This is an archive of past discussions about User:Syrthiss. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.
this isnt ment for advertising and spent an hour writing the page. how does pepsi and coke get away with this. can you direct me to someone that can help me write this in a proper fashion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empirephoto (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
? I thought that anon only did nothing when blocking a user account, only when you block IPs. *goes to read up on WPBLOCK*. Syrthiss02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Block anonymous users only prevents anonymous users from the target IP address from editing, but allows registered users to edit. Prevent account creation prevents new accounts from being registered from the target IP address. These options have no effect on username blocks.
Nope, you appear to be correct. I didn't know the blocking tool was that smart. I should pay more attention. JoshuaZ03:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
*whew* I mean, I block a lot of vandal accounts... Its kind of my thing. I would have banged my head on my desk for a few hours if I had been doing it wrong ever since those changes went in. ;) Syrthiss12:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you check to see if this user has personally attacked me?
User:Danielpi has been blocked for a week in the past by the arbitrators for personally attacking me. Last night I think he personally attacked me again by stating "Of course, I wouldn't want to infringe upon wiki's tradition of love, charity, and respect; so, I feel I should clarify my position insofar as I absolutely DO NOT regard Dionyseus to be 1) a blight on wikipedia, 2) a mental degenerate, 3) incapable of lucid reasoning, or 4) incapable of language use. He is certainly none of those things." Today he repeated the attack. Dionyseus02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that there is no other way to interpret that. It appears per his userpage that Danielpi has quit wikipedia sometime between you leaving this message and now. If I may ask, why did you ask me in particular to look into this? I'm just curious. :) Syrthiss15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on samples, this IP makes info smudges (changes names and numbers, adds typos), at infrequent intervals. Most recent smudge is Annie Oakley (diff). Milo22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Just when you thought you were out ...
they pull you right back in. A CfD closure that you did a year ago has become a central issue in this deletion review. You may wish to comment at the deletion review. Please bear in mind that "No good deed goes unpunished." : ) -- Jreferee16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
People keep asking me to 'fix my signature' but I don't know why its broken. If you have any helpful suggestions, a step-by-step method to 'fix' it, please advise.→ RYoung {yakłtalk} 23:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Phlox
You blocked User:Phlox on January 3, 2007 indefinitely. This user is asking for unblock asking if the block have been long enough and this user wants to learn to make constructive edits. You can reply a message on User:Phlox's talk page. Amos HanTalk23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you review my block?? i have no idea? all i know is that i want to be able to make contributions and be noted for them, instead of just doing it when im not logged in. Thats right, i made CONTRIBUTIONS! sure did, yep, thats right, no sensless vandalism, oh be nice and unblock me, cummon, i'll give you a cookie Phlox
DRV has been closed. The Alex Prior I whacked was someone from Brisbane, not the one mentioned in the sources. Cheers. Syrthiss18:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hiyas SWATJester. Stopped by the discussion, but I'm really undecided on the matter so I'll have to decline to comment. :/ Syrthiss15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Random Smile!
WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I note you voted for delete last time... I have renominated this article, and it is currently being voted on, I would invite your views.
Cheers.JJJ99905:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Beer and breweries in Europe, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
As you took part in the last Great Beer Cat Discussion, I thought you might be interested in this one:
A discussion has been opened on changes that have been made to the existing Beer category system. The changes reverse the decision made by the Project in April 2006. The changes were based on agreement by only two people, and by a discussion that took place outside the Beer Project. There may be some merit in the changes, and to prevent future conflict it is important that there is some discussion of the matter. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Brewery_cats. SilkTork *YES!18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Its a shame. The page is missing valuable information. Since I was involved in the case, I can't make any edits. I'm hoping someone will take a look at the information and put it back the way it was.--Spectre7277 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
DC Meetup Events: You're invited!
Wikipedia Loves Art! (February 27)
The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be holding a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. This is a photography event involving Wikipedians, along with Flickr users and others, to generate content for Wikipedia. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. There also is a signup list here, along with detailed information. The museum is conveniently located across from the Gallery Place-Chinatown metro station.
DC 6th Meetup (March 7)
The DC 6th meetup will take place on March 7th at Pizzeria Uno's at Union Station, one level up from the main floor. The meetup will start at 5pm, and people usually stick around there for several hours. You can RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 6.
You have once again told me to not vandalise, However, i did not vandalise i simply put up a page about my beliefs about what i have seen. It is the same as putting up a page about a mermaid (which there is a page). it is a modern myth in the bidston area and have written about it in some phenominon magazines. all i want is too keep this page up so the people of Bidston can learn more about the creature that is drawing in tourism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephimoss (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Provide substantive reliable and verifiable sources and we'll be happy to have your article about your cryptozoologic find. Otherwise it will be deleted, by me or some other editor. Syrthiss (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain who I have personally attacked or threatened legally or otherwise? I am only trying to keep information open. The Bollywood and Plagiarism page has been around for several years and had been been worked upon collaboratively by several users. This page has now been deleted on the request of a couple of users who don't seem to want others to have this information for some unknown reason.
You are stating that an entire industry is guilty of plagarism on your userpage, which looks to me like you are trying to Right Great Wrongs. All of your edits seem obsessed with this issue. So, I tagged your page to get another administrator to look at it. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The first is an indefblocked vandal who was using his talk page as a toilet after his block, so there's no reason why the page would need to be unprotected. The second isn't even my protection... Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The first does not require full protection, as the user was reblocked with talk page editing disabled, as I tried to explain at WP:RfPP. I know the second isn't yours, but I was hoping you could unprotect. Enigmamsg15:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
True. I agree on the first count, so unprotected. Doesn't stop them from coming back as an IP and playing with it, but we'll take that as it comes. For the second, I'm going to decline. One talkpage protected for a retired user doesn't raise my eyebrows, regardless of guidelines for protection. Cheers! Syrthiss (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if my edit summary seemed dismissive of your improvement to the article, and thanks for working on it. I assume you don't mean that there was some reason to retain the reference to the Italian news source just because it happened (yes, randomly) to be the first report of his death on the Web? -- Rbellin|Talk14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Syrthiss. Upon discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (section 21 "request for a correction"), you have corrected the phase diagram of Boron, for which, without any offense taken, I would say this:
I have filed the 3rd round of GFZLab sockpuppet investigation. First 2 resulted in immediate bans, 3rd has no response yet. Meanwhile, given vast amount of negative emtions I'm getting from this case, I am avoiding confrontations as much as possible, especially with user:Aoganov. For this reason, I prefer to talk here, but I would join public discussion if you advise so.
Regarding the diagram, would you please look at the original article [1], the inset of Fig.3, and find the description in the caption "Inset, schematic phase diagram of boron, based on present results and previous experimental14,27,29 and theoretical10 studies." Then, would you please look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Borphase.jpg and check the description I gave there.
This part is somewhat scientific, but I hope you get the point: Oganov provided the drawing, which I adapted for the boron paper (a-Ga phase is beyond its current scope). Phase diagram is always a compilation of huge amount of data. References [2][3] by all means provide those data, as easy to check by reading, and that is why I added them. If you agree, would you be so kind as to reconsider your edits or discuss this further. Important note is that I declare I have no prejudices against this case, but as a keen and professional scientist I oppose false statements (see User:NIMSoffice). Thank you.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
^Oganov A.R., Chen J., Gatti C., Ma Y.-M., Yu T., Liu Z., Glass C.W., Ma Y.-Z., Kurakevych O.O., Solozhenko V.L. (2009). "Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron". Nature. 457: 863-867. doi:10.1038/nature07736.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^E. Yu. Zarechnaya (2009). "Superhard Semiconducting Optically Transparent High Pressure Phase of Boron". Phys. Rev. Lett. 102: 185501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.185501.
Ok, I looked at the three references above in depth (or at least as in depth as I can, being ~10 years removed from my physics graduate work). #2 above doesn't directly provide data regarding phase transition of Boron, but I'll allow that information given in the body text has lexical cues that could be used by someone familiar with materials science to infer phase information. Your diagram certainly doesn't appear in any of the above works, and the transition points are quite a bit different (in my unfamiliar view) than Oganov's diagram. For example, the vertex at the top end of the alpha state in yours is at ~8GPa and ~1000C while Oganov's is ~15GPa and 1500C (owing for differences in scales). There are other differences that to my mind show that it may be based on (as references) Oganov but is some synthesis of multiple sources...and also different enough that I wouldn't call Oganov's paper the sole source.
I'd say that because your original graphic is not a direct copy of the one in Oganov's paper, and its not like phase diagrams are the sole provence of his, the references should be restored as to the original list in your citation. The thing I don't understand is he claims that it is a low-res version identically of the one he published (in the discussion on ANI), but I only see one available version and it is the colored, dissimilar one to the one that exists here on commons. If that is the case, why does your graphic say it appeared is his paper? Is the version on commons a cartoon or actually using data from the cited references for the transition points? Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding ref. [2], you are absolutely right that the pressure-temperature values are just typed in its text. To the best of my professional knowledge, there is no other complete published drawing of the boron phase diagram (i.e. including all a,b,g phases), except for [1]. Absolutely, this diagram (and all other phase diagrams of elemental solids) is a valuable peace of knowledge, protected by copyright law of the journal Nature. What I've done, I have attempted to combine all the sources, giving credits to everybody. The attempt is not perfect, and I am open to discussion. All I've got so far is repeated messages from Aoganov that he has "discovered" that phase diagram, and must be solely credited for that; that I "stole" it from him and must be punished for that. His later argument is that his contribution there is 90%. I don't know, I'm ready to admit if I see an evidence (his word by no means qualifies as such), he is indeed the first to draw the complete diagram. What I see in his paper is the statement that the diagram is based on several references (without "90%"); and I cite them all. That diagram a "cartoon" and no detailed data are mentioned in the text of [1]. Other refs (such as [3]) provide extra data for those who need them. Anyway, my editing gamma-boron content immediately induces his opposition, which is treated as edit war. It is no good for boron, which should go to GA and FA, as all element pages do. Thus, I would really appreciate is someone else takes over and fixes the damage. Ah, just in case you missed that, he refers to your edits as "An independent editor looked into this matter and found that I am right" and "Another editor, after carefully checking the subject, confirmed that I was right and made proper referencing", and here on Admin board too. Thanks and best regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, and reading what Uncle G has to say on ANI (about the worry of this turning into another Boganov affair), I believe my position is this: being that the diagram that exists on the article is a synthesis of other works (no slight to you, it was a good faith attempt to add information to the article), and that the article doesn't totally hinge on that diagram (the article is on Boron, not on the phase complexity of Boron), and in my opinion having a stable well sourced article is better than a hugely reverted article with a nuclear sock cloud around it (not saying this is the case currently, but that could be an outcome)... I believe the diagram should be removed from the article. We most definitely do not want an external academic dispute to spill over into the encyclopedia, and if that means curtailing the article to a less controversial state then I am all for it. This is my opinion only, so if consensus leans to another solution I will support whatever other resolution we find. As to Oganov's touting of my support, I am nobody's authoritative source. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: any scientific result is based to some extent on previous research. This does not mean that we have to give a thread of citations to Newton, Archimedes, etc. when we talk about relativity theory. Our paper gives proper credit to all data we've used to create the phase diagram, but the diagram was created by us and we should be credited for it. NIMSOffice just doesn't understand how science works. In all his edits, he consistently works against us. He even stated our phase diagram relies on papers that appeared afterwards - this makes no sense. Either delete the phase diagram or say where it comes from. Aoganov (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The diagram should be removed in its current form because it is a synthesis (again, in good faith) created by NIMSOffice solely for the article. If it was exactly taken from one of your papers (which as of yet I have no proof of... it certainly is not exactly the one from the cited paper in Nature), it would be able to be included. Syrthiss (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Hello.jpg
File:Hello.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Chocoraspcake.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Chocoraspcake.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
How can I add a page about All About Men without overwriting the existing page? Also, yes I am linked to the website but I'm just here to write a short description of it, not to be any form of advertising. I didn't realise I was not permitted to include a link, i will remove it, although there must have to be a link somewhere since it is a website i'm writing a description about. Should I name the article All-About-Men.co.uk? As is done in ASOS.com's wiki page?
