User talk:Syrthiss/Archive10

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.

Jediism edits

What about wikipedia providing actual and honest information about jediism. Currently it does not present anything jediism related. What it talks and references is Star Wars jedi fandom. Jediists are actually not some Star Wars robe wearing and Walmart spooking weirdos. It is like Buddhism, and not about clowning before public. Now I thought I can just delete and write a more accurate representation of jediism, because it does not even describe with 1 one what actual jediism is. Is this the spirit of Wikipedia, to care about cited content and not the actual information about something?! I did not wrote this what I did for no reason out of nowhere, I've been involved in jediism movement for over a decade now. It's not just because of that, but truly some guy visiting market and getting kicked out of there bcause of hood has nothing to do with jediism. Real jediist would rather care about the public and not make disturbing shows before public just to get attention. Also real jediism has very little to do with Star Wars. Yes it is inspired by the ideals of jedi which are a combination of chivalric tenets, samurai service, buddhist way of life, etc, but it's not a following of Star Wars as it's Bible. In fact, for true adherents it does not even have to be named "jedi". Star Wars brought the inspiration and ideas that are combination of many good philosophies, so in honor and remembrance of the source we call it jediism, but we could call it whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droid733 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree but this strives to be an encyclopedia and therefore has to have cited references. If there are good books on jediism that actually discuss the philosophy, either in layman terms or in scholarly terms, then that would be a good start to either putting in more about jediist philosophy to the jediism article or starting a side article on that. As you already said, most of the news articles tend to be 'Huurr guy standing outside the Walmart telling people to be mindful of the Force'...but if that is all we have to go on, thats what the article ends up as. I hope this helps. Syrthiss (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Lab Macambira

Lab Macambira is the result of Brazilian digital culture movement from both governmental and civil sides. All model is completely OPEN, all code, trac, wiki, databases, ideas, etc. As stated in the article, it is being studied by other collectives as the most advanced line of activism, at least in Brazil. Please resurrect the articles. If you really want institutional relevance, ONU (UN - United Nations) is using Lab Macambira derivative works. Relevant might also be that some Brazilian counsels and forums are using Lab Macambira software. Even so, it is stronger in non-institutional activities (e.g. there are about 200 didactic videos in Brazilian Portuguese in vimeo made and uploaded in July an august: http://vimeo.com/channels/labmacambira ). What do you want to know more about? Can't really the article start as simple as it was and grow as society fells like it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfabbri (talk • contribs) 14:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Fixed this other user's text so that English-speaking people can understand it - United Nations is ONU in portuguese Liberio (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please revive this page. Lab macambira (and its website urls http://labmacambira.tk, http://labmacambira.sourceforge.net) is listed among several websites including wikipedia pages. Let me know what you need and I will provide you with detailed information. (Also, I will leave a note here that this discussion shouldn't revolve around convincing a single individual.) Thank you. Liberio (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Good morning Liberio. As I said above, I need pages external to Lab Macambira that help support its notability. So if there are official UN pages referencing it, I'd be happy to restore it. I would restore it now, but as it sits it would probably be deleted by another admin causing both you and Rfabbri to have to start this discussion over with them. Best to sort out the issues at least to a basic level and then recreate it. Syrthiss (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Syrthiss, thank you for your reply. From what I have been seeing in Google, Lab Macambira is rapidly increasing in notability, specially as external sites are linking to them. Thus, we can restore this page soon, and in a solid way as you said, so that the page can stand uncontested. Liberio (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, I look forward to it. Syrthiss (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

United nations pages reference to Lab Macambira like this: http://righttohousingdebates.org/?lang=en uses the Lab Macambira system for online deliberation which was marketed by the company Ethymos to which there is a link at the bottom of the referenced UN page. To prove that Ethymos works with Lab Macambira in this deliberative system, check out http://ethymos.com.br/blog/delibera-a-solucao-para-a-organizacao-de-reunioes-e-conferencias/ (it is in portuguese but you can search for "Lab Macambira"). There. Can we now restore this wikipedia page? I will include this UN usage there. Liberio (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also check out http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scilab which cites Lab Macambira. Checkout their website http://labmacambira.sf.net. Checkout a link to Lab Macambira at the bottom of the SIP toolbox http://siptoolbox.sourceforge.net. There is a radio show which interviewed Lab Macambira a couple of times: http://www.radio.ufscar.br/frequenciaaberta/?p=256 and http://www.radio.ufscar.br/frequenciaaberta/?p=269. Lab Macambira members made contributions to other widely-known software, for instance Ekiga: http://git.gnome.org/browse/ekiga/commit/?id=79f7ceb6e3 and Mozilla Firefox https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=548263 (AndresMRM and daniloshiga are both members of Lab macambira, see http://wiki.nosdigitais.teia.org.br/Equipe_Lab_Macambira).Liberio (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Liberio (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't received a reply. Kindly respond or provide an update, Mr. Admin. Thanks!Liberio (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I am on vacation this week so not around to take actions. To me, none of those sites explicitly support the notability. Its all very circumstantial (see the UN references us, but only through a developer that uses some of our stuff). However, I don't want to hold you up in case I am just missing something. Feel free to recreate the article if you think those show the notability. Make sure you support facts with a reference that claims them. Regards. Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

CML Microcircuits Page

Good afternoon,

I see you have previously deleted the page for CML Microcircuits (syr's note - page deleted in June 2010, contributing editor blocked as spamusername not by me), citing an infringement from CHinaICmart or some sort of website.

As the manufacturer of these parts, I am curious why you would delete the page and cite that the datasheet website was the correct information?

I think the page should stand and be re made. But thought I would contact you first.

Mocks1287 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It is good that you contacted me first. (1) We don't care what the source for the plagiarized content is, we just delete that kind of content on sight and advise those who are contributing it on the proper way to release content to Wikipedia. This is to protect your rights as the copyright holder. That said (2) the deleted material was not suitable for Wikipedia because it was very promotional in tone. In fact, that is why your previous account CML Micro was blocked from editing the encyclopedia. Often people would like to just cut and paste their own website material to Wikipedia, but tone that is perfectly acceptable on your own website is glaringly out of place in a neutral informative encyclopedia article. If you can establish that the company is notable and produce a neutrally phrased article on it, we'd be happy to have an article on your company. Hope this was useful to you. Syrthiss (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I admit the first attempt at a page I had not read the rules regarding writing a piece. It was my intention to improve the page. It is not our intention to use this site as a promotional tool, we are the oldest semiconductor manufacturer in the UK which should make us notable, we would like to submit a piece with our history, and what the company does today. What is the best way for us to do this? To provide a user such as yourself with the information? Or to try again ourselves and make it as neutral as possible? Mocks1287 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mocks1287 - we have a few avenues available to you then. You could place a request at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Businesses_and_organizations to suggest that someone experienced create an article for you. This is the most cautious route with respect to avoiding advertising conflicts, but is also the slowest (as in, it may be days to months before an article gets created). You could use the article wizard WP:WIZ and follow the steps to either submit the article for review or create a userspace draft. Both of those options places the burden on you to create the article, and the difference between the two is that the article submission route lets someone experienced look at what you have written and give you feedback before the page goes live. That is my suggested route for you. You can also go the userspace draft route, and then leave me a message here to take a look when you feel your page is done. I'm afraid I cannot write the article for you at this time. I hope this is helpful. Syrthiss (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Syrthiss, could you take a look at the following link, and let me know if im on the right lines, or still going about it the wrong way? I dont want to waste too much time on it if its wrong! Thanks a lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mocks1287/Enter_your_new_article_name_here

Mocks1287 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2011 (GMT)

You are doing pretty good. Basic facts are there. Personally I'd drop the 'products' section, maybe renamed to 'Notable products' or something to keep the Concorde reference. In comparison, if you looked at a page for a big business like Cisco Systems or IBM they have product sections that are nowhere near as detailed. I'm a little nervous that despite existing for 40 years I couldn't find links in google news searches for the company, but perhaps a search under its prior name would resolve that. If you could present references that support that fact, it would help if the article was sent for a deletion discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, I will change the product section definitely. If you search for CML Microcircuits there are hundred of websites with mentions, I assure you. What is it you are searching for? I am still trying to link in other pages, and technologies but haven't had the time yet. I will come back to you with an improved page shortly.

