User talk:Syrthiss/Archive3

Archived pages: July 2005 - Jan 2006 | Jan 2006 - Feb 2006 | 20 Feb 2006 - 3 April 2006 | 3 April 2006 - 7 June 2006 | 7 June 2006 - 6 September 2006 | 6 September 2006 - 3 February 2007 | 3 February 2007 - 3 May 2010 | 3 May 2010 - 30 July 2010

"Africa Beer and breweries" category, etc.
Why did you close this deletion discussion? I nominated the page, one person commented, and I replied. That's hardly consensus! These should be speedy renames at the very least: Just try to spot the errors in "Africa Beer and breweries" as a category name. — BrianSmithson 16:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you suggested a rename and there was an objection. There was at best no consensus, and I took your 2nd comment to mean you were reconsidering your rename vote...and that would have made it no votes to rename (ergo, keep). --Syrthiss 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the procedure now? I sincerely believe that the name should be "Beers and breweries of Africa" or "in Africa" (and related for the others). At the very least, the name should be "African beer and breweries" (the adjectival form of Africa being "African" and the word beer not needing capitalization). Any suggestions? — BrianSmithson 16:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say at the least you could re-nominate them for renaming...but I'd suggest bringing it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer to get some support (or alternative suggestions) first. With that support, you could likely bring it back to CFD and it would pass.  I'm afraid if you relisted immediately you might end up with no consensus again. :/  Hope that helps. BTW I'd support the rename from Beer to beer, but if there's a larger categorization issue to deal with we might as well get it all at once instead of a rename here and a merge there. --Syrthiss 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I created the categories Africa Beer and breweries, and Europe Beer and breweries, etc. I am really not fussed in which order the words go. I was thinking simply of the continent (Africa), then the topic (Beer and breweries). Beer and breweries in Africa/Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania would be fine by me. Brewers and breweries could also be renamed Beer and breweries by region. And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, Beer and breweries of Germany, Beer and breweries of Britain, Beer and breweries of Poland. The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers. If it is possible to propose a multiple change then I would certainly support one. SilkTork 23:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked it over again, and were I to vote I'd likely support the "Beers and breweries of/in X"...tho usually I do not vote in CFD's in case I am called to close them. As I said to BrianSmithson above, I'd optimally like to see you bring it up at the Beer wikiproject and present it here as a fait accompli.  Failing that, you / I / Brian can certainly do an umbrella rename nomination and see if it can pass this time. Its been more than a month. --Syrthiss 02:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Nrcprm2026
I noticed that you warned this user about personal attacks on User:Dr U's talk page. You might take note he has now moved his focus on to me. I also am a principal in the RfA that was launched against him.

Also aparently this user has manufactured a discussion on his talk page obstensibly between the two of us using cut-and-paste bits from my talk page (some from an exchange with another user) and novel statements from himself. The results can be seen here: User talk:Nrcprm2026 the original here: User talk:DV8 2XL this fabrication is an intolerable violation both of Good faith, and I assume wiki policy. --DV8 2XL 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I deny DV8's anonymous allegations of lack of good faith. You both know the fact that association of one's name with one statements is a large partial determinant of credibility. DV8's attempts to claim that UO3 gas vapor is not substantiated by any sources, and when asked to provide sources, he and convicted edit warrior TDC ask me to do their work for them. If they are unwilling to associate their names with their edits, then I am certainly not going to go do their homework for them. If they want to find their own evidence pro or con, then they should be searching the peer-reviewed literature instead of just what they can get from Google. The fact that they have been unable to find any of the references which they ask me for is proof enough that they have no standing. --James S. 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Injunction
I note that you have proposed an injunction against me. On what grounds? Your suggestion that my comments about Dr U's edits consitute a personal attack is being discussed by analogy on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. If you continue to advocate actions against me, I will move for your joinder to the plaintiffs. --James S. 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not proposed an injunction against you. I have told DV8 that if he feels you are harassing him that they can ask for an injunction.  I have no stake in your conflict other than Dr U complaining on the Administrator Intervention Against Personal Attacks page that he was feeling threatened, and my agreement that your push to obtain personal information in order to back up their credibility is violating WP:NPA and looks like harassment. --Syrthiss 21:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Category link display text
Re Bear_community formatting, thanks much! --Xian 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Maine state highways closure
Your closure of the CFR of is listed at Deletion_review by the usual Capitalise All Roads double-act. As "censure" has been mooted by one of same, I felt it was only fair to mention this to you. Alai 21:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Explain how my comments on talk:cheese was vandalism.