All-About-Men-Store 13:56, 14 May 2009 (GMT)
You could do something as simple as All About Men (store) or All About Men (retailer), but if I can offer advice: you are permitted to put a link in, but if the only source that you have for your article on your store is your own link... your article will likely end up deleted and you'll be blocked for spamming. We need reliable 3rd party sources (newspaper listings, articles from trade magazines saying what an impressive newcomer to the online retailing scene you are), and evidence of notability (for example, being an online retailer isn't notable but being the 2nd largest online retailer behind Amazon.uk would be). In general, we heavily advise against writing an article on anything you are associated with. If you are notable enough, someone else will eventually create an article. I hope that helps. Syrthiss (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent Block
Hello, I go to a very urban public high school. I realise my IP was banned yesterday. I love Wikipedia with a passion and would never vandalise. There are lots of ne'er do-wells in my school who do this kind of thing. Thus, I'd reccommend you would not ban public IPs so rudely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Putin's Dog (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If you took the time to ask about how our blocking system works, you would have found out that I didn't block your 'very urban public high school'. I blocked a certain user, and when he next tried to vandalize the blocking system blocked your school's ip because it was used by him (as noted in the block notice). If I had blocked your school's IP, you likely wouldn't be able to be posting here...but autoblocks only last 24 hours. Syrthiss (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You keep reverting an edit I made to the story of the year page. I removed a section which is a duplicate of another section but under a different name and you keep putting it back up.
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.100.241 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand why my Zombie Elk article was deleted; blatant hoax. Would it be possible for me to get that content back? I did not save my doc. If not, it's fine I understand that it may be gone forever.
I was on a camping trip, and a fantastical campfire story/legend of the Zombie Elk arose in conversation.
If I wanted to post a Wiki about this mythological creature, what criteria would it have to meet? What criteria does a Wiki about a mythical creature have to meet? Is this established? Do eye witnesses count as sources?Kjellj (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Grand Duchy of Flandrensis
Greetings,
You just delete my article when I placed a 'Hangon'.
Could you please put my article back so I can further discuss why I disagree with the speedy deletion?
Sorry, a hangon is not binding in any way. I read your rationale. Self referential sources are not sufficient for an article. I find it exceedingly dubious that you just happen to arrive here, edit an article just after a previous proponent of the micronation in question edits it, and recreate this article. Syrthiss (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I read the reasons why the page a few weeks ago was deleted. But I have nothing to do with this micronation and I'm not part of it. I'm from the Netherlands and write an essay about Dutch micronations. Flandrensis is the only Dutch speaking territorial micronation. Therefore I find that they may have a page on wikipedia amongst all the others like molossia, Westarctica, ... I have nothing the do with the last person that create a page about Flandrensis.
Find independent, reliable sources that assert the notability of that micronation and we'll see what we can do. Syrthiss (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A micronation is a nation that don't really exist! But I will do my best and search other sources that can convinced you. If you delete the article about of Flandrensis because independent, reliable sources you can delete all micronations here on wikipedia?--Lyam Desmet (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ignition Consulting Group. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignition Consulting Group. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a query regarding your deletion of this page. While I support the deletion under PROD (WP:MADEUP) I didn't find it fell under WP:NONSENSE; it was neither meaningless or incomprehensible. I'm not going to question the deletion (lord knows it needed to go) but I find the initial tagging and deletion somewhat problematic in that I don't feel the article met the WP:NONSENSE criteria. Could you expand on how you feel this article fits within WP:NONSENSE? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
What would your threshold of nonsense be? A definition, however well argued, without sources isn't really different than someone repeating 'p00p' 50 times on a page. It was either nonsense, a test page, or vandalism...and calling it nonsense or a test is the most AGF conclusion I can make. She/he may have intended to make it as their userpage, where it probably could have existed, but as you agree it wasn't fit for mainspace (tho perhaps on Wiktionary it would have, for all I know).
We shouldn't ever feel bound to process for the sake of process. If the author complained, or wanted me to restore it to their userspace so they could source it out, I'd be amenable. Syrthiss (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense is either a collection of gibberish or something that isn't gibberish, but isn't understandable, according to the policy anyway. I think this was (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm wandering off down the garden path with this one) an IAR deletion to AGF and avoid slamming the user with a tag for vandalism or something. Ironholds (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean it certainly was prettier than p00p repeated 50 times on a page. :) I did give her a test1, but thats about the level I'd give to someone adding trivial unsourced info to an article. Syrthiss (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thats fine, I just wanted to query whether you felt it met the criteria set out in WP:NONSENSE or you were trying to avoid hurt feelings and scaring a most-likely good faith user away? Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello – I will be editing the content for the Taimak page and would like to ensure that the page edits are in accordance with the standards set forth by WikiPedia. I have no interest in fabricating any information; my only responsibilities are to document the information that is available to me. Therefore, please confirm that in order to meet the requirements and remove this page from the deletion list, references need to be provided in the career timeline section of the page. Once I receive confirmation, I will provide the sources. Thanks! TheTaimakEditor (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, technically the page will be 'removed from the deletion' list most likely (without any action from me). Several other editors in that discussion think it should be kept, and I agreed that if it could be properly sourced then I have no problem keeping it either...which was my position all along. In all things, references need to be provided...not just when an article is threatened with possible deletion. Thanks very much! Syrthiss (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
update: it appears that Versageek (talk·contribs) updated the blacklist just before I created that report, but after you had reverted the most recent spamming. A quick test on my userspace sandbox indicates that the blacklist is working now to prevent those referral links ... so, I don't think the semi-protection is required any longer on the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The second time I had created the page, I had taken care to rephrase the text. Are you sure that it was an "unambiguous copyright infringement" as you have said ?. As an admin, would it be possible for you to temporarily bring back the page and compare the two articles for copyright infringement ?. I'm confident that the majority of the text was rephrased and thus, original. --Roaring Siren (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I will not create the "Janos Boros" page again under "Janos BOROS" as you seem to have it before. Being new to Wikipedia, was curious to know if that was the reason, or policy issue. Do let me know when you find time. Thanks, Warm regards Hangakiran (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Its a style issue. In English, we usually will refer to people as 'Firstname Lastname' (or 'Propername Surname'). The capitalization of the last name just looks odd in this context. I figured it was a good faith error. Cheers! Syrthiss (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
When you see adverts on userpages for spamming accounts like User:CSPC you should report to UAA to make sure they don't spam again. Cheers, Triplestopx302:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Because of an editing war that has raged this weekend, please state further your reasons for disputing the evidence offered. Thank you. Otherwise, you will be reported. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, thats not how it works. You need to support why your source is reliable, especially since this involves WP:BLP. It looks self published. Either provide a source that is well regarded (not the pdf of some organizations spring update, lawl), or cease attempting to introduce the material. Syrthiss (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You're disputing the Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge's regular newsletter? (Here's the latest: http://www.cedarrun.org/newsletter/Winter2009.pdf) Can you assert with authority that no such newsletters are cited as sources anywhere on Wikipedia?
I'm asserting that when one thinks of reliable news organizations, Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge is not a name that easily comes to mind. Syrthiss (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
But you don't dispute the organization, correct? Or that it does publish a regular newsletter, correct? Or that it ran a photograph of the individual in question, correct? Identifying her, her parents and...her then husband, correct?
And, again, you assert with authority that such newsletters are never cited as Wikipedia sources?
Are you asserting with authority that the editorial staff at the Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge rigorously checks their facts and don't happen to see someone standing next to someone else in a photograph and assume that the someone is the other someone's husband and publish it? If this material is really incredibly important, some reliable news outlet somewhere will have covered it. I make no such assertions about any other article not using similarly bad sources. If you were using that source as say, proof that WCRWR publishes a newsletter then it might work out. However, since the material you are trying to support is potentially objectionable you absolutely have the burden of supplying the highest quality sources per WP:BLP. Without that sourcing, any editor can remove the information with no restriction on reversion. Syrthiss (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
And are you really asserting with authority that the source is bad enough or shoddy enough to support removal? That a simple, published photo caption accurately identifying an individual is at the same time erroneous and/or unreliable in identifying her pictured parents and her then husband? You are asserting that here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your speaking to Gavin.Collins about his unwarranted call for a block of AlbertHerring. Unfortunately, I do not think it will change Gavin’s views at all. Gavin is very firm in his opinions and interpretations of policies, and does not change them no matter how many people show him he is wrong. Gavin is still firmly convinced his actions were right and the correct interpretation of policy. [1]
Thank you for pointing that out - I've gone and rectified it and will keep an eye out for missing such obvious things in the future. Cheers, Ian¹³/t19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. That should probably be closed. I don't have the widget set up to do afd closes tho, so I'll have to just comment. Syrthiss (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see some misunderstanding probably, I thought, the article will be deleted or kept, according to the decision made by discussion group. So, I was wondering why the article has been removed although there is still some dispute about the topic going on - which might end up with a keeping-decision...--91.43.126.78 (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Looks like a misunderstanding on your part. Even though an article is having a deletion discussion, articles that fit the criteria at WP:CSD can be deleted without further discussion. Seeing the lack of significant google hits, I determined that either the article was a non-notable band or musician (CSD A7) in the best case or a deliberate hoax (CSD G3) in the worst and deleted it. If you wish to recreate it, please provide reliable sources that can assert the notability of the subject or it will likely be deleted again. Cheers! Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I see, I get the Idea. Ok, let's see if I can find something. Is a PhD Thesis or a contribution to a scientific conference a significant source?--91.43.126.78 (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Syrthiss, I just want to run this by you. You left a COI warning at this new user's talk page. I softblocked the account with the new shortublock warning, and left an additional message, as I often do when someone with a promotional username shows signs that they're at least reading some of the rules: "Hi, I know you're getting overwhelmed with messages here :) I had to block this particular username because we don't allow usernames that represent organizations; your account name should just represent you. But please do create another account name and continue your work, it only takes a few minutes. Thanks." Question: when you add a COI or similar warning to a new user, does that mean you've considered a username block and rejected it? If so, then I'll be happy to talk with you first if the username has shown up in the G11 queue or at UAA before I take any action or leave a message. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thats a good read on it. I know the username was outside policy, but they seemed to be writing an article solely within their userspace and the article looked pretty neutral. I think your solution was the best one though: they can create a new account, and continue working on it without an obvious stain on COI. I haven't fully integrated the new username policy changes into my mindset. Thanks for the note! Syrthiss (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married
Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.