Mocks1287 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2011 (GMT)

Well, yes. If I do a google search for anything on CML Microcircuits I get 160000 hits. If I do a Google News search like this I get no hits. Syrthiss (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting

DC Meetup 23 & Annual Membership Meeting

Wikimedia District of Columbia, the newest officially recognized chapter, is holding its Annual Membership Meeting at 1pm on Saturday, October 1, 2011 at the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library.

Agenda items include:

election of the Board of Directors for the next two years
approval of a budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year
report on the activities and accomplishments of the past year
social gathering afterwards at a nearby restaurant

Candidate nominations are open until 11:59pm EDT on Saturday, September 24. We encourage you to consider being a candidate. (see see candidate instructions)

The meeting is open to both the general public and members from within the DC-MD-VA-WV-DE region and beyond. We encourage everyone to attend!

You may join the chapter at the meeting or online.

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Need your help

Hello Syrthiss,

One of the article Celoxis I wrote in wiki was deleted and I understand the reason of the deletion. I intended to put this article for the information and not for the advertisement. I am here to provide all the required information on Celoxis as a company and need your help in submitting the article again as it is my first article on wikipedia. Below are some references for Celoxis

Some references

Business.com (http://www.business.com/guides/online-project-management-2191/)
PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/142807/simpler_projectmanaging_apps_get_the_job_done.html)
TopTen Reviews (http://online-project-management-review.toptenreviews.com/)
CeoWorld (http://ceoworld.biz/ceo/2011/04/01/top-10-best-online-project-management-services-review-for-ceos-and-entrepreneurs)

Are you around to help? 61.8.140.170 (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DC-area Meetup, Saturday, October 8

National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really.
	You are invited to the National Archives in College Park for a special backstage pass and scanathon meetup with Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, on Saturday, October 8. Go behind the scenes and into the stacks at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Free catered lunch provided! Dominic·t 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocks

Try "Else=hair" , not "Else = hair". DS (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Vandal-only account" - confirm/deny? DS (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, dealt with. DS (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have declined your CSD on RyanShoreUK. He's not the same person. You may wish to re tag with CSD A7 - he's only 15 years old. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wacky, when I tagged it it was the same exact content. Syrthiss (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review these blocks

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

Are We Done Yet, MascotGuy? (talk · block log · block user) by Syrthiss at 2011-10-06T17:33:01Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]
Bay de Way (talk · block log · block user) by Syrthiss at 2011-10-06T17:33:26Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]
Mr. Discovery (talk · block log · block user) by Syrthiss at 2011-10-06T17:33:42Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]
Squeak Squad (talk · block log · block user) by Syrthiss at 2011-10-06T17:33:57Z, expires infinity: [[WP:Block#Evasion of blocks|Block evasion]]
DA EVIL PAGE DESTROYER (talk · block log · block user) by Syrthiss at 2011-10-12T15:17:11Z, expires infinity: [[WP:Vandalism-only account|Vandalism-only account]]

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie ⚔ 02:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

yepyep, all in order. socks don't get to request unblock. Syrthiss (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:GregorMeurers/Naprstek Museum

I've declined the speedy for copyright violation on the grounds that the URL you gave as a source doesn't come close to looking like a source for that page, and I'm sure no administrator is willing to look for a needle in a haystack to find the exact page this was copied from. If you can give us a more specific URL, please feel free to re-tag. Thank you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Blanchardb. Thanks for your fine work here with the encyclopedia. While I realize that any editor may remove a CSD notice, perhaps not all editors should. A specific example of the copyright violation text is at http://www.nm.cz/Naprstek-Museum/Exhibitions-NpM/Around-the-World-in-299-Days.html, but really the entire article is violation text from all of that website which is why I gave the more generic URL. I have restored the copyright violation notice. Syrthiss (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And "I'm sure no administrator blah blah", well this administrator did. Syrthiss (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably I should have asked for an explanation without removing the tag. Sorry. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a prob, thanks for reviewing the CSD queues. Syrthiss (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutron reflector edits

Zircaloy also with trademark and I don`t write without calling for own rights on new reflector tantalum and also to add is tungsten alone, working also other compositions like carbide. I did write material scientist before deleting with no answer but readable also by yourself with more informations also on lead, Fe also C and Be more known as moderator thick reflecting in ESCOM PBMR 1m sidewall. I`m german help with editing is wished.

Kay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Uwe Böhm (talk • contribs) 13:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense adding tantalum but delting my copyright for new naterial found by myself and that`s sure no vandalism more deleting. Can you remove vandalism and left inside maybe another form but you have to rely on myself else keep tantalum out. Reference left inside other places also. I worked much on neutron capture Very High Temperature Pebble Bed, neutron moderator also removed by material scientist bit stopped removing other places now reworked. New moderator there hydrocarbons is strange and dangerous just "suggested as another possibility". CH4 changing to 14CT4 radioactive&explosive not so good absorbing see H behavier compared to D later same place and 12C not so small like really good new He under pressure at danger away without danger by myself long time. Also 11BN works or BeO or Li or (H+D+T)2 as gas explosiv but 11BN or He also for RBMK or molten salt reactor Gen4 instead graphite burning main spreader Chornobyl 6000death 1 Mio cancer fukushima 0 just 2% out 1/10 chornobyl with water no burning also longtime nothing.

If time adding long article extension to fukushima waht happend exactly waht areva helped !

Kay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.145.97 (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Böhm. It is very very difficult to follow your English. I will put this as plainly as I can - we do not sign or append email addresses to text in articles. Period. Your contributions are clearly visible in the article history. Now, what you seem to be saying is that this use for tantalum as a neutron reflector is your own discovery. Has this been published in a peer reviewed journal? If not, and you have no reference for this material being used in this way, then it is WP:OR and will be removed until such time as it is citable. I cannot speak to physics topics, just to the policies and editing guidelines of the encyclopedia. Regardless, as I said on your page - any further attempts to add your email address will cause me to block you from editing the encyclopedia. It is disruptive. Do I make myself clear? Syrthiss (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult to work constructive on wikipdia if someone just deleting without understanding and look like lie what you are telling just making problems with nonsense must be published before in newsletter done by emails already also to companies and many other places email address added simply very practible. Adding tantalum usefull but my copyright not for text for use of tantalum has to be kept by wikipedia see own sides. I`m german so english not perfect but also lie difficult to understand and english correction/impovement help directly would be usefull ! Why you are at this side at all ? I can change even more because steal&lead nearly wrong as reflector and Be & C only thick normally moderator. Simply on construction of turnable regulatorstopp-rods in HTR behind so called reflector side walls one side of rod reflector with C/Be/steal/Fe/Pb not works but with W/Ta full only reflector with W absorbing a little bit not Ta invented and published by myself thsi way also in Wikipedia with copyright. Copyright german "Urheberrecht" means nobody else can ask for patent right except myself or over myself by law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.141.101 (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Every time you edit the encyclopedia, you pepper it with your email address. If you cannot understand why this is objectionable, perhaps you should restrict yourself to editing the German language wikipedia. The revision I just removed had 3 total email addresses in it, and I refuse to assume good faith anymore and redact only them. This is your final warning - continuing to make edits in this fashion will force me to block your IP and main account. Syrthiss (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You will note that the edit previous to this comment, where you did not introduce your email address, was left inviolate. The edit after this comment where you ONLY inserted your email was removed. Syrthiss (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Logo-200.jpg

While I understand the renaming of this image (it was a logo for a radio station, WRLF) and I understand the deletion of the old image name, I find it very hard to believe that I requested it deleted as you stated in your edit summary. "Multiple reasons: Speedy deletion criteria R3, G6, G7". G7 is, of course, "Author requests deletion". Since that didn't happen, it is misleading and an outright lie. I kinda don't like that happening. I will pretend it was a slip of the finger and not something intentional. Please, though, try not to let it happen again in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Neutralhomer. Prepare for an incoming AGF warning on your talkpage:

Page history

(del/undel) (diff) 08:52, 24 October 2011 . . Armbrust (talk | contribs | block) (73 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD R3, CSD G6, CSD G7). (Twinkle))

(del/undel) (diff) 08:51, 24 October 2011 . . Armbrust (talk | contribs | block) (48 bytes) (moved File:Logo-200.jpg to File:WRLF (radio station) logo.jpg: using User:Splarka/ajaxfilemove.js;Descriptive title)

So, what it looks like is that Armbrust renamed the file to something else, and then requested the redirect be deleted. I complied with that request, since the redirect page was indeed owned and edited only by him. I suggest you take it up with him. Then I request you take your fucking 'misleading and an outright lie' phrase and learn to edit in a collaborative environment. Syrthiss (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning was deleted immediately per WP:DTTR. Now, Armburst can rename any file he wants, but he still isn't the author, I am. I am the author of the new file too. Why? I uploaded the original image, making me the author of the file (on Wikipedia). Regardless, G7 should never have been given as a reason. Oh and the "fucking 'misleading and an outright lie' phrase"...that could be considered a personal attack. I will save you the warning. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

but... the file still exists at File:WRLF (radio station) logo.jpg, with full attribution to you? I deleted a redirect that he created when he moved your file. He can himself request that any page that he created be deleted. Syrthiss (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That he can, but he didn't create that page. I did. I created page "File:Logo-200.jpg", the one you deleted. It was created when I originally uploaded the image (bad image name, I know, I had just joined Wikipedia). So, I was the author of the page, not him. So, G7 shouldn't have been used. Oh and there wasn't a need for a TB notice, I have you on watchlist. You can lose the snark. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll lose the snark when you stop accusing me of lying. If you were not, and were instead accusing him of lying then my snark level will decrease but not entirely go away. Syrthiss (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

See, I never said you were lying, I said G7 was a lie, never you. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked, politely, to not let it happen again. You can't hear tones of voice in text, but I think I made it clear in writing the original post. If I had been accusing you of lying, I would have come straight out and said it, "I think you are being misleading and outright lying" or something like that. I am not the kind of person to beat around a bush or any kind of lawn decoration. So, the snark, it isn't needed nor warranted. I wouldn't use it anyway, gives people the wrong signals and makes people less likely to work with you, since this is a "collaborative environment". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(3O from a talk page stalker) NH, when you accuse someone of making an "outright lie", it's unreasonable to expect not to be met with snark. I see people claiming all the time "I didn't say you were a liar, I said that what you said was a lie", but it's kind of a rhetorical game; you can't tell a lie if you aren't a liar. Perhaps instead of "lie" (an intentional untruth) you meant "incorrect"? In general, "lie" is a good word to avoid about 99% of the time. As an outside observer, your original message did not come across as "polite", as you seem to think. (Also, if you want to get technical about it, when Armbrust moved the page, he became the author of the redirect page, so G7 was OK anyway. But why get technical about it?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::See, in an environment where I cannot recall ever having interacted with you before (tho surely I must have) I don't know what you would and would not do. Where I come from (which I know you do not know), being called a liar is a very big thing. I would say for many Westerners, that is the case. I will now accept your assurances that when you wrote that it was an outright lie, you meant the tag and not that I (or Armbrust) were lying about the tags. I will also apologize for being upset at perceiving your wording as calling me a liar. I hope that now that you can do whatever you wish with your moved file whose redirect I deleted. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I will accept your apology and give one of my own. Not that I am putting any excuses forth, but I have Aspergers (a form of Autism) and what to me sounds perfectly normal, comes across as rude or strongly toned. It's part of the Aspergers. Again, not an excuse, just something I am actively working on and something I continue to work on (which seems I need to try harder in this case). So, I apologize for the strongly-worded originial post, that was not my intention and I was not intended you call you or Armbrust a liar, but that the tag was ~~a lie~~ incorrect. It obviously came across not as I intended and again, I apologize. As for the file (regardless the name), it just goes on the ol' watchlist pile, probably never to be seen again. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Kay Uwe Böhm

This Kay Uwe Böhm person is hitting alot of talk pages (like here) via a couple IPs located in Germany along with a main account User:Kay Uwe Böhm. It seems to be the same kind of rambling post about "Neutron reflectors" or something. Might want to enlist a checkuser and see where this is all coming from. I am beginning to suspect a troll or sockpuppet. Just a heads up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I had seen the edit to Materialscientist's page a few days ago. Thats how I saw Böhm's first edits. Its pretty clear that the various IPs are him at least. For that I wouldn't want to bother a CU. Or are you saying that he might be a sock of some long term pain-in-the-ass and should be CU'ed for connection? At the moment I am still inclined to think that Böhm is just a fringe scientist / pseudoscientist who is trying to advance his work. The problem is that technical topics are difficult enough for lay people to read without poor translations from German to English thrown in on top of it. :/ Syrthiss (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the CU could check all the IPs and see if he/she is using those for any other socks in or were in use or any sleepers. Then they could block those and if the IPs happen to be a proxy network (which wouldn't surprise me) they block those for 5 years instantly (even if there aren't socks present). Give it a couple more hours Central Time and ask User:MuZemike. He can track down just about anything. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll hit him up in a bit. Böhm at the moment has a short block on his main account by me for reinserting his name into the article text, in any case. Syrthiss (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that explains why I haven't seen him pop up on my watchlist in the last few hours. Let me know if I can be of assistance when he does get back from his block. I can't help with anything neutron related, but I can watch pages and revert any vandalism. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Kay Uwe Böhm is continuing his edit war on different topics from nuclear technology and specially attacks the page on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster where he persists inserting technical non-sense and garbage with his name in the page. See the discussion at Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. He clearly deserves a permanent block for trolling and vandalism. He is not a newbie nor a person of good faith, but just a troll. Now he also attacks other contributors on their talk pages using IP addresses from Bremen in germany. Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like he has been blocked indef, mostly on WP:COMPETENCE grounds. If you see his ip edits (since I know he jumps around ips), feel free to revert on sight and mention reverting edits by a banned user. Syrthiss (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My shit got deleted

Thanks, I really appreciate the deletion of the page I literally started working on 15 minutes prior to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GH15 Pupil (talk • contribs)

Not a prob, glad to help. Now, if you want advice (other than 'in most cases, someone's pseudonym on the web is not notable'), I can restore that page to User:GH15 Pupil/sandbox where you can work on it to where you think its complete and credibly asserts notability. I'd be happy to do that for you. Syrthiss (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimberley Anne Scott

I noticed you redirected Kimberley Anne Scott, you may also want to revdel the first revision, as it states it was copied from a website, and I doubt there is an OTRS permission for it. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a good idea.

Done Syrthiss (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC

Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC & edit-a-thon

Wikipedia Loves Libraries comes to DC on Saturday, November 5th, from 1-5pm, at the Martin Luther King Jr Memorial Library.

We will be holding an edit-a-thon, working together to improve Wikipedia content related to DC history, arts, civil rights, or whatever suits your interests. There may also be opportunities to help with scanning historic photos plus some swag!

You're invited and we hope to see you there!

RSVP + more details!

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

Taylor Mowry

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have proposed it for deletion as a hoax. See the article for details. Robofish (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into that! I upgraded the marking for a speedy deletion - hoax. It looks like at the time I marked it as citation needed, but didn't follow through on it I guess. Syrthiss (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

EPM Live Deletion

Hi there Syrthiss!

I tried to create an article but it was deleted. I know this article was deleted before so I specifically went into similar articles and created my article just like the others so this wouldn't happen. I tried two different ones. Can you please tell me what I need to do to get it back, I'm up for anything. :-) I use the "comparison of project management software" all the time and I send many people to it. I'm trying to figure out how to get a couple more tools in it. Who decides whether tools have the right to be there? The tools I'm referencing such as EPM Live, have just as many notable sources as the others listed so it may just be me. Please help me get it right and I'll do it. Thanks for being a part of a great tool!!! Love wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcrayner (talk • contribs) 20:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Shimon Cohen (public relations)

Hi Syrthiss,

I noticed that you have flaggedthis article for deletion and also called it an Orphan - i am a bit confused by this as there are plenty of acrticels that make it relevant and links that are correct. in addition, this only seemed to happen once I added a photo which has all the correct copyright. please can you remove the notice at the top of that articel as well as the Orphan notice. Many thanks (Jamesmaharrison (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)).

