User talk:Syrthiss/Archive6

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

CfD Talk Page Deletion
Hello, I saw that you deleted out the categories that I cleared. Could you please also zap Category talk:French presidential election candidate, 2007? It is currently a redirect created as a result of moving the talk page to the new category. Thanks --After Midnight 0001 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. --Kbdank71 13:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * hehe thanks! Syrthiss 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw that Syrthiss removed the entry from the working file, I forgot to notice that Kris actually did the deleting. I'll check the Deletion log next time.... --After Midnight 0001 14:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. Syrthiss 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm the one who missed the talk page, sorry about that. --Kbdank71 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible need for adjudication in roadnames
Hi. This note is a heads up that you might be called to help adjudicate/decide how to apply PI to part 1 of the Highways naming poll. As you know all of us judging admins selected P1, but it turns out that there is a question of applicability. You should read the threads yourself, but my summarization is as follows. Some states are not currently in conformance with P1, and do not want to change if they don't have to. They are saying that P1 only applies in cases where there was controversy, and if the state's road project/key users are with staying put, and if they set up redirects for all the articles so that P1 style searches find the articles, that ought to be enough. (in some cases maybe they'll switch later if they want to)

There seems to be agreement that if a state is in contention about conventions, P1 will be imposed, but disagreement about what "in contention" is. In particular, NJ participants are split about whether they are or are not in contention. I gave them all (arbitrarily, unfairly, etc, etc, because I'm being a bit of a hardass to keep things moving) until about an hour from now to come to consensus voluntarily or else... the or else is that we would canvass, decide, and impose our choice. Right now my read is that it may be less contentious overall to allow modified P1, that is, allow states that don't want to switch, the option not to do so (as long as redirects exist) either "right away" or "ever"... So please get ready to participate, I think we do it as another poll perhaps. I'll seek those of you on IRC out later, but probably we need to do the actual voting on wiki.

As a reminder here's the poll for part 1: State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part1 and sure enough it says nothing about what states it applies to (only that two states get an exemption) ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats fine with me, and my read on the situation (I've been following along at least until my nose starts to bleed from banging my head on the desk) is the same as yours. Syrthiss 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your input is requested here. I had hoped the participants might arrive at a consensus but they have not yet. They still could do so before we finish! Please comment or reshape the process if it's not to your liking, as well as refine my statement of the questions, and then comment as you see fit. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks! Syrthiss 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're here (as always) and you're sleepy :)
Hi,

Feel like closing those three annoying bottom DRV's that I can't, because I've commented? I wouldn't bother you, but I notice from Quadell's talk that you're in fine spirits, so this could truly be an adventure! ;) Wiki-love, Xoloz 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No wai. I don't want to do anything that requires involved thought at this point.  I'd just as likely undelete a page and ban all the commenting editors or something equally idiotic (for example, it took me 8 tries to spell equally correct and I just screwed it up again writing this note).  I can take a look tomorrow though. ZzZZzZZZzzzzZ --Syrthiss 16:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not giving yourself enough credit: You, sleepy, are still worth at least a million normal minds! :) Nighty night, Xoloz 16:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
thank you for adding the link to the photo without actually making the photo appear. Most appreciated Dean randall 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you for pointing me to the Wiki definiton of a troll. I am shocked by the accusations he is making. I do not fit the criteria for a troll. He really needs to respond to my comments so we can resolve the situation. Dean randall 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, he really does not. Really, whether intentional or not...you are trolling him, and I suspect it is intentional (the "you're making us angry so we're going to keep at this until we get an answer!").  Other users here are not your mates at school, and joking with an administrator in ways that might be appropriate for your mates is very likely to not come across well.  You've been cautioned by JPS and me before about leaving Redvers alone. Syrthiss 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as i can see, redvers is the troll but i am happy to follow the advice given. Also as Redvers is not happpy to confirm the copyright from Colloquis would you like to? jimothytrotter will you give you there phone number if you wish.