The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.
You rejected previous evidence of a published photograph of Quick with her then husband as insufficient proof.
Is the above good enough now to note in Quick’s Wikipedia entry that she was previously married? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I'm skeptical that anything with 'gossip' in the URL is portraying anything close to the truth. However, the [2] entry is intriguing. If she's married there to a computer programmer, and clearly the man she is married to now is the producer guy I don't think its a horrible stretch that he's not a computer programmer. So, essentially we have two sources for the article...and neither of them mentions her current marriage to the producer. You have my apologies, IP single purpose account. You have my blessing to reintroduce the previous marriage information, though you will likely still have to convince others. You might open a section on the talk page and make the step by step explanation (without the gossip column as a reliable source, tho you can use that as a basis for your argument that the current marriage is to the producer). Technically this is still original research according to Wikipedia's standards...since no one reliable source as of yet says that she is now married to the producer. Syrthiss (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't just 1 or 2 tiny fundamental things that were missed (like the notice); the handling of this is/was (potentially) horrible all-around. I trust that my underlying message, both here and there, is received? ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I completely agree. All joking aside, I was serious that BMW should have warned the editor before escalating, even if vulgar terminology was used. I suspect that this particular editor wasn't here for editing, but for fighting, but I cannot know for sure. If any concerned admin is reading this (after visiting the user's page, or ANI) and feels that they should be given a chance they're free to unblock. Syrthiss (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Rebecca Quick (re-revisited)
I believe I took the right Wikipedia steps to source and verify a minor edit, to contact editors previously involved in the dispute, and address this through a talk page. Yet for this trouble the response is: I've semi'd the page again. Please stop the edit warring User:William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk)
it should be noted that the above comment was added by 162.X, not by WMC
I think you jumped the gun on what I said. I said that you had convinced me (ergo, I would not oppose any attempts by you to reintroduce the information to the article) but that you 'likely had to convince others' and suggested that you open a discussion on the talk page outlining step by step the logic that showed the source to be at fault. Thats one of the key principles of wikipedia - finding consensus. You know from previous attempts to introduce the material that people were skeptical, so if you really think that the material is important to the article you really need to do homework to prove it to them.
Essentially, I think you have one good aspect of the puzzle: the article used as the source for her marriage information states that her husband (in 2006, when the article was) is a computer programmer. If you find another quality source that says that her husband now is the producer of her show then the obvious inference is that this is another marriage. As I said, though, this is STILL original research. We only include information that is explicitly found in outside sources. It is possible that the other editors of Rebecca Quick would let it through, but its also possible that they will not. I hope that is helpful to you. Syrthiss (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help.
It's amazing from this experience that anything new at Wikipedia gets created and anything old gets changed. A single "editor" and a peeved administrator can tie one up in knots, no matter how much good rhetoric or logic.
TomCat4680 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
We really need a page for this protocol, so instead of just deleting it, could you please help a little bit, so we can write an article about NMDC protocol that meets the Wikipedia criteriums?
Well, we typically have articles on things...not a listing of routines (which is what the content appears to be). If your protocol is itself notable, you could write the article ON it (Blablah was created in 1998 by SoandSo and XYZ at DARPA. It allows a user to do soandso useful thing, and it used by game developers everywhere (citing a NY Times reference)). However, I have to ask - why do you 'really need a page'? Is it just because you need it documented somewhere? Do you need the publicity? Syrthiss (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello and good morning. I removed your speedy nomination on this page and proposed it for deletion per notability guidelines instead. I removed the advertising language. I did this in the spirit of Wikipedia:WIHSD.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider closing this AFD, since sources have been provided establishing minimum notability? Thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope, as nominator I will not consider performing administrator-like actions on it. I try to never close discussions that I have participated in. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm
Considering that the two disputant masters involved in most of the controversy at Tien Shan Pai are Willy Lin and Huang Chien-Liang, do we want to do anything about Huanglow's username? I wouldn't see (for example) Obamalow as acceptable for a US politics SPA. I'm not going to report it, since I feel a bit emotionally involved. -- Pakaran
Yeah, I could see it being a personal attack but its gray-area enough that I wouldn't feel confident acting on it alone. Oddly, I had an acquaintance who was unconnected to anything martial arts who used the same username in a game we once played. It may just be made up to sound suitable Chinese, with no malice behind it. The editor hasn't posted since the warnings so maybe he's realized the jig is up and left. Syrthiss (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.
All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:
Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.
Anything I can do to have the page kept up? The firm is incorporated and has been working on projects for over a decade. Remati (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the article Bioresource Engineering, and I'm trying to recreate the article. It would be helpful if you explained to me why you deleted the said article so I don't make the same mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexOVRLORD (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I deleted it because it was a cut and paste of the only cited source, the page on bioresource engineering at McGill University. If it can be written with proper sourcing and without copyright violation I think it would be a useful article. Hope that helps. Syrthiss (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You may have noticed, I've a stalker (IPs 166.205.xxx.xxx). I just can't understand the attraction he/she has for me; a strange fetish indeed. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you perhaps feel a chilling effect in collaboration that personal attacks lead to? If you would be willing to apologize for the personal attack I might be able to fit looking at your source into my busy schedule of being lazy. Syrthiss (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This was not "WP:spamming." These were editors who contributed to this article, and I wanted to make sure they were notified. I did not tell them what to say, but merely asked for their comment. I was concerned, especially, because the request for deletion started off with a lie, i.e. that the matter had been "discussed." This was a bad sign, and it deserves a reaction. In any event, I have notified the conceerned parties, and will stop. Thank you for your input. 13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan
I had tagged as db-hoax because it states that he joined a professional rugby club and started playing when he was 12. It implies notability since it says that he played for the team, it's a hoax because there is no way he was playing at 12 and there is no mention of him on google.--Terrillja talk18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, lol, sorry. I missed that. Still not credible for notability since he doesn't support...but I'll go delete it anyhow per your findings. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Syrthiss, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Government processes) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Skomorokh, barbarian 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Skomorokh. Thanks for your work patrolling csd. I am just informing you that while you may disagree with my tagging, I have been an administrator longer than you have been editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for putting that clarification on the top of the article Terrestrial Physics. I had wanted to name it Terrestrial Physics (Sculpture); however, the last time I attempted that with an article that did not have an identical article name it was rejected do to disambiguation issues. Your fix seems to help. At least after the fact. Sorry for the inconvience in your watchlist :) Kindly ♠B.s.n.♥R.N.18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the second time this has happened to me, and I had to struggle a lot the last time. Thanks for the speedy action.... But I still wonder why this keeps happening... Rkr1991(Wanna chat?)13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that part I don't know. If it is always happening at home, my only two explanations are that you have a dynamic (even if its slowly varying) IP or that your computer / another computer at your home gets a virus or trojan horse that opens up the ports for proxying. The fact that your IP is dynamic may be unknown to you (ie you can't change it yourself, but for whatever reason it changes from time to time at your ISP). If it continues to happen beyond this, you may have to request an IP block exemption.
Unsourced info at Jimmy Hoffa and personal attacks
It has been painfully obvious that those two editors HU12 and Tedder, for personal reasons have been removing information that folks like me would want to know about the Jimmy Hoffa case. The information that has been brought to light by Mr. Hansen is intersting. They need to be stopped.--Mushahadeen (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What you see as interesting or not is not relevant to my warning. You will not make personal attacks on other editors. Syrthiss (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. It does look like it is, certainly enough to pass the duck test. However, they're not currently being abusive so I'm willing to put them on the back burner and see what develops. Doesn't look like 3rr yet. Thanks for the note. Syrthiss (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
re the block
Hi, you really have nothing to apologise for. You acted correctly in the initial block and in seeking advice. The basis for making it indefinite was not clearly explained and I could not see it sticking per policy WP:Block - which cannot be used as a punishment. Several of the comments in the initial part of the discussion (about his editing style) were a rather lame attempt at humour and could not, of course, be used to extend the block to indef. It was a nasty, unwarranted and vicious edit summary and if he sticks around he will be noted for it. Leaky Caldron17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Syrthiss, I declined your speedy deletion tagging of Amy Gore and wanted to explain why. It clearly had an assertion of notability (founder of a band), so I checked to see if that assertion panned out. A quick search of Google news pulled up quite a bit of information about this person and the band Gore Gore Girls. I've encouraged the editor who wrote the article to include some of these as sources. This was an inappropriate candidate for speedy deletion. Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
When I placed the speedy tag, the article was as such not making any 'credible assertion of notability'. Therefore, my tagging was appropriate. I'm happy the editor was able to address my concerns, tho I will note that no links to reliable sources asserting the notability per WP:MUSIC have been added (at least ones not associated with the artist). In essence, your comment that it was inappropriate tagging is unfounded. Syrthiss (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
That line is the assertion of notability I was pointing to. A quick look at the WP article on the Gore Gore Girls or a quick search on Google would have lent credibility to the fact. Per the CSD criteria, assertion of notability is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. Yes, sources should be added, but the absence of them in the article at this time is not currently grounds for speedy deletion (although I know there has been discussion about changing this rule for BLPs, just hasn't happened yet). Anyway, thanks for listening. Karanacs (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thats the beauty then of the system. In my opinion, saying that someone founded XYZ without context of XYZ is not an assertion of notability. XYZ could have been Amy Gore's myspace band. I don't think I'm infallible though, so I placed a tag so some other administrator could see if they viewed that as sufficient assertion of notability. You obviously did, and rightfully declined the speedy. Syrthiss (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not that familiar with 23prootie either. I'm kind of on the fence with the ip block exemption, mostly from the image problems on their talk page and the large gap in their editing...but I also figure that if they planned disruption it should be reasonably apparent and the IPBE can be revoked. Syrthiss (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppeteer Label on my USER page
Im a former Sockpuppeteer, and I was blocked for a week, accepted my punishment and feel that the label placed on my user page is obsolete. --Spectre7277 (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. How about some constructive help on the Jimmy Hoffa page, it needs to be updated, if you look back you can see that in December of 2006 we helped each other out. I put alot of work into my investigation and it should be looked into further by neutral partys for addition into the hoffa page. --Spectre7277 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Obsolete is an odd term for something that happened 2.5 weeks ago... Did you consider asking Hu12 if you could remove it? Syrthiss (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I just left a message for HU12, so that I can move forward from this. Your help on the Hoffa page would be greatly appreciated.