I believe you may be confused by the jargon. 'Orphan' means that few if any links in other articles on the encylopedia link to the orphan article. You can see what links to a given page by the 'What links here' link on the toolbox in the left bar. This can be a measure of how notable a person or company is, or just a simple cause-and-effect of being a new article. In the latter, sometimes people just haven't had enough time to link the subject in the other articles. That is certainly not the case for this article, since it has existed for over a year.

I can not remove the AFD notice unless I was willing to withdraw my nomination, and I am not willing to do that at this time. There's not much that can be done about the orphan issue - I just did a check on articles that mention 'Shimon Cohen' and at least in the first page of mentions in articles the references to 'Shimon Cohen' are to the footballer or to a person who does the Hebrew voice-overs for Disney films (who does not themselves have an article). You could perhaps add him to the Cohen (surname) article, but considering that his article is currently at AFD you might wish to wait to see how that discussion ends up.

The timing of the AFD had nothing to do with adding the picture. I have been watching the article since you created it with your original account JamesmaharrisonPRO1 (talk · contribs · count), and finally decided that it needed a wider community discussion as to his notability. However, I am concerned about your own conflict of interest in this. Have you reviewed our COI editing guidelines, and our policies about not using wikipedia for advertising or promotion? I see that another editor mentioned the COI guidelines at your above account back in July 2010. Syrthiss (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the note. I will have a look at the guidelines and will now wait and see what happens before i remove or change anything. I genuinly was not trying to do anythign untowards except put up an entry about someone who i think deserves teh recognition for what they do - not to promote or advertise them in any way.

I will also have a lookat the guidelines as suggested. thanks again (Jamesmaharrison (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)).

Not a problem. I have a lot of subjects that I have firsthand knowledge of, personally, but as I am afraid of conflict of interest I resist the temptation to write about them. Syrthiss (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

batoos

Hi Syrthiss,

I would like to write about cd and dvd replication and i know that only 10 companies in the united states are doing this and one the only company i know in california is called Nordex advanced Technology which own Nordex Media. i wanted to create a page about Nordex Media to just talk about cd/dvd replication through them but when i tried it told me that they already had a page and that you deleted it. what do you think i should do?

11/10/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batoos999 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied at user's own page, just in case they don't have mine watched and so I could give them a welcome message as well. Syrthiss (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

You might find this relevant. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin! I'm afraid I don't know what made you think of me for that discussion tho. Is the link correct? Syrthiss (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You reverted a user on my talk page, but I mistakingly thought that you were involved in a prior discussion that that user was involved with. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Nah, was just whacking block evaders (and am watching the Ira Kurzban article). Thanks tho. :) Syrthiss (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

perfume company

Hello, would you consider closing your AFD on that perfume company? Everyone else in the AfD supports a keep. We are working on the article on both the talk and article page, to make it more neutral. Calendar2 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

your question about previous Wikipedia editing

Since it isn't really related to the AFD, I'll answer it here. Your assumption seems to be that almost all new editors cannot learn how to participate in one Wikipedia process (AFD) or how content contributions differ from standard academic writing either by reading the relevant policies or through observation. The "blindfolded stumbling approach" would be complete unworkable in my profession. A prerequisite for useful research, that will pass academic peer review and be accepted for publication in a respected journal is understanding the prior state of the field. Inevitably, university classes, because of their generality, only scratch the surface of the published research. To take a concrete example, consider tranylcypromine, an unselective and irreversable MAOI that, because of the dietary restrictions required and concomitant risk of a hypertensive crisis, is seldom used any more. Google Scholar returns approximately 15400 results[1] for this medication alone. By now it should be obvious that no single person can understand the totality of even this one drug! Yet, if I and my colleagues announce a "new" result that was proved twenty years ago, or relies on faulty assumptions, we have egg on our faces. A careful, tightly focused review of the existing literature is essential. So it is with Wikipedia. One has the choice of where on falls on the continuum between prudence, and recklessness. Thank you for your curiosity, a trait without which scientific inquiry would be impossible. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that my username is a nom de plume. There are several reasons for this, including avoiding any personal contact with trolls and other malefactors. Yet a more subtle reason exists, namely, avoidance of conflict with my colleagues. Suppose that we hold forth and have published results supporting an eccentric position. But wearing my Wikipedia editor hat, I try to put my personal and professional beliefs aside, to the extent reasonably possible, and write articles according to NPOV. Inevitably, this is an imperfect endeavor, as for any editor. Thus, I may give substantial weight to positions contrary to the results my colleagues and I are publishing! And of course, I don't wish to have any of my contributions or comments construed as medical advice, as they might well be if I were writing under my real name. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & DC Meetup 26!

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really.

FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sal

Look here: it:Categoria:Nati il 15 gennaio, it:Categoria:Morti il 15 gennaio, (ru:Категория:Умершие 15 января) , is a good idea --Terraflorin (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe this function is handled already from the particular day pages January 1 and such. Also, creating and populating these categories is a very large task that you might not be aware of. The English wikipedia has considerably more articles than It, Ru and Ro I would think. I don't have time to look it up, but I expect that at one point we may have had date categories but discarded them. Syrthiss (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Beatpoet

You left this message on my page:

Hi Beatpoet. I've noticed that you are using User:Beatpoet as an article, and that is outside the guidelines for userpages. You have been warned before about that behavior and the page was blanked. Please consider either moving that content to an article or blanking it. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am using my page to create a new article - I thought that was where you're supposed to test out new pages before creating them?Beatpoet (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Article protection and deletion

Thank you for protecting the Industrial Metal and Electro-Industrial articles. Being an administrator, could you please restore Ofermod (band) at User:H. 217.83/Construction site? The article was deleted (not by you, I know) months before Ofermod’s first album Tiamtü had been released, but the band was already relevant before. --217/83 19:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you need help moving it back when you are done updating it. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I know how to do that, but maybe you could take a look once I consider it to be ready (or, if you want, now; I think it still lacks information about the music, but it is already much better than the previous version). Thanks for moving the article. --217/83 20:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the Ofermod article’s current version? --217/83 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks reasonable, nice work. Do you want me to move it back, or will you do it? (sorry for the late reply, was out of the office for several days). Syrthiss (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. By the way, someone is constantly adding the name “Goateye” to the Dead article without sourcing it (since Asarlaí cleaned up). I know Mayhem (true, i. e. with Euronymous) pretty well, but not this name; maybe you could keep an eye on that article and protect it, too. --217/83 06:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There is an edit war on the Adam Darski article. --217/83 11:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has been protected by another admin. Sorry, was away for the Christmas holiday. Syrthiss (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have seen there was a Malign (band) article once; if that was the Swedish band, I would like it to be moved to User:H. 217.83/Construction site. --217/83 00:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that is done as well. Good luck with the rewrite! Syrthiss (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --217/83 20:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC) It was actually hard work since there are only few interviews and most information is from sites like Metal Archives which can’t be trusted (e. g.: user generated content and false information, see de:Diskussion:Corrupted#Bearbeitungen), so I had to remove some information I am not sure about (e. g. I actually don’t know if Triumphator’s leader Marcus Tena really was a member of Malign using the name Fog, so I removed this claim from the member list), but I could improve the article. I would like you to take a look, and maybe delete the talk page redirect which still links to the Ofermod talk page. --217/83 23:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a look. It is certainly much better, I'm still unsure of some of the sources...more because I am unfamiliar in this area. I also blanked the talkpage redirect, which you could have done as well. After all, your sandbox page can have a talkpage... it doesn't need to be deleted. One question - in the 2nd para, you mention 'MC' ("it was released as a MC..."). What is a MC in this context? Syrthiss (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It would help me if you could specify “unsure of some of the sources”. I considered a redirect to the Ofermod talk page to be useless, that is why I asked for a deletion; but blanking it is okay, too. And in this context, MCs are Music Cassettes (I thought this to be obvious, maybe because I don’t listen to Hip Hop and therefore forgot MCs [Masters of Ceremonies] are persons there, or maybe the abbreviation is unusual elsewhere; in Germany from where I am writing to you, it is usual or at least was when not only underground people used them). --217/83 14:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Like 'grimrune.com'? ah, music cassettes. Yeah, it was pretty clear it wasn't MC in the hiphop sense. Around my part of the US we would probably just called them cassettes or cassette tapes. I'd say you could get away with saying any of those spelled out. I was trying to place it in the record sense, in that I usually hear of bands putting out LPs or such. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That was Watain’s official site back then (the domain’s name stands for Grim Rune Productions, the label mentioned in the article). I replaced “MC” (an abbreviation I associate with written not spoken language, I’m not used to people actually saying MC in that context) by “cassette” after reading your reply. And yes, LPs are still usual in underground music, but it is expensive to press them, so bands often release cassettes (or, nowadays, CD-Rs) before they get a contract or can afford releasing a disc themselves. --217/83 16:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then that looks fine then. Yah, I'd think if one was expecting to sell or give away copies in the 10-100 range that burning cdrs would be easier / faster nowadays. Did you want me to move it out to mainspace, or you still want to tinker with it? Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I know people releasing their music on cassettes as well as those burning CD-Rs; can’t generalise, depends on how traditional you are. I’ll move it myself, thank you. --217/83 16:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Syrthiss!

