask why? I have made a factual alteration to an offensive insert on Stemonitis's userpage, he referred me to have a discussion about it to which we did have a civil discussion and continue to do. Why are you making such a belligerent threat towards me. If you make any more belligerent threats toward me, I will consider reporting you for hassling and offending me unduly. Can you explain your rash, ill-conceived and under-investigated actions please? I am now officially warning you off my userpage as I don't appreciate unfair and unreasonable forms of aggression and threats against me. You have the right to reply on this but only on this userpage. Thank you for your attention. Bazzajf 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He asked you to stop. Its his userpage. If you find it offensive I suggest you don't go looking at it. You can view my comments however you wish but I wanted to make it absolutely crystal clear that what you were doing was vandalism and will be considered as disruption, in case you seek other outlets. Syrthiss 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me not looking at it doesn't stop it being offensive. DOES IT???? So as I am a new user, can you suggest to me what outlets I should seek to report offensive terminology rather than churlishly give me a final warning for attempting to address offensive terminology. I look forward to your assistance. Bazzajf 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, there's not much you can do about the content of anyone's user page. You're free to edit it, of course, but doing so repeatedly, when the owner has explicitly rejected your change, is very poor form. Syrthiss was just letting you know -- in a very even-handed manner, I might add -- what would likely happen if you persisted. Powers 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notification at protected talk page

You turned down the request to unpotect User talk:JackSarfatti, however do you think you could add to that page that such a request was filed and rejected, and include for instance this permanent link of the WP:RFPP page or an archive of the dialogue in that regard if such exists? __meco 17:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I modified the permanent link diff you provided by one step later in the version history so that the change is highlighted on the left (and the archiving is clearer). The version you supplied, while still having the discussion, tended to highlight the archiving of another section. The "unclear why" isn't meant to be snarky, I really don't understand why...and if you can (if you care to) explain to me I'll remove the ()'d comment. Syrthiss 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I think that all such administrative measures should be documented, i.e. any formal enquiry that calls for a decision of granted/denied should be documented at the proper location (in this case the page that was being proposed for unprotection). Secondly, Jack Sarfatti and/or online communities adopting his case seem to imply there is a conspiracy to deny him the right of free speech afforded to others, other conditions being equal. In that spirit I am of the opinion that transparency of proceedings is beneficial. (Just to make sure I will mention that there is an encyclopedia article, Jack Sarfatti that should not be confused with his Wikipedia user account now in question.) __meco 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have modified the notice. I am aware that there is an article on him here, and it looks from his talk page that he is blocked indefinitely because of legal threats per WP:NLT. Syrthiss 12:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal

I'd say it's worth a shot, but please do keep your finger on the 'semi' button should those anons start up again. --InShaneee 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Looks like VoA has already lifted the protection. Syrthiss 12:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]