--Spectre7277 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Did I miss something when I unblocked Electricopossum? It was my first unblock so I'm still learning the ropes here. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yep. You just didn't check for an autoblock on the account. The unblock template has a link for checking it I believe. Its really easy to overlook (X years in I even forget to do it) so I wouldn't feel bad about missing it. :) Syrthiss (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. However, please read my resp on the ANI page. HS continues to request compliance with WP:NFCC. I have no problem with that. However, when I provide the requested FUR/fix the image summary/explain what I did & why I did it, HS complains. — BQZip01 —talk16:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Syrthiss. You have new messages at BQZip01's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please block this IP address
Hello. Earlier today, you posted a please-stop-vandalism-last-notice message on "my" talk page. This IP address serves school; apparently one of the students here has had quite a fun time vandalizing today.
Anyway, after your "final warning," someone here continued to vandalize other pages. I undid the remaining vandalism, but maybe you'd better block this address for a while until the students lose interest.
Thanks, I saw them when Domer added them on AN. I thought you were referring to his comment in the section on AN. Has there been any further issue with him since Chillum warned him? Syrthiss (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No, until that day I can't recall having any interaction with him, I might be wrong but I don't recall and I intend to stay well out of his way in future. BigDunc19:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for undoing my block of an obvious sockpuppet without waiting for my response. I presume that you will be taking up my monitoring of all the Troubles-related articles for such activity, since I've just taken them all off my watchlist. Black Kite23:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, Black Kite. If you'd like to rephrase that into adult-speak, I'll be happy to address your concerns. If you prefer to have your only interaction with me as "I'M TAKING MY TOYS AND GOING HOME!!!", thats fine too. Syrthiss (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I thought my first sentence was fairly obviously understandable. You undid a block of an obvious sock without consulting me. It's also fairly obvious that you didn't really look at the circumstances. (1) This account was created and its only edit, two minutes later, was to revert an article under 1RR restrictions, when most of the other editors had already reverted that day. (2) Go and have a look at the editing times for the sock - all but one in a 1-hour timeframe between 12:00 and 13:00 Irish time. In other words, an experienced editor using a sock from their workplace during their lunch hour. That's why it passed CU. In other words, far more than was required to block. Oh, and I'm not taking my toys home, I'm retiring because I'm completely fed up - amongst other things - with the ability of the Wikipedia community to keep enabling edit-warrers and trolls in nationalist disputes (in all disputed areas, not just The Troubles), of which this was another example. What on earth is the point of admins trying to keep the peace between sides, arbitrate fairly and keep articles fairly stable when as soon as they perform a simple action, some random admin wanders into the situation without knowing the facts and undoes it without consultation? That's not an attack on you, because you're only the latest in a long line. No wonder most admins won't touch such areas with a long stick. Black Kite14:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Its true, I did unblock without consulting you...but no disrespect was intended. I unblock people all the time from the unblock queue without consulting the original blocker, as well as deny a huge amount of them because I agree with the blocking admin and the user shows no signs of remorse. Thats how I expect other admins will treat my actions, since I am not infallible at the least.
I did investigate it, back when it happened (during the ANI thread, and when their first unblock showed up in the queue). I agree with you that the account is very likely a sock. I might have even blocked it myself as a sock if it happened on an article I was monitoring. However, since that time we have two checkusers on the AN thread saying it isn't a sock of the known editors. It could be as you say, someone at their office during lunch. Considering that I often post from my office, if it was a usual suspect from the editors involved I would think that one of them would have slipped up at some point and posted from their office as themselves.
Based on that, there's sufficient doubt now about the basis for the block length. At the time I might have done exactly what you did, so there's no slight to you that now when the information has been updated the block should be released. The unblocked user there is now under the same 1RR restrictions as every other editor, and if they are indeed a sock of some user it'll come to light eventually.
Seriously, this isn't my first rodeo. I'm reasonably sure I've been an admin longer than you've been editing here, and I don't bumble into situations without knowing my basis. I will agree with you with not touching contentious articles. I've better things to do with my life than worry whether some nationalist faction or other is using wikipedia as their battleground. I know some admins do worry, and take the time to oversee contentious areas, and they have my thanks...but I'm not going to compromise my understanding of wiki policy over whether someone slips one more revert in to an edit war. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.
Your little outburst on the Lord Voldemort article
Most amusing. Yes, for your information, it is bad with all its "properly sourced truthiness and all" to use your oh-so grammatically correct turn of phrase. The article in question used to be interesting but now it's been crippled by policy fanatics. Wikipedia relies far too much on sources, do you honestly think any of the proles look at the links provided? Nobody cares about citations! They look ugly and they get in the way when you're editing an article. Honestly, encyclopedias used to be written by the intelligentsia and read by the public, now they're written by the public and read by no-one. --217.43.187.217 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I saw the unblock request and was tempted to just roll it back and lock his talk as pure vandalism - but decided to keep it on the straight and narrow as the original blocker. Pedro : Chat 15:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You protected the former, but it looks like the latter has been created with similar purposes in the past. You may want them both to have equal protection levels. —ShadowRanger(talk|stalk)18:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm actually laughing out loud. I posted this as a preventative measure having checked the properly capitalized article title and noting the deletions from a couple months ago. It didn't exist at the time though. Now I look at the deletion log and find out that within minutes of my post, it had been created, then nuked by you. Clearly I have psychic powers. Time to head for Atlantic City! —ShadowRanger(talk|stalk)18:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
On a somewhat more serious note, is there any way for non-admins to see the creator of a page that was subsequently speedied? For example, I have no idea if User:Ah64ab was responsible for "Howie"; if he was, I'd be inclined to report him to WP:AIV for being a single purposeself-promoting account, after I'd warned him about it properly (as opposed to the speedy notices that are somewhat less direct in their warnings). In this case of course I can just ask you, and you can take whatever measures are appropriate, but I usually leave speedied pages on my watchlist in order to keep an eye on them if they are recreated; if they are recreated and immediately deleted, I've got nothing to work from. —ShadowRanger(talk|stalk)18:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, since I believe the interface for doing so is essentially our 'page undeletion' interface. FYI - he (ah64ab) created howie 3 times and Howie twice. howie was also created in the past by another account, and Howie was created twice in the past...once by Anthony Howie(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log). My opinion, lets see how he deals with the pages being salted. I'm about to be offline for several days, so if he does create more pages and you notice it feel free to escalate. Syrthiss (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Members listed in the "Unknown" section will be removed from the membership list and category at the end of January 2010. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.
Revision as of 14:04, 5 January 2010 (edit) (undo)
+ The Ford Corvette Z95 ochocinco has 23 downpipe horsepower plus 70 cylinders of shit. The car is fast as shit and has the option of driving maually or you can drive it with your dick. The leather seats have the capablity of opening up so if you gotta take a shit you can just shit throught the seat and onto the road. The tires have super super duper awesome tires that are made of rubber and held together by semen. The semen gives the tires a better grip on the road in conditions where the wheter is a piece of shit. The lights for both headlights and tailights are made of super 5433dr5edkfh lights that can see through fog and anything its like X-ray fuckin vision so you can see people through there clothes and naked boobs and balls and shit. The ford corvette costs 10101010 dollars in chinese money. If you are interested in buying one contact Tyler Brady at 860-867-5309
(1) We cannot block IPs indefinitely unless they are open proxies, tho we can give very long blocks to school-related IPs that show repeated vandalism (and that is usually only after working our way up the short blocks). That is what the blocking policy allows. (2) You yourself can be a link in the chain to blocking vandals by leaving warnings on their talk page when they vandalize. I note that you did not do this in this case, so I warned the IP for you.
I'll admit I have very little patience for vandals, but action 9 hours after your message (due to me not being active on wiki at night) is not going to be productive IMO. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes to the millwood high school site that you changed, and i changed back. Don't changed it back i currently attend this school and know whats what.
Have a very nice day. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearlass (talk • contribs)
In November of 2009, you had a discussion with BQZip01 regarding him stalking my edits. See discussion. BQZip01 is once again stalking my edits. Observe:
7 January 2010 I ask BQZip01 to stay off of my talk page. No other interactions with him since then.
14-15 January 2010 A debate occurs between myself and User:Kudpung on my talk page regarding the use and licensing of Worcestershire Coat of Arms, a file BQZip01 has never edited nor has any reason to have an interest in.
15 Janaury 2010 BQZip01 reverts my removals of the arms from a number of user talk pages (examples: 1,2,3, 12 total). (links may be bad if current version changes, but you can see the history of those talk pages)
15 January 2010 I note BQZip01's continued stalking on his talk page. In hindsight, this probably did nothing productive and I've removed it, but he'll see the history anyways.
I'm sure I'll be accused of stalking here too (however, scroll up; I posted here first)...Hammersoft, stalking is a legal term. If you are going to accuse me of something, I suggest you use wikihounding instead. WP:TALK says you should try and use the talk pages first. I suggest that as the best course of action in the future instead of running to admins/filing RfCs as a primary course of action. I welcome all inputs at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_January_15#File:WorcsCoatArms.jpg. I think that you will find the reasons stated on that page to be quite compelling.