First and foremost: Generally speaking a lot of the conversations between moderators and the people they blocked are totally useless, I think we can agree on that. I will do my very best to avoid that.

I think your block was made in good faith, but I think I may be able to convince you the block was incorrect.

MuZemike unblocked me. I hope you are willing to give me a chance to explain my side of the story to you on the conditions that:

We are not going to have a long debate
We are not going to talk about the same thing over and over again

If you are unsure if I deserve this chance to try and convince you please read this edit made by Chzz.

If you are willing to give me that chance, I have a simple yes or no question for you; I think that this can be a good start to a constructive conversation:

Is the highlighted/colored portion of a diff the text that was edited (e.g. this edit)?

Thanks in advance,

Wasbeer 09:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I am not a native speaker of English, if I make mistakes or if it is not clear what I mean then please let me know.

Good morning Wasbeer. Of course we can discuss this. I checked in last night and was glad to see that you were unblocked.

Yes, in the diff you linked, the highlighted portion of the text is what was edited. The previous version of the page is shown on the left and the changed version is shown on the right.

I want you to know that my disengaging at your talkpage was not meant to frustrate you. In my experience, people who are blocked can feel trapped because while other users can communicate elsewhere the blocked user can only communicate on their talkpage. Therefore, they cannot 'escape' a discussion with another user. Also, it seemed that I wasn't able to effectively communicate with you. Disengaging early provided the opportunity for another administrator to talk with you and perhaps present a different aspect than either of us held. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

ps - I will also apologize in advance for two things: (1) I may use American English idiomatic phrases, so if you don't understand something please let me know and (2) I am often absent from Wikipedia over the weekend so my responses may be slow until Monday when I am back in the office. Syrthiss (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I was glad to see your response. In this case the disengaging-strategy sort of worked, even though it frustrated me a bit at the time, because this conversation is much friendlier than the one we would've had if you did not disengage.

You are probably wondering why I asked that question, the answer seems so obvious. But it isn't. I want to emphasize the fact the question was not ment to "trap" you, like a lot of trolls (try to) do, because I believe you made an honest mistake, and an overwhelming majority of the Wikipedians are unaware of the imperfection in the MediaWiki software I will try to explain to you. To be more precise: only hardcore-geeks know this.

I am gonna ask you two things this time:

Please take a look at Wasbeer's earliest contributions. The Wasbeer-account only made a couple of edits (6k at the time), but I am an experienced editor. You'll notice that I used IGLOO 1 hour after I made my first edit. IGLOO requires the (auto)confirmed flag and the rollback flag. Why is this important? Because it is proof this is not my first account on Wikipedia and that my old account had a positive influence on Wikipedia. Do not worry, I am not socking or anything like that, my old account never had any problems on this wiki (otherwise I wouldn't be able to get those flags so quickly of course), and the account-switch I made is permitted. If you want me to I can tell you the name of my old account in private. If you are unsure if I am telling the truth you have my permission to ask a checkuser to take a look, he/she will confirm my explanation.
I promised in my unblock-request I would write a page explaining the imperfection in the MediaWiki software I am referring to. You can find it at User_talk:Wasbeer/diffs. Please read it. It is not very clear and far from perfect, I admit that, and if I get the chance I will try to expand and improve it a bit.

What this means is that the highlighted/colored parts of a diff are not necessarily the part that was edited, even though it usually is. In this case the MediaWiki software shows only the difference between the versions, and it does not show which part I edited. I re-located my own comment, but I did not touch anyone else's comment. Because Coffeepusher's comment was just a simple link, without mentioning any names, I used the page he was referring to ask BTfromLA to drop the stick and move on. Even though what I did was totally innocent and allowed it looks like I did something that was not allowed.

I am not asking you for a mea culpa or anything like that, you made a honest mistake and it is unfair to say you should've known this because it is not explained on WP:DIFF and the related pages AFAIK, but I do not like the fact I no longer have an empty blocklog. If I convinced you I will ask you to block me again for a minute, and mention the fact the first block I received was incorrect in the blocklog.

I know this is quite hard to understand, and my explanation is far from perfect, so if you have any questions please ask them, I will answer them to the best of my ability or refer you to people who have more knowledge about the MediaWiki software than I do.

Cheers, Wasbeer 17:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am loathe to get involved here, but you need to know, Syrthiss, that Wasbeer is misleading you. While I'm all for assuming good faith, I cannot see any way to interpret Wasbeer's deceit as other than deliberate. If you look at the edits on the Miscavige talk page, you'll see that not only did he reposition Coffeepusher's statement so that it appeared Coffeepusher was responding to me rather than to Wasbeer, he then inserted a response to Coffeepusher's repositioned comment ("exactly") to underline the meaning he wanted to suggest (i.e., that Coffepusher was directing his remark at my earlier comments rather than, as was the case, toward Wasbeer's later ones), then he added a comment to one of his replies to me (which, was, I think, the comment that Coffeepusher was responding to in the first place) , "As Coffeepusher pointed out, it is time to drop your stick." Sorry, I don't know how to post those diffs (does this work?: [2])--I don't usually get involved in this kind argument--but you will see all of this very quickly if you just look at the next two or three edits after the one Wasbeer linked to above. Judge for yourself. -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not misleading anyone. Coffeepusher posted a link to WP:STICK without mentioning any names. He was right about that, it was time to drop the sticks for all parties involved. That is why I wrote: "As Coffeepusher pointed out, it is time to drop your stick". Unfortunately you seem to be unwilling to drop your stick, even though the horse (the original content dispute about summoning or attending) is dead and buried (because you provided sources for the claims made in the article). Wasbeer 18:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (originally intended as a reply to Wasbeer above, before BTfromLA's comment)

Ok, I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Let me try and explain and see if this sequence corresponds to what you did and saw:

(1) You edit Talk:David Miscavige here. This is not a diff, this is the version of the page as you left it at 06:31, 16 December 2011 according to the timestamp.

(2) 23 minutes later, Coffeepusher edits the page and leaves it in this form. This is also not a diff, this is the version of the page as Coffeepusher left it at 06:54, 16 December according to the timestamp. It appears to anyone viewing the page who is familiar with talkpage etiquette that Coffeepusher has made a reply to you.

(3) 52 minutes later, you edit the page and leave it in this form. To someone who has not followed the conversation, and who has not viewed the page in the intervening 52 minutes, it now appears that Coffeepusher's edit is a reply to BTfromLA and not to you. You did change your paragraph to include "@Coffeepusher: Exactly". While you may have felt that you correctly attributed the comment, and were making the edit in good faith and placing your comment at the bottom of the page per talkpage etiquette for a new comment you changed the entire meaning of Coffeepusher's comment. You did not edit your timestamp in your comment, which indicates that this was not deliberate deception and unintentional. This I feel is where the disconnect is happening in this conversation, as you may be unfamiliar with English language nuance and that your edit did not change what Coffeepusher was trying to say. Diff of the above change which concurs with how the appearance of the page changed.