Im waiting.

My page
Please do not further revert any changes I make to my own user page. I will decide what I see fit, and I would appreciate if you did not try to antagonize me by continiously putting stuff back in. I hope we can settle this will maturity. The Alarm Clock

Yeah, when I clicked the "edit" button, I think it took me to the section below the [edit] tag, and I posted the comment before I realized it was the wrong section. Then I posted it in the correct section. Sorry about that.

-Z

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. The vandals don't really like it when I call them out on it, do they? :p --TheKoG 19:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a prob. :) --Syrthiss 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Thanks
Just a quick message to say thank you very much for all your through out that mess. Freakofnurture actually unblocked us through our apologies last night, though the IP adresses was still blocked till noon. Anyway, thanks very much.

The Halo (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Vertical Wind Tunnel
I am the original creator of the VWT article. I'm a little confused. I noticed that some anonymous user added one extra item, and then you removed "more" of the links. Can you explain the reasoning behind removing only some of the commercial links? I initially listed all known Vertical Wind Tunnel manufacturers (many of which also refer to their franchaises as well). Then someone added their individual vertical wind tunnel. However, you did not remove Aerodium, which is every bit as manufacturer as SkyVenture and others. Did you mean to remove ALL the links (except for Bodyflight Network - which is a directory itself), or only remove the links from the IP address 195.99.138.2. You might have misinterpreted the links (for example, either thought Aerodium was a directory when it was really a manufacturer just like the SkyVenture franchise, etc) If possible, can you complete your job (removing the final Aerodium link) or adding back all my original links -- just want to be sure what your original intentions were, so that we can be consistent. Mdrejhon 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't mean to step on toes. I left Aerodium up because they were specifically mentioned in the text, in context.  Thats in line with the policy on external links, in that it supports information in the text of the article.  External links policy allows for one or two representative links as well, so I will of course defer to people who actually have worked on the article (ie you) if you want to remove Aerodium or reinstate one or two of the other links if you felt it supported the text.  I just wanted to act to head things off at the pass in case the anon came back and complained that I was being biased against their link. --Syrthiss 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But SkyVenture is also mentioned in the article too, as it illustrates that they are an indoor type of vertical wind tunnel (as opposed to external), and you removed the link.  Appalachian Amusement Center (mentioned as an outdoor unit, along with Aerodium) is the prototype for one of the vertical wind tunnels under another name.  So 3 of them, not just Aerodium, was mentioned in the article.  Granted, Bodyflying AG was not mentioned, but I listed all "Big 4" manufacturers (each of which supplied multiple vertical wind tunnels), even though some of them run some of them.   There are only about 30 commercial vertical wind tunnels in operation worldwide, almost half of them in USA, so spam won't be a big concern.  However, more are under construction (at this moment, SkyVenture has sold more than dozen sets of windtunnel components for yet-to-be-constructed sites).   So a decision needs to be made: Should we list manufacturers (under a separate External Links section labelled "External Links - Manufacturers"), should we reinstate the 4 manufacturers (the ones that have made VWT's for at least 2 still-operating sites), or should we remove all 4 altogether.  Etiquette clarification is needed here. Mdrejhon 19:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well in that case I would suggest all of them be removed from the external links. You can certainly reference the information about VWT manufacturers in the text of the article, but linking to the sites (which are commercial in nature) in my opinion goes against the style guideline.  You could bring this subject up on the talk page for Vertical Wind Tunnel and see if any other editors want to weigh in with opinions as well.  Hope that helps. --Syrthiss 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Gracias
Thanks for blocking. ¡Dustimagic! ( T / C ) 19:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a prob :) --Syrthiss 19:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for correcting my Barnstar submission for Kukini - that was the first I'd submitted and hadn't noticed the typo (I'd c&p'd from the barnstar entry) :) Longshot14 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * heheh not a prob. --Syrthiss 14:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You said that I have called some one an idiot prove it
Prove that I have called someone an idiotI ask you to prove it As I recall I said a statement was idotic not a person but a statement so prove that I called a person an idiot. If you do not respon or can not prove it I will asume that I am correct in saying that I havent called anyone an idiot.