Perhaps HS should WP:AGF? Perhaps you should consider whether I was contacted via e-mail by another user regarding the image in question. My only issue with this image is that the image was improperly tagged in the first place. I fixed it, which is what Wikipedia wants: images properly tagged and used IAW our guidelines, policy, and U.S. law. Hammersoft seems to be opposed to any/all instances in which I am involved on Wikipedia, even if he is wrong. Hammersoft, you don't need to oppose something just because I am involved. — BQZip01 —talk20:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Right. You just randomly showed up. Sorry, but after so many cases where it is blatantly obvious you have followed my edits, and been warned about it, the opportunity for WP:AGF is gone. You have zero interest in UK coats of arms. There's no reason for you to have gone to that image, or for anyone to even contact you regarding that image, other than seeing it discussed on my talk page. I don't have a problem with you fixing things as you find them. I do the same. I do have a problem when you continue to follow my edits. You've been warned before that ArbCom takes a dim view of this behavior. I suggest you heed the warnings. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I never said I "randomly" showed up. WP:AGF is a mandate, not something you earn. I've edited/worked with several other coats of arms issues. People are contacting me left and right about your behavior. As for the rest, if you think you have a case, I'd like to see you try and present it to ArbCom, I'll be happy to produce scores of e-mails to prove you wrong. Your call. — BQZip01 —talk03:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Syrthiss, BQZip01 continues to stalk my edits. He has now shown up at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DASHBot_5, something he had never edited before, after I placed a comment there. In fact, BQZip01 has never before commented on ANY bot request. I do not deserve to be followed around like this. It is harassment, and it must stop. He follows me there and accuses me of using a bot. A bot I didn't write, develop, or have any contact with until I made my comment. This must stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Geez, dude. They are all related to the same image. YOU said you used a bot, [6], not me, but the edit history only shows YOUR edits (then you drag my actions through it, disparaging those actions...let's not pretend these actions aren't related when they clearly are). I asked for clarification on whether you used it or the bot claimed your edits. Also I have commented on bots in the past. — BQZip01 —talk08:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You don't have the right to WP:OWN everything you touch either. If such an image with a problem can be fixed, why are you opposed to it? If your response is "Anyone else can fix it, but not him!", I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to exclude me from pages simply because you don't like me. — BQZip01 —talk18:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen:
As it is ~2 weeks or so after these comments I don't know if this is still an issue. I do see a couple positive comments on BQZip's talk page towards Hammersoft. If this is still an issue that hasn't been resolved in the meantime, let me know. I'm afraid that I was switching to a new computer at work and haven't quite had the spare processor cycles to attend to wikipedia. Syrthiss (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
HS seems to have dropped the issue (and I've always complimented HS on his appropriate actions), so I don't see anything left to address here. Thanks for your time on the matter. — BQZip01 —talk03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
If I've done something wrong, let me (and others in this case) know. HS, I went so far as to provide you links to my last 500 contributions so you wouldn't have to search far. If I've done something wrong and I'm unaware of it, then I need to know so I don't repeat it. If I haven't done anything wrong, then I don't appreciate my reputation being unnecessarily smudged with unfounded accusations. Syrthiss, what's your take on the situation. An unbiased 3rd opinion is always welcome! :-) — BQZip01 —talk07:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
My offhand assessment is that it looks like a bit over a month since the last time you two interacted on User talk:Hammersoft. I'd be hard pressed at this point to say that BQZip is stalking your edits Hammersoft. Considering that you both work on image permissions, I'd statistically expect more interactions in that amount of time (in comparision, without any stalking of their contributions I run into other admins doing CSD and unblock requests quite a bit on any given day). If there's something that I missed, feel free to highlight it. Syrthiss (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
BQZip01 knows full well what he is doing. I have three documented cases in February alone where he followed my edits and/or talk page. These are not just circumstantial, accidental interactions. I have no problems with those. It's going to happen, and I know it's going to happen. It's when I repeatedly, consistently find evidence of him working in areas where I have worked that he has never done any work in before, with no apparent connection to him except by way of my edits or my talk page. The most recent one is February 26, where he showed up at an AfD. Doesn't sound unusual you say? Consider; I get a posting on my talk page informing me of this AfD. 51 minutes later, BQZip01 shows up at the AfD [8]. Yet, it had been more than three months since BQZip01 had touched an AfD (the last was 3 November 2009), he has never edited the Pittsburgh Steelers or Baltimore Ravens article, or the rivalry article in question. This following of my edits isn't every day. But, it is ongoing. BQZip01 has been cautioned about it before, pleads innocence, continues to do it, and continues to plead innocence. BQZip01 will of course deny this, and frankly I don't care. I am beyond assuming good faith at this point. I have no intention of interacting with BQZip01 on anything, much less this issue. However, I am keeping track of when I find him following my edits and/or talk page and if it continues will eventually bring this to dispute resolution in some form. I don't have to put up with a bloodhound following me around. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I uploaded File:Baltimore_Ravens_Alternate_Logo.gif and File:Eagles alternate logo.gif back in early July 2009. I offered it to several people looking for a free version of the Ravens' and Eagles' logos. In conjunction with this, I also watchlisted several pages in which the logos could be used (to include the one in question): since "rivalries" were one of the points of contention between myself and HS, I was considering how any adjustment to the wording of WP:Logo would affect those. I wanted to see how those pages would be used for professional teams. I watchlisted them and then kinda didn't do anything with them. Then I saw the deletion notice when it popped up in my watchlist a "mere" 8 hours prior to HS's notice on his talk page. If you will look at my contributions around that time (link to my last 500 above), you'll notice I didn't have any contributions in the previous 23 hours and was therefore my first opportunity to comment.
Second, and most importantly, why should anyone care if I saw a notice on HS's talk page or on the article page...or for that matter any other user's talk page or in their contributions. The goal of such discussions is to solicit feedback from those interested in the topic and to get a wide/appropriate feedback from the Wikipedia community. I've found many such discussions while browsing through user talk pages or article talk pages.
As I've stated before, HS does not have a monopoly on everything he touches. In the vast majority of his edits, HS is clear, concise, and explicit in the problems he sees and correctly removes images that do not meet our WP:NFCC. As you noted, I complimented him on going above and beyond and trying to fix images that aren't in compliance rather than nominating them for deletion (Let's face it: our uploading process for images SUCKS as it includes a severely limited set of options to tag images, many of which are not accurate to the given image. It is a given that there are going to be problems, especially with new users).
If HS removes an image stating it fails WP:NFCC#X, why should it be a problem for anyone to fix such a problem? Honestly, the best way to fix such problems is to find a list of problems to correct and HS's edit history is a goldmine.
No editor has a right to keep all of his/her edits secret or exclusive. Our edit histories (including my own) are open to the public.
No one owns a page on Wikipedia. No one is authorized to control their own edits exclusively (well, maybe Jimbo...).
Even if I were following his edits ad nauseum to fix such problems, I've done nothing improper. In fact:
"Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles [such as those mentioned above for a single image]...The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. From WP:HOUND, emphasis mine
As I think is clear, I'm not going around for "no overriding reason", I am fixing problems HS identifies and even asks the WP community to fix because he is unable/unwilling. I'm sorry he doesn't like it, but I've done nothing wrong. This is a quick response to the aforementioned discussion, if more information is needed, I'll be happy to produce it. — BQZip01 —talk22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
As expected, BQZip01 once again denies it. I don't care. I have the evidence, and it continues. I have asked him on four separate occasions to stop this behavior, but he has refused. He has repeatedly, and again above, claimed he is within his rights to do so. Yet, if he's not following my edits, then why is he complimenting me on edits he followed of mine? Logical failing. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll say this one last time. I cannot possibly counter such "logic". I say I didn't do anything wrong and HS uses that as "evidence" I've done something wrong. My options, apparently, are
Admit I'm a horrible person and I'm sooooo wrong=I'm "guilty"
Deny a problem actually exists and explain ad nauseum why=I'm "guilty"
I have explained my actions and shown they are not only acceptable, but appropriate. I don't need my name dragged through the mud. If HS persists, I see little option, but to pursue it at WP:ANI or another forum.
HS, please edit your comments as to the nature of your objection. Stalking is a criminal offense. Even if someone on Wikipedia finds me at fault, I am not guilty of any felony. Your accusations are slanderous and should be altered. I will take further responses with no correction as a sign you do not intend to change this unfounded criminal accusation. I will take a correction as a simple mistake in terminology and pass no further judgment on the issue.
Legal threat ignored, as I am not a criminal. Here's an option you haven't taken; stop following my edits and my talk page. It's that simple. This problem vanishes if you do. It's not hard. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No one said you were a criminal, but you are accusing me of a criminal act: "stalking" which in some cases is a felony)
Ignoring others tends to also be quite hostile and certainly doesn't lead toward collaboration
I'm not going to simply stop contributing to Wikipedia because you don't like me. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those to whom you personally approve. Again, this all seems quite hostile.
(outdent) Unfortunately this is a subject with all sorts of grey areas. I believe that the arbitration committee has made statements before that obsessively following another editors' edits can be considered disruptive editing. I don't have the cases handy, but could look it up if either of you think that my memory is at fault. However, if I recall correctly the censured behavior goes well beyond the infrequent interactions that you two seem to have. Those were cases where almost every single edit of the stalked editor was commented on or typo corrected or reverted (which BQZip is certainly not doing). When called on it, the stalking editor pointed out that most of his edits were benefitting the encyclopedia. The result is that we then have to weigh the benefits to the encyclopedia vs the well being of the stalked editor, and since in many cases typos and such will eventually be fixed by some editor there is no all consuming need to have them fixed then and there by the stalking editor the resolution is quite clear.
I am really not fit to judge on this. My observation is that it looks like BQZip is for the most part staying away from you Hammersoft, and they do have an explanation for how they do come across your edits. As I say above, certainly BQZip's edits are well well below what I would consider a clear cut stalking case. That being said, as I have advised you before Hammersoft: if you continue to feel threatened, I think that starting a Request for Comment would be your next step. Similarly, if you BQZip feel that Hammersoft is unfairly maligning you and has essentially removed all paths of resolving this a RFC would also be the path forward. These matters are certainly outside the realm of simple admin action.