(4) You make 3 edits that are mostly copyediting, and then Coffeepusher makes an edit and leaves the page in this form. This is identical to (2) above, confirmed by his edit summary and this diff. He appears to have used twinkle, but he could have just as easily done it within the MW interface with undo, or just by saving the previous version from the history. He makes an intervening edit noting that you changed the tone of his edit to not what he intended "He evidently wanted me to tell BT to drop the stick...That was not what I said.".

(5) You edit the page 6 minutes after Coffeepusher's last edit and leave it in this form (again, not a diff). Again it would appear to someone new to the page that Coffeepusher replied to BTfromLA and not to you, and now the additional comments about his intended meaning and your jab about using automated tools appear out of time order. This is confirmed by the diff. You also go to Coffeepusher's talkpage and trout him 1 minute after this edit. He replies there as well and tells you that your edit changed the meaning of his edit and that he objects. You call him a liar.

(6) Now, if you agree with my chronology of the events above, you now 13 minutes later go to ANI and request that Coffeepusher be sanctioned because he used automated reversion in order to preserve the meaning of his comment. As he has told you twice (once on Talk:David Miscavige in 4 above and once on his own talkpage in 5 above) that your edit has changed the meaning of what he intended, this begins to look less like an unintentional series of events and more like you were intending disruption. That is ultimately what resulted in your block.

As I am not quite following your own diff essay, would you agree that the versions of the page as viewed in my above chronology agrees with the diffs that I present as well? To me, the diff and the resulting page-as-viewed are the same. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I decided to move my comment to the bottom of the page because I did not want to argue with Coffeepusher (the conversation with him was far from smooth). You wrote: "It appears to anyone viewing the page who is familiar with talkpage etiquette that Coffeepusher has made a reply to you". According to talkpage conventions replies to comments are indented, but general comments are not. Talkpages are not chronological. From the context it is obvious who he is talking to, but he did not mention any names and he did not indent it. If I wanted people to believe Coffeepusher was talking to BTfromLA I would've indented his comment (that is the talkpage convention) so it would look like a reply to BTfromLA. I did not. I replied to Coffeepusher, which makes it even more obvious that he was addressing me, but I felt that the link applied to BTfromLA as well. Moving my own text to the bottom of the page resulted in a diff that looks like I edited Coffeepushers comment, because the MediaWiki software shows the difference between the old and the new version, and not which part of the text I edited. I did not change the meaning of his message. The meaning of his message is a link to WP:STICK. It is impossible for me to change the meaning without editing his comment or editing WP:STICK. Wasbeer 19:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. I updated User talk:Wasbeer/diffs and I have included an example that hopefully clears things up a bit. p.p.s. Detectives always try to find a motive for a crime. What would I have to gain from making people think Coffeepusher replied to BTfromLA? p.p.p.s. AFAIK I did not say he is a liar. That would be commenting on the contributor instead of commenting on the contribution. I said "That is a lie". If you understand the story about the diffs it is kind of obvious the comment I was replying to is a lie.

(1) The sentence you quote there, replies to comments are indented, but general comments are not, does not appear on that page. If Coffeepusher was annoyed at a single editor who was repeating the same arguments endlessly, he would probably invoke STICK. I can assume (and confirm based on his comments) that he intended STICK to apply to only you. To properly convey your message, you would have been better off to say something like ":WP:STICK indeed, Coffeepusher" in a new line. (2) What you would hope to gain? Perhaps to try and intimate that Coffeepusher felt that BTfromLA was being excessively pedantic, when instead he felt you were. Perhaps you were getting annoyed yourself at Coffeepusher and wished to set up a situation where you could lure him into doing something objectionable (ie, trolling... which you have mentioned before). I am not sure why you felt that would be successful, but to continue the detective metaphor (which you chose, so forgive the following allusion)... criminals are often tripped up because the feel they are more clever than the police.

You are arguing here "Moving my own text to the bottom of the page resulted in a diff that looks like I edited Coffeepushers comment, because the MediaWiki software shows the difference between the old and the new version, and not which part of the text I edited. I did not change the meaning of his message. The meaning of his message is a link to WP:STICK.". You did move his comment, and therefore changed the context of his message both as implied by its placement on the page and explicitly based on his comments. You can argue that you did not change his comment because you didn't change it to WP:STUCK or HP:STICK, but that is entirely semantics. Of the conversations that I am privy to (the discussion with CHZZ appears to have been conducted off-wiki), it seems to be consistent between all the editors except yourself viewing the situation that you modified the meaning of Coffeepusher's comment (unintentionally or intentionally). If multiple people (several of whom are not connected to the dispute) tell you that you are wrong, and only yourself maintain that you are right, do you think the reasonable conclusion is that they are all indeed wrong or do you think that you may have erred? Syrthiss (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That was not a quote and I never claimed it to be one. If you want some quotes: <quote>"Comments are indented to show whether they are replies to other comments, and if so, which ones."</quote> and <quote>"When you reply to a statement, you should use one more colon than the number that appear in the statement you're replying to."</quote> are direct quotes. If you read that page you will see that general remarks (e.g. Jane's remark in the first example about moving the discussion to Talk:Soup) are not indented, and replies to comments by others are indented. If we follow the conventions as described on that page Coffeepusher did not reply to me, he made a general remark...! He may have intended the STICK to apply to me, but he did not reply to my comment (as indicated by indenting) and he did not mention my name. Talkpages are not chronological.

Are you familiar with Occam's razor? That explanation is extremely unlikely, especially if you've checked my edits and my talkpage archive. At that time I already achieved my goal, BTfromLA solved the problem with the source I pointed out, he reworded it a bit and used a different source to confirm the claim made in the article.

I did not move his comment, I moved my own comment. The grey part in the middle. Did you read the example I provided at User talk:Wasbeer/diffs? That is why the diff looks like that.

Actually, Chzz and at least 1 experienced moderator (I do not know who) agree with me. Of course not everyone understands, the people who have the amount of experience and technical insight required to know stuff like this are in the minority, and there are a lot of people who use tl;dr a lot. Wasbeer 21:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please delete User:Wasbeer/huggle.css, User:Wasbeer/vector.js, User:Wasbeer/twinkleoptions.js and User:Wasbeer/vector.css. I am wasting my time here trying to convince someone who seems to refuse to AGF and seems to refuse to get the point. Ironically that is disruptive editing. I am disappointed that I failed to communicate effectively enough to get you to understand my POV, but I am not mad at you because I do understand your POV, and I wish you the best of luck. Wasbeer 00:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. I do have some advice for you: if you see someone doing an edit like this one, block the user instead of asking to redact it.

Good luck with that. Syrthiss (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Do me a favor, if you agree with me that Chzz is goodfaithed and much more experienced than you are, ask him a simple yes-or-no question: if you made a mistake or not. Chzz will not even try to convince you but at least you'll know for certain that you made a mistake, even though you still won't understand the situation. Wasbeer 01:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that I cannot comply with your request because of a (probably) unintentional logic trap. I do believe that CHZZ is a good faith contributor and would like to see their view about this, but I cannot agree that they are 'much more experienced'. I think that CHZZ does a lot of things well, and acts in areas that I do not. From a purely chronological standpoint my first edit was 3 years (rough estimate, my arrival in 2005) before CHZZ joined the project, and I was already an administrator for 2.5 of those years. Administration is no big deal, but at the least I was able to convince 21 editors that I had a good grasp of policy at the time and I have never had a RFC or any other sanction applied to me during my tenure. I have also handled many blocking actions both from ANI reports and elsewhere, and recommended several other good editors for adminship. Since you value CHZZ's opinion, if you would like to request that they give me their view on the situation they can reply here. If you do not wish to pursue it any further that is fine as well. Syrthiss (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@ BTfromLA, now out of time order - I am not very easily deceived, but thanks for the note in any case. Also, and this is not meant to be condescending...I didn't know the difference myself for a long time...but I believe you meant to use 'loath' and not 'loathe'. Loath means that you are reluctant, where loathe means you very much hate the object of your sentence. Its very strange to me that a one-letter difference so drastically changes the meaning of one word which otherwise looks the same. Syrthiss (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC) ie Hermione Granger probably loathes Voldemort, but she may be loath to mention it except to Voldemort himself. -S