And glorification of the SS is pro nazi.

(Deng 21:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

I am still waiting

(Deng 07:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Ah, I see you've managed to wait out your block. I think Woohookitty explained it pretty well on your talk page: its sophistry to say "I called someone's statement idiotic, not them!". Many people would infer that calling something they said idiotic is meant as a personal attack. Instead of trying to explain away a fine point of semantics, why don't you try to take the underlying message to heart: think when you are writing something whether it seems abrasive. --Syrthiss 13:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I managed to wait out the block is that some sort of mocking statement by your own logic dosent that mean that you are mocking me? Also callaing something someones says idiotic and a person for an idiot are 2 very seperate things. It is clear that you couldnt find any justification what so ever for your comment and are now trying to twist reality. The fact remains calling someone an idiot and calling a statement idiotic is not the same and will never be the same and has never been the same.

On the same page the eastern front page someone called my statement idiotic why havent you objected to that statement? Dosent that very fact PROVE that you are only intressted in me and what I do and if someone else does the same thing well that is just fine.

(Deng 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC))


 * I only warned you for personal attacks; you'll note that Katefan0 was the person who blocked you. My only connection to you is a report on the Personal Attacks Intervention page, so yes I was primarily looking for confirmation that you did what the person said.  If you can point out where the other user called your statement idiotic I will go admonish them as well. --Syrthiss 13:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What gives you the right to edit my talk page without even telling me it and remove what other people put there?

(Deng 10:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC))


 * See the vandalism policy, and the admin page. It looked like vandalism to me, so I reverted it...  My apologies if you desired to have a personal attack against Woohookitty on your talk page from an anonymous poster.  It goes against civility guidelines, so restoring it is not recommended.  As for not telling you, we don't usually place a notice on a page that we removed vandalism.  Thats what an edit summary is for, and mine clearly states:


 * Reverted edits by 65.129.201.123 (talk) to last version by Woohookitty


 * ...which is the admin vandalism rollback.


 * So now we come to the crux of the matter: I would like you to be a productive member of Wikipedia, but I'm also not going to spend anymore time on responding to imagined slights for my following Wikipedia policies. If you want to point out the diff I mentioned above that shows the other user calling your statements idiotic, I will go warn them against personal attacks (as Woohookitty also said she would do on your talk page).  Other than that, I'm considering this matter closed. --Syrthiss 13:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty is a HE, a MAN, a MALE

And NO I dont have any intresset in you going after someone but I can point it out to prove that I am telling the truth http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29&oldid=42472609 edit by Constanz

Also what did you mean when you said "Ah, I see you've managed to wait out your block."

(Deng 15:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Heh my mistake re Woohookitty's gender. "Ah, I see you've managed to wait out your block." means "I see you are able to post again elsewhere [than your talk page] in Wikipedia". --Syrthiss 15:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok and OK, and by the way your page is bugged so this reply might be anywhere ;)

Cheers

(Deng 16:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

One quick thing, I never wrote or impleied in any way to you are the one who blocked me I know it was Katefan0 who did so. But if you look one post down you will see that that person believes it was you. (Deng 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Block of Superdeng
Thank you for giving this issue administrative attention. DMorpheus 01:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :)
I edited enough anonymous such that I never really left. I must face facts: I am addicted, and there are many worse things to be addicted to! Besides, thanks to steady heads like yours, it seems a productive peace and order is slowly coming back around here. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

IP vandal
I couldn't find a policy to that effect. If an IP user has been vandalising, shouldn't it be blocked lest he returns? Why?