Syrthiss, I appreciate the effort. BQZip01, as I've said before, this problem vanishes instantaneously the moment you stop following my edits and talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
What you fail to realize Hammersoft is that your actions are the problem. I've pointed out problems with some of your actions. I've complimented you on others. I certainly find no problems whatsoever with the vast majority of your edits. I've asked for your input on talk pages. However, you choose to ignore the compliments and any discussion. You choose to twist things into something they are not. Even if I were following your talk pages and/or edit history in the manner you suggest, guess what: it's permissible in Wikipedia. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it wrong. — BQZip01 —talk03:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
For Syrthiss only
Syrthiss, for comparison, here's what I'd have to say about HS's edits over the past 2 days, if I were to comment on them (HS, please understand, this is for the sake of comparison/example, not to be critical of you personally):
22:04, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) Battle of Connor (Undid revision 344909275 by Huckamike (talk),no citations for data) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism] Appropriate
22:03, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) Battle of Old Byland (Undid revision 344909753 by Huckamike (talk); no citations for the data) (top) Appropriate
20:51, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC (→Comments) Appropriate, your opinion on the matter
20:23, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC (→Comments: On second thought, the insults stand on their own without need of highlighting.) An assessment of an opponent which seems to be quite over the top; "foolish" was a description of his actions; he would have been right (not to mention cordial/helpful) to just strike it out, not remove it (see WP:TALK
20:21, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Drseaman (top) Appropriate
20:19, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Creed Bratton (character) (Fair use images not permitted in talk space, per WP:NFCC #9) (top) Appropriate
20:18, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Andywangyunfeng (Fair use images not permitted in userspace, per WP:NFCC #9) (top) Appropriate
20:15, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) List of extinct animals of Australia (No rationale for image and violates WP:NFLISTS anyway) (top) Appropriate
20:14, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) Portal:Extinction/Selected article (Fair use images not permitted in portals, per WP:NFCC #9) (top) Appropriate
20:13, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) Template:Infobox software license/doc (Fair use images not permitted on templates, per WP:NFCC #9) (top) Appropriate
20:12, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) Template:Infobox software license/doc (Fair use images not permitted on templates, per WP:NFCC #9) Appropriate
14:31, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Darth Stabro (→File:KolbeTrinity.svg) (top) Couldn't you just spend 30 seconds and fix the license?
14:30, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) File:KolbeTrinity.svg (False license. There is artwork here) (top) Couldn't you just spend 30 seconds and fix the license?
14:04, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) User:Crystal Clear x3/Userbox 4 (Non-free content not permitted on userpages, per WP:NFCC #9) Appropriate
14:01, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Syrthiss (→BQZip01 stalking again) redundant to make a comment
13:58, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Huckamike (→Non-free files) (top) The guy doesn't "get it". Ask for a block.
13:58, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Huckamike (→Non-free files) see above
13:52, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) User:Huckamike (Fair use images not permitted in userspace, per WP:NFCC #9) (top) see above
13:49, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Darth Stabro (→File:KolbeTrinity.svg)Couldn't you just spend 30 seconds and fix the license?
13:48, 4 March 2010 (hist | diff) File:KolbeTrinity.svg Couldn't you just spend 30 seconds and fix the license?
22:05, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) File:GoDaddy.svg Apppropriate
21:53, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) Minnesota Twins (Undid revision 344890173 by Darth Stabro (talk)) (top) Appropriate
21:49, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Darth Stabro (→KolbeTrinity.svg) see above
21:49, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Darth Stabro (→KolbeTrinity.svg: new section) see above
21:47, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) File:KolbeTrinity.svg see above
21:43, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Darth Stabro (→Fair use images on templates: new section) see above
20:54, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User:Gragox/table (Fair use images not permitted in userspace, per WP:NFCC #9) (top) Appropriate
20:51, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User:Nizamnazar (Fair use images not permitted in userspace, per WP:NFCC #9) (top) Appropriate
20:50, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User:IceMarioman/Links (Fair use images not permitted in userspace, per WP:NFCC #9) Appropriate
20:49, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User:Oren neu dag/my favourite flags (Fair use images not permitted in userspace, per WP:NFCC #9) (top) Appropriate
20:48, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) Portal:Christina Aguilera/Selected album/1 (Fair use images not permitted in portals, per WP:NFCC #9)Appropriate
20:47, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) Template:User DeVrybox (Fair use files not permitted on templates, per WP:NFCC #9)Appropriate
20:43, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Huckamike (→Non-free files) Appropriate
20:39, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User:Huckamike (Fair use images not permitted in userspace, per WP:NFCC #9) Appropriate
17:30, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC (→Analyzing the results) Appropriate
15:27, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:Lvivske (→WP:NFCC #10c and Russian Major League) (top) Appropriate
15:25, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) Russian Major League (This image use does not comply with WP:NFCC #10c and MUST be removed until it does. Thank you.) (top) Appropriate
15:12, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Appropriate
14:21, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 18 (→File:Rahul Sankrityayan books.jpg) Appropriate
14:03, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC (→Time to close the poll?) Appropriate
00:10, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:The Sharminator (Fair use images not permitted in userspace, per WP:NFCC #9) (top) Appropriate
As you can see, the vast majority are approrpiate, useful, and overall helpful edits. The question is, what can anyone do about the few "problem edits"? Trying to fix images will lead to "STALKING!" charges (BTW, the appropriate term on Wikipedia is WP:WIKIHOUND as "stalking" is a criminal offense). The problems remain and valid/useful images might get deleted. I contend it is because HS is more interested in pushing his own view of how Wikipedia should be run (just look at his user page) rather than building an effective, collaborative encyclopedia. We do allow fair use images, despite HS's problems with them. HS cannot make changes and then contend that no one can look at them. — BQZip01 —talk03:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, behavior from editors that goes beyond simple good / bad adjudication really needs steps to be taken down the road of dispute resolution (RFCUs and if needs be, ARBCOM). Just like the above, there is no tool I have as an admin really that could address the situation (tho some admins might try anyhow). Hammersoft is making good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, just as you are making good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, just as I am making good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. If he is viewing a guideline too strictly, and you are trusting in your following of his edits to catch slip ups that are in your opinion harming the encyclopedia then you have an obligation to act. To take it to an extreme example: if tomorrow you became fed up with Wikipedia and left, what would be the outcome of Hammersoft's activities without you to keep him in check?
As for the semantics of 'stalking' vs 'wikihounding', I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree. Would you prefer I use 'wikistalking'? I am not a lawyer, so I am perhaps missing a nuance here but if I were to accuse someone on-wiki of stalking I am most likely only referring to on-wiki behavior. The difference on-wiki between stalking and wikihounding is that stalking is much more passive (following edits, thinking to yourself 'OMG WHAT IS HE DOING'), whereas wikihounding has a significant active component (showing up on pages that he has edited but that you have no interest in to make a small grammar correction, seeing every mistake and calling them out on their talk page or on ANI). Syrthiss (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're missing a nuance (an honest mistake, in my opinion). All I ask is that you comply with the policy WP:HARASSMENT, which states: "To use the older term "Wikistalking" for this action is discouraged because it can confuse minor online annoyance with a real world crime [stalking]." I've tried to point this out to HS on numerous occasions, but he apparently refuses to comply with this policy.
The issue I take with HS is for a small, but disruptive, type of edit that HS makes. While he is 100% correct regarding policy, the manner in which the policy is applied bites the newbies and even veterans. Instead of spending a little bit of time fixing a problem (and perhaps noting what the problem was in the edit summary), he spends a lot of time being vague, avoiding appropriate edit summaries to decipher the meaning of his edits, and asking users to wade through wikirules and regulations.
As an example: (BTW, THIS is me following his edits...it's hard to say he's doing something wrong without citing concrete evidence)
[9] HS removes a tag and tags the image for deletion. This is absolutely accurate, but he leaves NO clue as to how the image should be fixed in the edit summary or on the page short of several links to rules & regulations (nothing specific, thereby leaving the user to wade through pages of text with only the slimmest of hope to find what HS wants).
[10] 3 minutes later, the uploader reverts the unexplained changes and HS re-reverts adding another tag for deletion. Again, no edit summary and more pages of rules to look through.
The uploader makes attempts to fix the problem, but [11]again HS re-adds the same tag with no explanation.
[12] He again makes another reversion deleting this user's attempt to add an appropriate rational (in this case it isn't appropriate, but it was an attempt to comply with policy), but this time adds an edit summary.
It is worth noting that HS used the uploader's user talk page, however, he again went with the "somewhat vague" persuasion citing two additional guidelines (more pages of text) to read through.
It would have been a better, simpler, and easier use of his time to simply place a fair use rationale on the page and explain the change in the edit summary. It certainly would have been easier on the impressionable adolescent uploader.
He then goes through the adolescent user's contributions and flags more of them for deletion: [13][14]
User:Salavat then attempts to fix all these flags. Instead of discussing them on the talk page (like WP:TALK directs us to do, HS simply reverts them with little/no explanation).
So, we now have HS going through an editor's edit history to critique them (he apparently doesn't have a problem doing it himself, just those he perceives as his "enemy") and we have another editor following HS's edit history to make corrections HS requested (the exact thing I've been doing...but he doesn't seem to have a problem with it here).
It is when he intentionally refuses to help others and is more interested in deleting the hard work of others than improving the encyclopedia that he is becomes a disruptive force within Wikipedia. He is more interested in making sure people follow the letter of the law policy/guideline that he misses the spirit of the law.
I am not asking you to take any action here and I appreciate your advice (though I assume you meant WP:RFC/User rather than WP:RFCU). My entire purpose here is to explain my actions and my perspective as HS attempts to vilify my appropriate actions across numerous WP talk pages apparently fishing for a sympathetic ear (but finding none). I concur that an RFC is the best option. I see the following problems to address in an RfC:
He has "no intention of changing this behavior" either.
"[A] dizzying array of policies and guidelines...is immaterial..."
Contrary to what HS states below, I am not
"...radically opposed to [his] presence here..."
"...radically opposed to [his] views on non-free content..."
I only wish to curtail disruptive edits. As I have stated and noted before, most of his actions are appropriate. But the few problematic edits are a continuing disruption. — BQZip01 —talk03:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
HS's response
BQZip01, I have never and would never state that nobody can look at my edits. I have and continue to reference your actions only. There are more than 12,000 editors on this language Wikipedia who make more than 100 edits per month [15]. To think that I alone could create such massive damage to the project as you imply is absurd. I'm just one person. To think that you alone are the only editor here who can adequately defend the project against the great threat that I supposedly pose is equally absurd. EVERY single image I have ever tagged has a source not associated with Wikipedia. If an image does get deleted, and there's a valid reason under our NFCC policy for it to be here, it will eventually be uploaded again. You have repeatedly maintained that I am some scourge of the project that must be reigned in at all costs. If you have an actual beef with me, then start an RfC on my behavior. Failing the community stating what I am doing to be wrong, I don't have any intentions of changing my behavior, certainly not because you happen to think I'm in the wrong.
As to your following of my edits, it is precisely the scrutiny like the above from you that I am sick to death of having to live under here. I know you are following my edits, both from evidence I have produced and from your own admissions. Knowing that you are so radically opposed to my presence here, so radically opposed to my views on non-free content (which by the way, you have mis-characterized once again) isn't a problem for me. It's that stance combined with the constant, unending presence of your scrutiny over my edits that makes it a problem.