Some dusty part of my brain actually did know the loath/loathe distinction, by it was clearly under sedation when I typed that line, so I appreciate the wake-up call. As to Wasbeer, my hat is off for the patience, care and kindness you exhibited in handling the situation. -- BTfromLA (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to second what BT said, you demonstrated a professionalism that few can master. I appreciated the fact that you allowed me to correct my outburst which gave me a moment to reflect upon my personal contribution to the chaos. What you preformed is mostly a thankless job, so Thank you Coffeepusher (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words from both of you. Syrthiss (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

unblock on hold: User talk:DylanWhittaker

There's seems to be an emergent consensus that we hand this one the rope and see what they do with it. Checking with you as blocking admin before proceeding. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, thanks for checking in. Syrthiss (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Done thanks for the quick reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Just to say thank you for unblocking me and giving me an opportunity to help the website. DylanWhittaker (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much Dylan. Happy editing! Syrthiss (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

IMP³rove

Recently my article about IMP³rove was deleted. I really do not understand how the rules and regulations of wikipedia are applied. This article I created was full of independent recourses describing the topic. IMP³rove is a nonprofit project initiated by the European Commission and the article was not to promote the project, it was build to inform people. Further if one looks around wikipedia, there are several articles that (only) have their own company pages as ressources, e.g. Smithsonian Institution. Since the article was approoved by NawlinWiki, I would kindly ask you to reconsider the speedy deletion. Best regards Deborah12345 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Deborah, thanks for the note. Before I answer, I'd like to ask if you have a connection to IMP³rove? I agree that the article was less promotional than in November when NawlinWiki deleted it. I think that the tone of the article seemed less about establishing the notability of the initiative and more about the positive aspects of it. Without knowing the answer to the first question, it would be my guess that you are connected to Improve. Many people fall into tunnel-vision when writing about subjects they know well. As you say, there are articles about notable nonprofits like the Smithsonian. They may have even been written by editors with conflicts of interest. However, a subject like the Smithsonian with an extensive history and impact is more easily edited by thousands of people unconnected to it and developed into a neutral article over time. For newer projects with more limited scope, there are many people who are unfamiliar with the topic so a smaller pool of editors who can make corrections and improvements to the subject. For reference, I know that I personally deleted articles on several EC initiatives in the past because some public relations person decided that we needed an article on them for some important milestone event. The articles they created were substandard and clearly meant to promote the initiatives. I would do the same thing for any organization that tries to use the encyclopedia as a media outlet.

I do want to clear up something. You said 'the article was approoved [sic] by NawlinWiki'. I don't think this is the case, unless I am missing some interaction between you and him. His talkpage has your initial response when he deleted the page the first time in November, and then a reply from him where he reminds you of our editing guidelines, and a reply from you saying that you have improved it. I don't see a further reply from him either there or on your talk page, so while you may view that as tacit approval he could simply have been busy and overlooked it.

Now, all that said... I am willing to restore the article and nominate it for a deletion discussion instead. That will give the opportunity not only for a wider audience than the 2 administrators (myself, who placed the tag and Fastily who deleted it) to comment, but often editors who view the discussions can themselves edit and improve the article to where the issues indicating deletion are removed. If this is acceptable to you, you can reply here and I'll restore it. If you wish, I could also instead restore the article to a space where you can continue to work on it as a draft. Thanks very much for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Syrthiss (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Syrthiss, thank you very much for your kind reply. I would kindly ask you to restore the article. During my studies about innovation management I got aware of this project and simply thought that this is a very interesting and useful approach for organizations. I am more than sure that other users will work on the article eventually. Have yourself a merry christmas! Best wishes Deborah12345 (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Deborah. I have restored the article and recommended it for the deletion discussion as we talked about above. You have a merry Christmas as well! Syrthiss (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle

I'm sure somewhere, my slip-ups are being recorded for posterity. Oh, wait. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Heheh. Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit waring in TALK?

Just a question as a side point, I wasn't aware that discussing something with someone on their talk page could, would or should be interpreted as "edit waring", as I perceived "edit waring" to be reverting back and forth on content pages. If discussing matters with someone in talk is to be considered or interpreted as "edit waring", then how can anything ever get accomplished? Just an honest question, as I really am not trying to make waves, just right a perceived wrong by the administrator in question.Willietell (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Willietell - you can technically be edit warring on any page in the encyclopedia. On usertalk pages it occurs usually how you have seen it: you make a post to someone, and they remove it, you make a further post and reference the first post, and they remove it. I don't feel that it is particularly collegial to remove other's comments, but that also hasn't kept me from doing in the past (see this page history and user Kay Uwe Bohm above). We generally take someone removing your post on their usertalk to mean that they have read the message and that the conversation is over as far as they are concerned. Either they agree with you and are taking the advice, or they disagree with you and feel that nothing you say can convince them.

Just making posts and discussing back and forth isn't edit warring.

Usertalk tends to be a sensitive area, because you get the 'You have new messages' warning (which can be annoying to some people) and because it is one of the few pages that are considered 'owned' by their user. Hope this helps. Syrthiss (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I am not the user you just said! This is my first account on wiki. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, just kind of rang a bell. Cheers, Syrthiss (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's alright! U can understand if the user was around Swindon as my knowledge ( which they don't let me use!) is around the GWML. Thanks. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A little hasty...

Normally, it's considered good manners to wait ~10-15 minutes after creation before adding a {{db-a1}} or a {{db-a3}} tag to a new article. This is because many new editors don't add all their content in the first edit. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll probably disregard this. If the editor fixes it, problem solved and the reviewing admin can decline. If the editor does not, then we don't have a sentence fragment as an article. I try not to be bitey too often. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions¹ as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

¹ Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Impersonator account

Hi, thanks for taking care of that impersonator account User:FPAS while I was away. It was, of course, User:Wikinger again. He likes to do these sorts of stunts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For the underping of my userpage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Syrthiss (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

three-revert rule

Hello Syrthiss. I'm reverting vandalism. I'm fairly new to wikipedia, so what would you suggest I do? The removal of the image from that page is a daily occurrence. Only reverting 3 times a day would mean I have to ignore vandalism. Downunder112 (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not reverting vandalism. You are reverting good faith contributions of other editors (who likewise are reverting your good faith edits). When there is a disagreement, you discuss. If you are unable to come to an agreement, then you can follow dispute resolution. Vandalism is a very specific thing here. If they were replacing the image with 'poop', or blanking the article, or changing every occurrence of the letter 'e' to 'a' that would be vandalism. You were not the only one warned, btw. Syrthiss (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Downunder112 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting my page! :) S∃AN ^(Hit) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OpenEMR page edit

Hi Syrthiss,

You recently extensively edited the OpenEMR wikipedia entry, and I am just looking for some clarification (this is not a hostile message and I am very appreciative of the time you spend to make wikipedia what it is). I am a volunteer on the OpenEMR project and function as the project co-administrator on Sourceforge and I receive no compensation. I think I may have a conflict of interest, because I do want the OpenEMR (open source electronic medical record software) project to be successful. My questions are as follows:

Does the above mean I can not edit the OpenEMR entry?

Are listing the features of a software project considered to be biased?