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 15:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocking on Wikipedia is meant to be preventative to keep users from damaging articles, not punative (to punish the vandals). It tends to be up to which admin looks at a listing how far they are willing to push that line.  I will come down hard on vandals, but usually only if they are currently vandalizing.  I didn't say that the vandal would never be blocked, just that in my opinion they didn't need blocking immediately.  If they begin again, reporting them to the AIV board again or telling me here will result in them being blocked. Does that help? --Syrthiss 15:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
I sincerely apologize for placing a troublesome IP address on the wrong page. I am no longer a clueless newbie, and have been doing some recent changes patrolling. I pride myself with fixing many vandalisms and notifying the perpetrators on their talk pages.

This one already had been administered test 4, and so I wanted to notify an administrator that he/she should consider blocking the same.

Please tell me how to do this in the future that I may contribute to this worthwhile encyclopedia. --Railsmart 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What you did was correct, but the ip that you gave us wasn't correct for what you are telling me. :/ --Syrthiss 17:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is indeed copied wrong. It should be 142.22.16.15--Railsmart 17:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like you meant .  doesn't exist as far as wikipedia knows. :)  142.22.16.55 has been blocked already by RexNL. --Syrthiss 17:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for reverting the mindless vandalism to my user page! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 15:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * lol anytime. thanks! :) --Syrthiss 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Monobook page
Yes. I am using monobook, and have been since I signed up in December. It's my default. PrometheusX303 20:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde   Weys  04:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your vandalism block of March 6th on 62.171.198.5
Syrthiss, I was wondering about the vandalism block on the ip mentioned above. Since this IP has now been blocked "$deity knows" how many times, and the last block to the IP was 48 hours, how would an admin handle the thought of a possible infinite or long term (say 3 month) block against the IP? I ask because I am hoping soon to go for an RfA, and I am trying to gauge the reactions of other administrators to events which occur, so that I can get a better idea of how others do things. Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 12:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack


 * It depends on the situation, honestly. For this ip, since Geni has at times unblocked it I would try to keep the blocks "short" (48 hrs or less).  I assume they unblocked it because they had a request to unblock from some registered users who were also caught in the block.  There are other ips that have been blocked for longer periods of time (my personal block log has an ip I blocked yesterday or the day before for 3 months) that are also registered to schools, where we haven't had any collateral damage...so I'm willing to push the blocks longer.  I wouldn't block an ip for indefinite unless I had proof that it was the ip of an indefinitely blocked registered user, and probably wouldn't block an ip vandal for more than 3 months.  I hope that helps, and if you have any other admin-related questions I'm happy to answer here or on email. --Syrthiss 13:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well-deserved

 * yay! two in one week isnt bad. =D --Syrthiss 17:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aww, thanks!
Take care,  Sango  123    (e)  22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)



Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. I'm not sure what he did but my browser couldn't handle loading that much stuff and I was unable to revert it myself. For braving the horrendous vandalism left behind, I hereby award you this WikiCookie. Thanks again. :) Buchanan-Hermit™ .. CONTRIBS .. SPEAK!  22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, he added a ton of images. I couldn't load your page either, but was able to revert him from his contributions list.  I'll check that other image of his when I get home (dont want to open images with 'p3nis' in the name at work).  Thanks for the cookie. :) --Syrthiss 22:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, it did.
[]. — Mar. 11, '06 [12:58] 

Re: Orphaned cats conundrum
 Thank you. Yet I believe it's better to comply with the consensus already obtained in the discussion. &mdash; Instantnood 13:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thats the problem. There was no consensus.  In my viewing, we have 1 statement for delete and 2 statements for keeping and cat-redirecting. Thats why I asked folks to come back and read my proposed resolution.  If I close the discussion as it stands on the Mar 2 page, the categories will neither be deleted nor soft-redirected.