It would be wise for you to read Meta:Eventualism. There is serious power behind eventualism. You, me; we are NOTHING to Wikipedia. My edits per month account for less than .02% of the 4 MILLION edits per month on this project. Yours are probably more or less the same. If anyone here believes they are the only person that can stop X from happening on the project, they are thinking themselves a young sapling before an onrushing massive avalanche.
Our interest areas have some overlap in the use of logos. I know we are occasionally going to happen across each other. In such cases, I have tried not directly responding to you. I stopped contributing in any areas of your interest a long time ago, and have been actively making sure I do not touch things you touch. If we were in some bar somewhere sharing a beer, I'm sure we could find some common ground to get along well enough to share those beers for an hour or two. But here on Wikipedia, for whatever reason, we've proven ourselves incapable of working with each other in any effective manner. Whether you believe that's all my fault or not is frankly immaterial. It is what it is. To that end, I've been desperately trying to avoid you knowing the hostility that descends from every interaction we have. I have asked you on at least four separate occasions to please stop following my edits and talk page. You have refused every time. The only thing you've stopped doing is posting on my talk page. Yet months down the road, through all those requests, the results are the same; angry, heated hostility between the two of us. You are a college graduate and an officer in the military. I am sure you have the mental fortitude to rationally conclude this isn't productive. Whether you can quote a dizzying array of policies and guidelines at me or not is immaterial in face of this. I'm sure you can see that. Whether you think you have the right to follow my edits or not, whether you have the right to question my actions or not, the outcome of these actions on your part is degrading my experience here and degrading yours for all the effort we keep engaging in with respect to each other and all the anger and hostility that is generated.
I have tried hard to avoid you in every respect as much as I reasonably can. All I'm asking is for you to do the same in regards to me. Wikipedia will not be destroyed by my presence here, nor by your presence here. My opinions of your work here are not particularly savory either, yet I've found it within myself to avoid you as much as possible, even knowing that some of the work you are doing is directly damaging the project in my opinion. I still maintain the hope that you will look to the power of eventualism, that you will see your infinitesimally small role here as I see mine, and believe that somewhere within the 99.96% of other editing that goes on here you can find work to focus on other than me and my edits. I am begging and pleading with you to stop following me. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"BQZip01, I have never and would never state that nobody can look at my edits."
Of course. You only take issue with me doing anything about it (other people are apparently fine)
"To think that I alone could create such massive damage to the project as you imply is absurd. I'm just one person. To think that you alone are the only editor here who can adequately defend the project against the great threat that I supposedly pose is equally absurd."
I never said you personally create massive damage, rather that you are being disruptive by actively refusing to help people in any meaningful way or by fixing images rather than tagging them. You are a veteran and you know the "rules & regs" of Wikipedia; MANY others don't.
"If an image does get deleted, and there's a valid reason under our NFCC policy for it to be here, it will eventually be uploaded again."
Which is why I have such a problem with your actions. If there's a valid reason, it should be fixed and kept. Instead of fixing simple things, you are tagging them for deletion (sometimes multiple times with no indication as to why in your edit summary) and spending even more time lecturing on user talk pages. If the images get deleted, then you cause other Wikipedians to undergo even more effort to reupload them. In short, fixing the images rather than tagging them for deletion (where applicable) would save the time of yourself and others. The fact that you refuse to do so leads me to believe you are intentionally wasting the time of others. I agree that the images you tag are incorrectly justified in some manner, but on those that can be fixed, just fix them instead of wasting everyone's time.
"As to your following of my edits, it is precisely the scrutiny like the above from you that I am sick to death of having to live under here."
This is some serious insight into your psyche. I couldn't disagree with it more. Our actions have real-time consequences. In the grand scheme of things you can justify any behavior by stating "well, it eventually be fixed". I contend it is more important to fix things as best we can now (instead of demanding others acquiesce to complicated procedures (of which you are an expert and they are not) with minimal help from you) instead of pushing it off into infinity. You are correct in stating it could possibly be fixed someday in the future...but why put it off to some point in the future when you can fix it now.
"I stopped contributing in any areas of your interest a long time ago, and have been actively making sure I do not touch things you touch."
The fact you started this thread and continued it after two weeks alone runs contrary to your claim.
"If we were in some bar somewhere sharing a beer, I'm sure we could find some common ground to get along well enough to share those beers for an hour or two."
I'm not a beer drinker, but I'm sure we could find something to drink and find some common ground.
"But here on Wikipedia, for whatever reason, we've proven ourselves incapable of working with each other in any effective manner."
I disagree. I think we've proven extremely effective in many ways, but I think you are taking my actions far too personally. You don't need to take it personally.
"Whether you can quote a dizzying array of policies and guidelines at me or not is immaterial in face of this."
No. It is exactly the point. Our policies and guidelines govern what is and isn't proper behavior on Wikipedia. I've shown unequivocally that my actions (and even those that you imagine) are within the bounds of appropriate Wikipedia behavior. I'm sorry you don't like it; perhaps you should see about changing our policies and guidelines. I have no anger towards you, I simply seek to stop actions that are not helping Wikipedia. — BQZip01 —talk05:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Scattering your comments through mine makes it very difficult to read yours. Ignored. I've begged and pleaded with you to stop your behavior in hounding my edits. I give up. I will not warn you again. Syrthiss, thanks for your time and efforts, even if they were for naught. I've unwatched this page. Goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't scatter anything. Your comments were left intact. I responded point by point. The fact that you ignore any inputs that run contrary to your assertions/ideas/etc is making WP a more hostile place. Please dial it back and listen to others. — BQZip01 —talk23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
comartiscasa and comartis
Hi,
why the comartis article should be deleted? Can you please explaine why and reason
Hi, i created a page for my film something evil, something dangerous now that it is beginning to sell and make money, I am unsure why it is listed for deletion. Can you explain?? Thanks RichardAlbiston1989 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardAlbiston1989 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you look at the guidelines at WP:NOTFILM regarding notability for films? In particular, notable films are released to theaters, or have critical reviews published in major reliable sources, or are notable in some fashion such as advancing the art of filmmaking in a significant degree. You haven't addressed those points, in my opinion, which is why I nominated the film for deletion. I hope that helps, and wish you success with your filmmaking. Syrthiss (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I was tagging Bob the great and when it came back up it was something about a missing revision. Never had that happen to me before! Just letting you know it wasn't intentional... XXXantiusereh?17:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and given this user a block exemption, so no need to follow up there. Just as a reminder, though, please remember to consult a checkuser about blocks marked with the {{checkuserblock}} template - especially with the large rangeblocks like this, some sockpuppeteers are a bit sneaky with how they do things and have managed to get themselves IPBE's because their accounts weren't checked. If you had done this, then please forgive me for lecturing. Thanks! Hersfold(t/a/c)20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh, not a problem. It really shouldn't have made it as far as prod / afd in my opinion, it was pretty clearly out in A7 land. Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Prior to JBW's more recent edits, the article made it look as if the subject had a show on a nationwide radio station (I admit to not even knowing if there is such a thing in America). If this was indeed true, I would see it as a clear indication of significance. I therefore decided to remove the speedy. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
...and just like last time you tried this, I fully expect that most of those will return to vandalism and will need to be reblocked. I believe that the text that you are suggesting exists on that linked page does not actually exist. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
for sticking up for me on my talk page. I truly didn't realise that it was a member of Wikimedia staff making those edits, nothing I could see to tie the accounts together :) --5 albert square (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
They're strange looking aren't they? When I looked at it properly a minute ago, all the accounts looked like they were previously accounts of banned users but have been taken over by Wikimedia! --5 albert square (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, thats always possible I guess. The couple that I looked at had normal creation logs though (I didn't look at block logs or anything). I had been trying to verify if Nimish was logged in and had created them in a bunch, but when I didn't find anything on the couple I looked at I stopped looking. Syrthiss (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're talking about the Usability X accounts, I believe you are mistaken. I don't see anything in their logs to imply that they existed earlier than this month. Syrthiss (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I was the editor who tagged it for speedy deletion (twice, IIRC). While I fully believe he is not presently notable, an indefinite salting seems excessive, as he is an artist that could become notable per WP:MUSIC at some point in the future. Would you mind dropping the protection from indefinite down to something like six months, or a year at the outside, just in case? Thanks for your help (both initially and now). —ShadowRanger(talk|stalk)23:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
My feeling at the moment is indefinite doesn't mean infinite. Rather than let the article potentially be recreated again as an unreferenced BLP and be missed (8 months down the line, 1.742243 years down the line), leaving it indef will force some action on the part of whoever wants to create it...be it making an article in the Article Wizard, or coming to me or another admin and asking to lift the protection. Both of those paths would allow us to make sure the references are there, and if that were to happen tomorrow even I'd have no problem with me or another admin lifting the protection. We have enough troubles with unreferenced BLPs here in general, and while I wouldn't go out looking for redlinks to preemptively protect, in cases where there is already evidence of abuse I'm inclined to take a maximum-caution approach. Does that help? Syrthiss (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Your move of MALAVLI
Hi Syrthiss. Thanks for moving the page at MALAVLI to Malavli. I recently had to recreate the uppercase page because you moved it without a redirect. Moving an unpatrolled page without a redirect causes a bug that causes it to remain permanently in the unpatrolled queue. I just thought I'd let you know so in the future you could either patrol the page first or move it and then delete the redirect (either way will prevent the bug from occurring). Anyway, thanks for your hard work! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Zed Books, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it.