Thanks, Bradygmiller (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brady. No you can continue to edit, but because of your connection to the project my advice is to edit with utmost care. Personally, I stay very far away from areas where I work because I know I cannot be objective. As to the features section, my advice is to look at some of the popular mainstream software and see how and what they do. For example, I went to Microsoft Excel. Do you see a features section? Or Adobe Acrobat? I also don't mean to be antagonistic, so I'm sorry if you took my message that way. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply Syrthiss. I will continue to update the OpenEMR page with the utmost care in order to maintain neutrality. Regarding feature listings, though, this is still not clear. The following projects have feature listings: 7-Zip, Bender, GIMP, Mozilla Firefox and countless others. Unless a clear guideline can be provided or there is an argument that it is not neutral, I am requesting that the feature section be reverted back. Again, I really appreciate your time. Sincerely, Bradygmiller (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Of those, 7-zip has about a 12 line Features section. Bender links to a disambiguation page, so I don't know what you were intending to link. Mozilla Firefox actually has an entire article dedicated to its features (!) but considering it has 24% of the browser market that may be a reasonable thing. GIMP does have quite an extensive section. I'm not aware of any specific guideline that forbids. Could you perhaps put in a more succinct features section, closer to 7zip's? Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I will place a more succinct features section along with a releases and development section (seems like a lot of the software pages have these). Again, thanks for spending your time on this. Bradygmiller (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just refactored the OpenEMR article a bit to look more like the other software articles. Please let me know if you note any issues. Thanks, Bradygmiller (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

BlackCherry

I didn't know that the page was created by the same user (I just thought that the user just blanked a page). Thanks, Rm1271 ^talk_contribs 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, just letting you know in case you hadn't come across that before. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please help me with some advice

I have a question and would like some advice, I have become involved slightly in a discussion regarding the suggested deletion of a page on Wikipedia. The editor who suggested the deletion of the page posted the following message on my talk page:

Nomination of Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BlackCab (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I discovered that there were several editors (none of which I personally know) who had participated in an earlier discussion of the pages deletion that were left out of the notification of the suggested deletion, so I took it upon myself to notify them as a courtesy and individually posted a copy of the message on their talk pages, I forgot to sign about four of those, but nonetheless, they were auto-signed by a bot showing who posted the message, so there was no attempt at a deception, however, now I find myself accused by two editors of canvassing and posting messages with the signature of another editor, when all I did was copy/paste the message he sent me to their talk pages. This editor has since gone to the talk page of these editors and removed the notification I posted about the proposed deletion by undoing the post I performed. First I would like to ask, Did I do anything wrong? And if so, how should I have notified the editors, because I don't really know of another way? And secondarily, is it proper for this editor to remove a posted message from another editors talk page regarding the suggested deletion of the page? To me, this simply appears to be an attempt to minimize the participation on the talk page of the suggested deletion of the article, which seems rather contrary to the point of having the discussion in the first place. Please help me if you can. I am trying to follow all the rules, but there are still many I am unaware of at this time and sometimes I still do forget to sign all my posts but I am only human. Willietell (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are the edits, [3][4][5][6][7][8][9], which have all been removed from the editors talk pages by the editor who feels I improperly "used his signature", which was not my intent. thanks. Willietell (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, there's a lot to cover here so let me try to break it down so please bear with me :) also, I don't know the gender of BlackCab, so using 'he' for simplicity's sake.

(1) Did you do anything wrong - borderline, tho apparently unintentional.

(2) You could inform other editors by using the same template that BlackCab used, but by stripping out his signature and using your own.

(3) Yes, if he feels that you are misrepresenting the edits. He could also have just stripped out his sig on the pages, and left the unsigned template for your edits, or put a note on their talkpages that makes it explicit that he was not the one who placed the comment...but he is within his rights to remove the edits because they do give the impression that he made them (because of the signature) unless someone else checks the page history.

Deletion discussions work best when there is a wide amount of interest in them, as you say. However, there are rules against canvassing for 'votes' for discussions. If there are only a few participants in the article or in previous discussions, then yes notifying them all on their own talkpages with the AFD notification is a reasonable thing. If there are a lot, or if you only notify those who voted 'keep' last time, then it is probably best to not notify them. Most editors I'd say keep articles they have worked on on their watchlist so they would know that it came up to afd, and others who just happened into the original discussion because they like to participate in afd will probably participate when they see it come up again.

I guess my question for you is how did you arrive at your list of those to notify? I didn't see you leaving a notice at every one of their talkpages, but I don't know if you stopped because BlackCab came to your talkpage or if there was some other reason.

I'm willing to leave a copy of this on your talkpage and ask BlackCab to give you some leeway if you'd like. Syrthiss (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted it to everyone who was still an active editor from the previous deletion discussion, some were retired, blocked or otherwise no longer active, I didn't post to their pages, because that seemed somewhat pointless, but posted to everyone else regardless of their position in the original discussion, I was just looking for broader consensus than just two or three editors regarding the deletion of a page in existence for a number of years that has already undergone a previous attempt at deletion, I thought it would be more fair that way. I personally am undecided regarding the deletion, and other input may help me to make a decision on the matter as well. Willietell (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that was my take on the circumstances of who you notified as well. I saw a number of them were inactive now. I would say that canvassing is therefore an empty accusation, you were notifying editors in good faith AND had taken care to not just spam everyone regardless of their current status. Then all BlackCab can complain about is the method, and now that you know what their objection was you can avoid doing that in the future. Does that help? Syrthiss (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your help. Willietell (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Help needed!

Hi Syrthiss,

I created a article named Celoxis and it was deleted by user User:GraemeL on 14-December-2011 and the deletion log says that the article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Also, I saw that you tagged this article for speedy deletion on 14-December-2011.

On GraemeL's talk page, I have noted the importance/significance of this article on 17 January 2012 but I have not got any response. I also reminded on 31 January 2012, but again no response. Now today I saw a phrase "I am: OUT" on GraemeL's talk page, does this mean he is out for sometime or permanently from wikipedia and hence I am not getting any response. Can you please help me to resolve this issue. If required, I will write all the details on the importance or significance of Celoxis article on your talk page. Jaiswal.pramod (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a look. He hasn't edited since December, so I would say that at the moment it is unlikely you will have a response from him.

I took a look. It indeed did not indicate the significance, which is why I tagged it and GraemeL apparently agreed because he carried through with the deletion. I looked at the links that you provided and of them all only the techgeeze link seemed to be a non-trivial mention of the software (and a pretty positive one, I might add). I am not familiar enough in the articles on software to say whether that and the other sites you linked are enough to meet our general notability guidelines. If you think you can establish that the software meets both the GNG and the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guidelines, then I am willing to undelete the article and nominate it for a full AFD discussion. A previous version of the article had been deleted back in 2006, but 6 years is sufficient time for there to be new sourcing to resolve the issues and require a new discussion. Let me know what you want to do. ps - I believe someone who had registered the 'Celoxis' account here was blocked by me, and sent me an email a while ago. When I tried to reply, the reply-to address was bad and I got bounced email back so I was unable to finish the conversation. If that was you, then my apologies. Syrthiss (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Yes, I think the software meets both the GNG and the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guidelines and hence I request you to undelete the article. Here is one more reliable source http://www.webhostingsearch.com/tools/Celoxis.php for your reference. I did sent an email a while ago and the email address is good as I received few notification emails from Wikipedia. Jaiswal.pramod (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have restored it. You may wish to put in a sentence or two at the least to reference why you think its notable (which will prevent it from being re-deleted by WP:CSD A7). Please be careful to word the article as neutrally as possible. At the moment I will put off nominating it for AFD and see how it improves. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have few more points which I think, surely makes it notable, and they are..

Celoxis is been around from 2001, so its not a start-up and have been one of the early movers in online PM space. Reference: http://www.getapp.com/infographics/top-online-project-management-software.
The software has the best reporting engines in the project management market. Reference: http://www.techgeeze.com/2011/12/celoxis-project-management-5-0-review.html.
Celoxis is one of the very few solutions that offers the Multi-Location & Multi-Time Zone Scheduling. Reference: http://www.techgeeze.com/2011/12/celoxis-project-management-5-0-review.html.
One of the few solution which can be accessed by Android and iOS. Reference: http://www.getapp.com/infographics/top-online-project-management-software.

Whatever I have written are said by the reliable sources and inclusion of above points in the article will surely make it notable. Please guide me in this regard. Jaiswal.pramod (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those are what I reviewed at GraemeL's talk page. I added two of the points above to the article. I don't think the 'not a startup' issue is significant, but feel free to address the points I didn't cover if you wish to in the article. Syrthiss (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Jaiswal.pramod (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)