 * I am in the united states, so I'm disinclined to call the company. If Jimmy wants, he can forward the email to me using Special:Emailuser/Syrthiss (he'll have to cut and paste) and I can begin follow up with them over email.  Guinnog I see has talked with you as well, and might be willing to assist with this as well (and is at least on your side of the ocean ;) ). Syrthiss 12:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help in any way I can. --Guinnog 13:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

redvers
Hey, I am getting fed up with redvers' attitude towards me and my friend Darren_randall, we have accepted that some of our past edits were not ideal and have apologised for this, we have written several comments about this which we have asked him to look at, he did not instead he deleted our comments without even bothering which to me is a personal attack, by doing this he is basicaly saying "you are a complete swine, i don't wanna waste my time on you as I Hate you so much" (the reson for this hartrid is unknown)

My last to commetns on his talk page were serious comments which i would ahve actualy liked him to answer, but yet again he is discriminating against me, if i could reach him i would ask him what this discrimintaion is about but i am unable to talk to him as he deletes all ym comments, I am not only offended but disappointed in him for being so RUDE, because to em that is all it is. There is no need for him to be so horrible to us, and i am now left in a really annoying rpoblem, I only wanted him to help me out of a problem and i put it across in a nice manner.

Do you understand him? maybe you could ask him what his problem is for us.

I make a habit of never hating anybody and hope that he can do the same.

thanks mate JIMOTHY


 * I'm sure he doesn't hate you. You however stepped over the line by vandalizing his userpage, and the only reason you aren't blocked by me is he got to it first. Step back from the situation and realize you're walking in the rain uphill on mud. Syrthiss 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not - that block was way back in July. And I'm not going to do it: DNFT. ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * DARN THESE D#MN ENGLISH MONTH NAMES. JULY LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE SEPTEMBER THAT I DIDNT NOTICE! Syrthiss 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

hello, why is redvers being so uncooperative? Is he annoyed my bann was reduced to 12 hours. We really need an administrators help because a company has emailed User:jimothytrotter granting him permission to write about the company. Dean randall 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd need more information if I was to help you with that. You can also put a helpme template on your talkpage to get the attention of other editors. Syrthiss 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the rvv!



 * Heheh no problem. :) Syrthiss 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page
Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that my only edit to that page was a recategorization per CFD, I don't see that I have a view on this matter. Syrthiss 02:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi, I want to upload some photos.
 * 1. Photos taken by me - Can I put the copyright to myself? Thus by restricting others from changing/altering the image and not using for profitable purposes.
 * 2. Photos taken by some other person - He/she agreed to release the image for publishing in wikipedia. But still wants to hold the copyright of the image for restricting others from using the images for profitable purposes.

Can you please guide me to put the appropriate tag for these pictures ?

-- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 07:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Image copyright tags is where you want to look, but I can tell you that neither of those two situations is compatible with Wikipedia. While Wikipedia itself is nonprofit, because of the licensing (GFDL, Gnu Free Documentation License) someone could take the content...perhaps publish it on a CD or DVD...and sell it as long as they don't attempt to portray themselves as the original copyright holder.  The GFDL licensing still allows you to hold the copyright and be credited with the work, but someone else can modify the image and can use it for profit.  Does that help?  We do still allow fair use images, which are basically unfree images used to explain the subject where no free image is available (ie your promotional photos from a while ago). Syrthiss 11:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

-- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 06:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your response.

My RfA
I've decided not to spam a thank you template on to everyone's talk pages, but this is just to let you know that I really appreciated your first support. It's a bit of a leap of faith to be the first supporter, especially in a self-nom, and I expect sets the trend for all the other !voters. Many thanks, -- Steel 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, glad I could be that first vote. I was very pleased to see the turnout you got, as my own self-nom only had 21 votes.  Congrats again. :) Syrthiss 13:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was surprised that so many people were willing to support a self-nom when I've only been here 5 months. I've seen users fail under "lack of experience" when they've been here 6+ months. I must be super-awesome ;) -- Steel 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've just been dealing with AIV requests. It's really nice not being helpless anymore.