I think had you shown even minimal diligence in investigating the subject, you would have had to conclude that PROD was inappropriate, because PROD is only to be used "to suggest deletions that no editor would disagree with" (WP:PROD). Please be more careful in the future. —Dominus (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I think you could have left off the last bit. I did a search in Google News, trying to find some media coverage that supported the existence and notability of the publisher. I found nothing (ok, one hit on The Guardian, but it was a story about one of Zed's authors not Zed itself). Until someone actually provides *sources* (not 'oh hai google sez') to support what the article says, I think it could probably be pared down to a stub (or deleted and recreated so we don't have the stain of COI on it). So maybe its *you* who should be more careful in your assumptions as to my good faith and diligence. Cheers! Syrthiss (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for snapping at you. I am not questioning your good faith, or objecting to your attempt to delete the article, only to your use of PROD. PROD is only for "deletions that no editor would disagree with". I am sure User:Endofcertainty would have objected to its deletion, and I assume (AGF) you would come to the same conclusion. So your use of PROD was a mistake, I am sure a well-intentioned one. But I hope you will be more careful in the future. —Dominus (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Depends, I've certainly prod'ed articles in the past where the creator didn't object...though I don't know if that was because they saw my rationale and couldn't find anything to specifically counter it, or if they just left after creating the article. Regardless of the guidelines, I have usually prod'ed as a first step instead of taking articles to AFD because it is (to me at least) a relatively low impact process. If the article creator does come back and objects (or better yet, improves the article) then I can reassess whether I feel strongly enough about it to take it to AFD and possibly waste more people's time than just my own. Thanks for your opinion though, I'll try to consider that for my future uses of prod. Syrthiss (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Then how does Austin Carlile have his own page? He isn't notable in any other way except his participation in OM&M and AA! (a Wikipedia no-no) and what a surprise!, MySpace and Twitter! Correct me if I'm wrong. Qotsa37 (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
In his case, he has been a member of two notable bands. See WP:BAND, last comment: "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article". Therefore I don't think the redirect was appropriate in that case. Nick Barham, OTOH, is not independently notable. I42 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
True, tho again if he can only be sourced to myspace and twitter he might as well not actually exist for our purposes. Neither is reliable. If we remove everything from the article sourced to them, we might as well just have him be a redirect to the band page. Syrthiss (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't reverted you, but I expect someone will do it. It think it would be worth tagging the article for improvement (or sourcing it) rather than re-redirecting if that should happen. I42 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I know you hadn't. I expect it will happen too, and agree to the tagging. These kids today with their post glam nu metal bands. In my day we had poorly sourced articles on Kurt Cobain and we liked it! Syrthiss (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to bring to your attention your edit summary here, declining speedy deletion for the article Luke Wilkins, specifically: "I'm sorry, one of us is an administrator and the other is not." Since declining speedy deletion is not an admin tool (any "editor who is not the creator of a page may do so"), a statement like that risks coming across as though admins were "a special subgroup of the community" with extra privileges to make judgments in areas where anyone can edit. I'm sure that's not what you meant, so I hope you'll just take this as a tone-check. Regards— Glenfarclas (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
No, My edit summary was in response to Dmol's edit summary of 'REVERT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED [once]' which shows a pretty weak grasp of the speedy deletion review process and criteria, so I wanted to let him know that I had the confidence of the community that I understood policy enough for the shiny button privileges. Essentially, I had already declined the speedy (which anyone can do, excepting the author) and he restored it against policy...I assume as an 'article recreated after a previous deletion discussion'. Since it had been deleted as a speedy previously, and the author did take steps to improve the article and assert the notability it was no longer eligible either for A7 or for a recreated article speedy (since it had not been through full afd or prod). I afterwards left a message on Dmol's talkpage explaining the situation.
While I thank you for taking time to leave me a note, I'm unlikely to change my stance on this. While it is no big deal that I have the shiny buttons, it does say that at some point in time some members of the community confirmed that I understood how things work™. As this incident didn't appear to be a case of IAR even, I wanted Dmol to know that he/she was clearly in the wrong and that reverting me further would be viewed as disruptive. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Your Response
I don't like the response you gave to what I said, User:Syrthiss! I don't mean declining it but the way you replied. I wish you gave me a better response. I wish someone gave me a better response. Can you please give me a better response? Can someone please give me a better response?
Can you please promise that you would believe me if I tell you the truth?
As you have been declined on another rambling unblock request on your secondary account since you made these comments, I'm afraid that there is no further clarification I can make. Please use your primary account, as it is not blocked. If it does become blocked, do not edit as your IP as that can be viewed as block evasion and can lead to lengthening of blocks on your primary account. Syrthiss (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was about to create a talkpage at the above address with some appropriate project boxes and I found that you had speedy deleted it on 10 Jan 2010. Was there some problem with the page itself, or just the content and can it be re-created with reasonable content? Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I unintentionally re-blocked user:74.215.158.5 that it appears you had blocked only moments prior. Just wanted to tell you it was unintentional as I was only attempting to block and had no issue with your prior block. My apologies and thanks again for helping at AIV. Kindly CalmerWaters15:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to double check the software though, did it warn you that the user was already blocked? I'm not sure what currently happens with the blocking interface if for example I open it intending to block and someone else blocks in the meantime. Just curious. :) Syrthiss (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Well first there's the pink box at the top stating a current block is in effect. Then, if that is missed (as I apparently did on this occasion) it will say re-block user in the tab button rather than block user when saving the changes. As I scrolled the bottom to look for prior blocks to determine the length, I had not scrolled up to verify if the user was currently blocked. It was as I had pushed the button that I had noticed the 'RE part. 100% user error on my part that I take responsibility for. CalmerWaters16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Whoisjohngalt. Ok, I looked at the article, and I have a couple concerns. At the moment, it is still using exact text from the cited sources. I realize that the original documents are government publications and so are public domain, but the article would be stronger if we could have the information stated without plagarized text. Personally I'd like to see more independent sources talking about it to help establish notability, but it is (in my opinion) at the minimum threshold for notability (ie the one FCW story, and the scope of the project is national-wide). Also, you have a broken bit of formatting in the first section that is making all the text bolded. I think you're just missing the leading '''. I hope this is helpful to you. Syrthiss (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and I will incorporate into the article. I am just trying to start a basic article a to kindle others to make it better. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
tango nuevo
hi, i already explain the reasons why there is a 'mistake' in the article called tango nuevo... have to say several times. How does it work? is there anybody who control the post in the discusion area? I can tell you
that what is publicated in this article is wrong, it seems that someone is doing publicity for some friend and makes at same time the article unreliable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Losmuchachosdeantes (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The article looks to be a valid article from the Wall Street Journal (which is usually a pretty good source). I don't know anything about tango, but I saw your change and looking at the article history it appears you have a single purpose which is to remove him from the article. To put it another way - the article only has two sources for the material... if you say that this guy doesn't belong, then maybe you should provide sources that show the other guys do belong. That, or remove him and I can put the article up for deletion as an unreferenced article.
In general, uncommented removal of sources from an article without discussion (which you at least are doing now, thank you) is often viewed as vandalism. That was why I reverted your edit. Now you can work it out with the other editors on the talk page for Nuevo tango. Thanks for your help in improving the encyclopedia. Syrthiss (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank for making this clear... by the way, WSJ are not specialist in Tango... they just publicated an article from one of their writers, i don't see in the article any indicia that it represent a serious investigation about tango, that's why i don't consieder this article enough. My purpose is not to to remove this dancer from the article (he is a good dancer), but he can't stand side of the others, in the tango history Homer Ladas does not occupied the same place as them, and this is something that everyone in tango with a little knowledge can say... That why i consider that to include this guy in the list is against the purpose of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Losmuchachosdeantes (talk • contribs) 15:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No, they are not. They do however check their facts, and take great care that what they are publishing is true and verifiable. Syrthiss (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gurch, I was looking at the instructions for huggle and despite seeing reference to it in some of the archives I couldn't easily discover how to remove a user's access to it. Can I get some help? Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming there is some problem with some user's actions. Really, the method by which they carried out those actions should be neither here nor there. My advice is pretty much as it would be for any other issue:
First, discuss the issue with the user, and ask them to stop whatever it is you object to.
If that does not resolve matters, the appropriate course of action depends on the behaviour that is causing a problem:
if it's something that is usually dealt with by blocking, block them
if it involves misuse of a privileged action (i.e. rollback), remove them from the appropriate privileged group (i.e. rollbacker)
if it's a disagreement between you and the other user, dispute resolution
If you got this far and you still really want to prevent a user using Huggle specifically, and not any other equivalent tool... have you tried asking them politely not to use it? Never hurts to try.
If not, the user's done something that doesn't warrant a block or removal from privileged groups, but they're refusing to stop using it when asked. At that point personally I'd seek dispute resolution, but if you really want to prevent use by technical means instead, deleting their configuration page (User:<username>/huggle.css) should work.
Ok, thanks. Essentially, I was looking at it like an analog of rollback or some other admin-granted user privilege (your point 2). I know back when I was using AWB a lot, you could disable a user's access to AWB by editing the userlist (don't know if this is the case now)... mostly to stop rapid fire editing if they weren't responding to concerns but being less severe than blocking them. I can see your reasoning. Syrthiss (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Rollback is required to use Huggle, so it is an "admin-granted user privilege". AutoWikiBrowser doesn't require privileged group membership in the same way, hence the need for another form of access control. Gurch (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty. Did you roll it in, or create a completely new one? Also, please remember to sign your comments at DRV with ~~~~. I had to add an {{unsigned}} by you earlier. Syrthiss (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree (on it being a separate issue than the B-W-I), and have said as much in my comment at drv. If consensus is to restore it, thats fine. If nothing else, I'd rather have to apologize for acting out of process than to have BLP issues for the encyclopedia. Has there been any move to DRV Bigotsgate? Syrthiss (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain how "Bigotgate" as a simple redirect is an attack? Bigotsgate was an actual article, I'm not sure if the writer plans to bring it to DRV. I did notify Fences&Windows of the Bigotgate DRV though. FWIW, I don't think you would have to apologize: while I think that deletion was in error, one shouldn't feel the need to apologize for erring on the side of caution in deference BLP. –xenotalk15:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying for a few hours to come up with an explanation with no fruitful analogies manifesting. So I'm not ignoring you, I'm just not able to put it into a compelling argument at this point. Syrthiss (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed our guideline on redirects specifically allows this one: "if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms". –xenotalk20:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Query
This is a case involving a userpage. The userpage has been tagged for deletion some days prior. An IP has just deleted the content. This is not a case of the author blanking their own article / userpage, but a case of someone else blanking a userpage without explanation in the edit summary. This is the edit. I reverted it for the reasons I gave, and warned the IP. Am I correct in doing this? I would like to make sure, before I'm blasted again for cocking up. Thanks, Orphan Wiki11:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats correct. We have no way of knowing if the IP is the user, so warning for vandalism is appropriate. :) Syrthiss (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20, 2013 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is a rare chance to go behind the scenes in the University Archives of the GW Libraries and use their unique resources to research and update Wikipedia pages related to The George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Did you miss our last D.C. history editathon? This is your is your chance to come edit with wiki-friends using different great collection! The event includes a behind-the-scenes tour of the University Archives and a show-and-tell of some of its most interesting treasures, snacks, and the editathon.
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:USFseal-ortho.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AKolbeTrinity.svg&action=historysubmit&diff=347586574&oldid=341971550){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AKolbeTrinity.svg&action=historysubmit&diff=347588127&oldid=347587216){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AKolbeTrinity.svg&action=historysubmit&diff=347704344&oldid=347599142){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AKolbeTrinity.svg&action=historysubmit&diff=347709911&oldid=347704531){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AETrade.svg&action=historysubmit&diff=347588695&oldid=344866094){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGoDaddy.svg&action=historysubmit&diff=347590196&oldid=342120712){kind=link}