 * Since I have you here, when you say that Schmucky depopulated the categories... do you mean recently or back in the past? --Syrthiss 14:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

re test4 question
Thanks. Ok, but where to list identified vandal in order user could keep an eye on them? Attilios 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

Assistance
Hello,

Thank you for your input. Actually, I do not want any assistance other than putting my name forward and putting it to a vote. I thought my self nomination would have done that. Would you please advise me on how to proceed to getting my name forwarded for a vote. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 21:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * r u going to help me out ? SirIsaacBrock 11:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, yes would you please make the necessary post. Just include everything that is there the way it is, I think it is adequate. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Moves
Thanks, I think. :-) I think I've taken care of them all, moving them all back and deleting the redirects. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 15:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * :-) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 15:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

AIV about 209.213.220.178
A listed user on AIV recently. I have seen you delisted him, leaving only a warning. I am a little surprised. To me all the edits on March (perhaps with the exception of Robert Oppenheimer and Talk:Helen Hunt Jackson) qualify as vandalism. Moreover the user has already received many warnings and been blocked four times. Could you please explain your decision? Thanks for your work on AIV. (That was me --Bernard Helmstetter 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC))


 * My reasoning is as follows:


 * 1) The previous warning was 6 days old.
 * 2) It is a school ip, that per blocking policy we should try to keep blocks short on. Because they had already stopped, if I dropped a 24 hour block on them its questionable that they would actually encounter the block...which means that any productive editor from that ip (I know, its rare from their contributions history but I have to assume a tiny bit of good faith) might be blocked from editing, and the vandal might not be inconvenienced at all.
 * 3) The blocking policy is preventative, not punative. While I admit I blur the line a bit, the above reasons make it hard for me to step into the punative area.  If they had been active when you reported it (or when I looked at it, I know there was some lag) I would have blocked them based on the strength of the previous warnings and blocks without a final warning.


 * Does that help? --Syrthiss 18:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand. You write they have already stopped, but I see many vandalism edits since the last warning, and the last edit is from a few hours ago. Did you not see them ? --Bernard Helmstetter 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The previous warning to mine on their talk page is timestamped --Kbh3rdtalk 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC). My last warning to them is timestamped -- Syrthiss 17:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC).  I don't remember exactly when your report of them was, but it was sometime before my 17:03 warning... and their last vandalism was * 16:01, March 16, 2006 (hist) (diff) Robert Millikan (→Education).  So when I warned them at 17:03, they had stopped vandalizing by around an hour.  Are you getting confused between your local time settings and the UTC? --Syrthiss 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I did no give the same meaning to "stop vandalizing" as you do... I fear this will continue in the days to come. I understand your reasoning, though I am not sure I approve. Longer blocks would not be so serious to other users since they still could get an account. --Bernard Helmstetter 19:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats not the way it works, unfortunately. If I block the underlying ip, then any registered user from that ip cannot edit or register an account.  In any case, you are welcome to disagree...there are some admins who would have blocked them given the same information I had.  Its the luck of the draw which admin you get at AIV. --Syrthiss 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your congrats message, much appreciated. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  08:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Whois info
Hi, on the protection request page you question whether the user with the 84.13.x.x addresses who vandalises the LBC-related articles is sharing an IP with a New Jersey block (160.x.x.x). One of the addresses that has vandalised these pages before is 194.203.201.92, which appears to be Hoare Govett Services, a corporate broker in central London. The 160.83.73.14 and 160.83.32.14 addresses appear to be proxy servers owned by Deutsch Bank (deuba), with the later corresponding to proxy0-hh.uk.deuba.com. So despite being an American IP address, it seems that's intended for use by the UK offices of Deutsch Bank. Is it therefore possible that the vandal(s) are working in an office that has access to various proxies owned by other financial companies, and that's why a relatively small group of IP addresses have been posting near identical nonsense for some time? 81.178.78.149 09:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That could certainly be. I'm not ruling anything out at this point. :/  I was more hoping that they would slip up and give some solid proof.  I'm going to see if there was any response on the checkuser request. Thanks! --Syrthiss 12:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice that today 160.83.32.14 edited the Habib Marwan article, changing the word "Deceased" in the infobox to "Terminated". Interestingly, user Simon Beavis has been making changes to the same article over the weekend, including this very change (which got RV'd). Potentially the same person under another username on their home Internet connection? 81.179.227.202 18:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I have a tiny suspicion that more than one of the editors on that article may be Simon Beavis under other usernames. FWIW, having multiple accounts isn't against wikipedia policy per se...its just using those accounts to skew voting (or have "multiple" people reverting in an odd change) that violates policy.  If 160.x.x.x was Simon Beavis's ip, they could just have forgotten to login. As to 160.x.x.x's connections to the socks from Iain Lee, the block on the underlying ip is surely over now.  The last blocks I did related to them were on Saturday morning I believe, and the ip only got hit by the autoblock when the named vandals were blocked.
 * As to this article, I don't know enough about the subject to be able to judge the situation. If you feel strongly about the terminology, you can bring it up on the talk page...either to determine real consensus or to possibly subtly draw out any sockpuppets who would try to stack the vote in favor of the change. --Syrthiss 18:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

CFD closure on
I'm a bit surprised to see this has been kept as no consensus; by my reading, there's 75% "votes" for deletion, which given the low turnout, isn't too shoddy at all. There's also not much sign of re-crafting the scope of this to be any clearer. (Hopefully I really do have the right person this time!) Alai 00:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, there were 3 nominations for deletion (you grutness and pavel), a comment by seth mahoney, and a nomination for keep from xoloz. Thats numerically a 60% delete, which I don't count as a clear consensus.  From the discussion that seth and xoloz put forward, I was willing to try and have the category restructured and see if it improves. If it doesn't, we'll just bring it back to CfD. Hope that helps. --Syrthiss 13:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're counting a "comment" as a "neutral", in effect? (Assuming one counts neutrals in the denominator of "votes cast", but not towards a consensus either to keep or to delete?)  I suppose it was a somewhat negative-leaning comment, but it certainly didn't seem to be intended as a "vote" per se.  I don't want to bring it back to CfD too soon, though as I say, rescoping seems to be showing no signs of occuring.  I suppose DRV is an option -- might also get a higher "turnout".  Alai 17:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I suggested on the talk page that it be rescoped only yesterday, and crossposted to the books Wikiproject. Lets give it a few days, and if I get no feedback (haven't checked yet) I'll try to apply my criteria and clean it up.  DRV is certainly an option, though my feeling is my closure would be upheld or at best relisted.  I don't really have any stake in this category, but it seems that it *could* end up being useful.
 * And yes, the comment is a neutral "vote" in my mind. Comments are usually taken as something I should read and see if it expands on one of the sides significantly.  As seen previously in my DRVs, I'm definitely not a by-the-numbers admin. In close cases I read the arguments, see how that fits into the categorization precedents that I know, and make a decision. --Syrthiss 12:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

e-slang
what is omgyukwtg supposed to mean?Akupta321 04:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "oh my god yuk what the f@ck"... but thats just my personal opinion of the idea of cheese made with human breast milk. X| --Syrthiss 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Lou Franklin
Thanks for trying, but I wouldn't waste your time if I were you. I've become convinced that Lou simply cannot believe that he isn't right 100% of the time, and trying to change his mind just makes his opinions more entrenched. Take a look at his edit history, the conversation on Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, and the arbitration case under his name, and I think you'll see what I mean. You're certainly still welcome to get involved with all this if you like, but I wanted to warn you that you're opening yourself up to trolling and frustration without any significant probability that you'll actually change his mind. Hbackman 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'll prolly stop where I am. I just wanted an official stance on record in case he tried to get any of the recipients of his obscene tags blocked for vandalism eventually.  Thanks for the heads up. --Syrthiss 12:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Russian Foreign Ministers to Category:Russian foreign ministers
Hello Syrthiss, As you are one of the CfD admins, I thought I'd ask for your advice re the above ongoing proposal. Given your experience with Wikipedia categories, what do you make of it? I'm not sure what to think now. Thanks in advance, David Kernow 06:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm not sure what to think either. My intuition says that it should be Russian Foreign Ministers, but I also liked Foreign Ministers of Russia.  I think that since it is the proper name of the post it should be all caps, as I (personally) would refer to the Prime Minister of Great Britian rather than the Prime minister of Great Britian.  Does that help? --Syrthiss 13:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts; I realise now that I'd become confused over having various types of minister (small "m") and instances of a particular type of Minister. I've amended the proposal accordingly. Best wishes, David Kernow 14:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo's RFA
Please leave the text where I have replaced it. Removing important facts and debate on a subject is considered a crime in most official explorations of subject. Fact are never clutter - only to those who do not wish to see them. A tidy mind is an ignorant mind.! Giano | talk 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not accuse me of removing your text as I did no such thing. I believe in harmonious editing, so I wouldn't have removed it without checking with you...and seeing such a prickly, bad faith-assuming reply I'll leave you to your doings. --Syrthiss 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no accusations merely a request to leave well alone. Giano | talk 19:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
Hi Syrthiss! Thank you very much for being first to support my RfA and for the congrats! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi Syrthiss! Just dropping you a line to say thanks again for the nomination now it's passed - I couldn't have asked for a better introduction. Let me know if I can ever help you out in any way. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a prob. :) Congrats again! --Syrthiss 19:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

68.96.23.7
You're right. I don't know if I can trust 68.96.23.7 anymore. Thanks for knocking some sense into me. Evan Robidoux 23:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanka123
Could be, but "Sanka" is also a brand of coffee. :) Let's see what happens after the 24-hour block expires. Regards,  Sango  123    (e)  00:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Spam blacklist
Any chance of doing a quick add of www.detoxiy.com to the meta blacklist? It's currently being spammed to a wide range of articles through AOL proxies, so blocking isn't an option. --GraemeL (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noticed your post on the admin noticeboard. Sorry to bother you. For some reason, I thought you were an admin on meta. --GraemeL (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh its ok. I figured maybe you were about to log off for the night and my name was handy to try and get a note on the AN. :) --Syrthiss 15:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone dab cat?
Unresolved, yes - as you can see, this is part of a much larger debate on how the disambig system should be structured. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

re: categories.
One of the categories is now located at Category:Political student organizations, as specified by the cfr tag, and the other one I deleted without recreating at the specified title, because it was empty (so maybe it got moved to a 3rd title, I don't know). — Mar. 27, '06 [14:21] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

Oops. That title would make more sense. I'll take care of it directly. I'm too used to seeing the categories re-tagged after the discussion. — Mar. 27, '06 [14:34] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>


 * Ok, thanks. Conversely, I've never seen retagged cats... I usually just open the source and target cats from the listings at the bottom of cfd, and create the target then if it needs it. For all I know people have been retagging them when the decisions changed the naming and I've never looked. :) --Syrthiss 14:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Student political organizations I fixed it. Sorry about that. I think they stopped tagging with the category redirect when AllyUnion's bots died. I've been working on creating a replacement for his bot tasks (except for the featured picture stuff, with which I have no familiarity and could really care less about). — Mar. 27, '06 [14:58] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>


 * Excellent, thanks again. I'll also ping AllyUnion maybe tomorrow.  His last email to me said he hoped to have his bots moved over to the toolserver last night, but I think he's SUPER BUSY IRL. :/ If you had duplicates for his bot functions at the very worst we'd have redundant protection and at the best would take some of the pressure off him until RL settles out. --Syrthiss 15:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thnaks
I couldn't figure that one out and I was hoping that someone like you would come along and fix it. Thanks!Gator (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * heheh. I was looking at a vandal's talk page where you left that template and saying "huh? OH!".  Not a problem. --Syrthiss 16:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your closing of cfd of Category:The Waterboys recordings
I wouldn't call the result of this discussion "no consensus" the vote was 3 to delete, 1 to keep, and 1 to merge into a subcategory. If you look at the structure of the categories, it is clear that the deletes would have the effect of merging into the subcategory Category:The Waterboys songs. So the way I see it the result is 4 to 1, or a consensus to delete and merge the contents into the subcategory. -- Samuel Wantman 01:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see it that way at all. When someone says 'delete' then all of the articles in that category are going to have that category removed, not recatted into another category.  Placing them into another category is very plainly a 'merge' or 'rename'.  Rereading your nomination, the merge into "songs" wasn't even hinted at... and the other votes weren't "delete or failing that, merge" so I had no leeway.  So then it really is 3 to delete, 1 to keep, and 1 to merge.  60% of the total votes for deletion doesn't make a clear consensus or even a supermajority.  Does that help? --Syrthiss 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but do not agree. This all hinges on what the person who voted "merge" intended. He said "Merge into Category:The Waterboys songs. It is really irrelevant who wrote it, other there would be nothing under Category:Elvis Presley songs. If the Waterboys created a notable recording of the song, it should be under Category:The Waterboys songs."  So he is saying that the category should be deleted and the songs in it should be placed in a different category.he didn't say "merge with" the other category, he said "merge into" the other category. This makes it very clear that he wants the category deleted, as does his example. Whenever a category gets deleted people who are interested make decisions about what to do about orphaned and undercategorized articles that previously resided in the category. Anyone can do this, it is not the role of CFD to make these decisions. Of the five people who voted, there is a consensus of 4 out of 5 that the category should be deleted. There is not a clear consensus about what to do with the contents afterwards, but that is also the case with every other performer's songs. There is discussion about that problem at the appropriate wikiproject and hopefully will be resolved. I don't see how that yet to be decided question should delay the deletion of this category. -- Samuel Wantman 22:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your argument but I don't agree, I'm afraid. Furthermore, I don't see the urgent need to eradicate this category if there's some discussion elsewhere that may generate a final solution.  You are welcome to bring the discussion to DRV, or wait a bit and see what the other discussion ends up with and then return the category to CFD. --Syrthiss 02:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove speedy tags!
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place hangon on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.  Wh e  re  (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am an administrator, and was cleaning out backlog at CAT:CSD... and as such my purview extends to removing incorrectly placed CSD tags. I can at my option move the discussion to AFD.  If this relates to Licking, I've now explained myself both in my edit summary AND on the talk page *well* before you placed this message. If it is some other article, you should let me know which one I removed the tag from and I'll review my decision. --Syrthiss 18:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I did not know that you were an admin.  Wh e  re  (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

talkin' baseball
The result of the discussion was to merge it all into Category:Baseball records, and then we'll come up with subcategories to go from there. We might end up asking to call the whole thing something else, but right now, with the articles split according to a heuristic that none of us can divine, it's difficult to manage. So merge them into the most likely contender for survival, and we'll go from there.--Mike Selinker 17:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, pretty much. As for the subcats, I'd say combine them all into the surviving category and we can sort it out from there if need be.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks yet again
Yet again I have reason to be thankful to you - I think that makes it about 4-nil to you. Thanks for devandalising my user page! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 20:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't help it if you are a vandalmagnet. ;) --Syrthiss 20:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghetteaux dont make no personal attaxx

 * Getting close to a personal attack there. --Syrthiss 15:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

man, I thought we were cool, homie. Peep this rhyme:


 * yo, homie -- relax.
 * Ghetteaux don't make no personal attax.
 * on the mike in the house i'm like flax
 * weavin cornrows and eatin snax.


 * no trouble for me,
 * i'm chillin ya see
 * relaxin i b
 * so get up off me.--Ghetteaux 15:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee Ible article
I'd say we should CSD it, for I've notified the creator that if he wishes to assert notability, I will remove the deletion notice. So far, no response except a "thank you" on my talk page (still not sure if that is sarcasm...). So yes, I'll CSD. _-M     o      P-_   18:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)