 * Ah, good to see you enjoying your PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER! itty bitty living space. I remember being paralyzed for 2 or 3 days after I got admin, afraid to do something and screw it up. :) Syrthiss 13:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're completely nuts. -- Steel 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, question. Do you normally check both boxes when blocking people or just use the default option (just the bottom one). -- Steel 13:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was the same. Terrified I'd screw up. I'm a bit more relaxed now. I personally don't really check the first box, but just keep the second one checked, unless I see a collateral damage warning on the talk page. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I might just march around using my best judgement until someone moans at me. -- Steel 14:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I *try* to remember to check both boxes on anons. I still often forget and leave the first box unchecked.  I don't know how it works when blocking registered users, so I leave it unchecked...but now that you bring this up I better go look it up. Syrthiss 14:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The options do nothing on registered users. Syrthiss 14:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Block account creation should still block account creation even when a username is blocked. -- Steel 14:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain this edit please?
has an edit summary of afd, but you didn't place an afd template on the page. Did you forget it? Syrthiss 11:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Syrthiss. The author of this page created this page as part of an attack another page Alpha Phi Alpha via sockpuppets by linking to the pages he created and reverts he did on other website as citations. Another admin told me to submit it for AfD, but after placing it, i thought "dispute" would probably be more appropriate (the page would be valid if factual. I'm new to wiki editing, but I am trying to make sure to observe the ettiquette & comity rules!  which is not easy when you have a persistant vandal who is determined to game the system.  I even entered my account this morning to be welcomed to an anonymous blatant vandal warning. oh well. thanks again!! Robotam 12:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry, just saw your "post notice" up top. :) Robotam 12:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha
I edited the article, but I was not aware that I had removed the protection box, sorry, and thanks for restoring it. Ccson 13:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have requested formal mediation on this article, but NN has managed to mess this request up. I update the mediation issues and he was supposed to add any new topics in the "Additional Issues" section, and not discuss his opinions here. Of course, he has updated my original text, added new text in the "Issues to Mediate", and provided his comments and support for his case. I did attempt to place them properly so that the mediators would understand who's saying what, but NN has reverted the page. My original text is removed, his new topics in wrong section, and his case presented. The mediation guidelines say the case can be rejected if you discuss the case in the petition. Can you help us to at least get this page correct since I really want the case accepted? Perhaps he will listen to you if you explain this is a template and he must use his own section, and of course not make his case at this time. Ccson 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't think that he'll listen to me at this point...especially since I have just blocked him for a week (as Mykungfu). However, I'm willing to try and edit it to make the changes you asked and leave a note on the talk page regarding it. Syrthiss 13:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, looks like you already did it. Thats probably for the best in any case as it allows me to maintain my connection to you all solely as regards to function of the encyclopedia. Syrthiss 13:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The missing answer is...
...Wallonia - the French-speaking bit of Belgium. Mountains (just like home) but no intention of climbing them. Plan to sit at the foot of them and drink. Well, as a plan, it has no flaws :o) ➨  ЯEDVERS  18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
Your repeated posting of "this user's account is only three days old" falls under the category of Wikistalking. I think the competency of my edits speaks for itself. Furthermore, your posting it's pointless because without a userpage the closing beaucrat, if competent, will check to see if I am a sockpuppet or a vandal anyway. In the future, comment on edits rather than the editor. Regards, EFG 20:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So whose single-purpose account are you then? I tend to get suspicious of a collection of oppose votes at RFA by brand new users.  If you feel I have been wikistalking you then please bring an RFC, or complain on ANI. Syrthiss 01:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Note - EFG was User:Freestylefrappe and has been indefblocked as FSF is under restriction to edit using one account only per arbcom. Syrthiss 13:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you didn't do it just for me, but...
I'd like to thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. =) (It's kinda my thing to thank people who revrt vandalism on my userpage while I'm away, I think it's sorta rude not to.)-- Koji Dude  (viva la BAM!) 19:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. :) Syrthiss 19:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply
I did try doing history moves at one point but its to much work as i archive daily and so using a move wouldnt suit me and also i now use werdnabot which only performs CP moves, if GFDL was enforced on talk pages then i would try my best to preserve historys but it would be alot of work. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

RN
As I noted at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, User:RN has been blanking his talk page; which in addition to my warnings about his personal attack on me, also contained links to his archives, where previous warnings have been posted in the past, including details of his previous block. My understanding, is this stuff shouldn't be deleted from Talk pages, without providing Links to an archive. RN has continued to do this, despite being warned. Now he is accusing me of placing bogus warning templates; the warning templates were not bogus.

Now you've gone and re-inforced his behaviour by locking his User page, with all the old warnings not displayed. This seems out of line with policy to me. Nfitz 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Responded at ANI as linked above. Syrthiss 22:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * None of that material has been deleted, it is still accessible from the history for anyone who is concerned...and any blocks are easily accessible from his block log. As much as I personally dislike people blanking valid warnings, I also don't have a tremendous amount of sympathy for people who persist in hounding other editors.  He clearly saw your warnings as he had to revert them, and it is in my opinion reasonably poor wikiquette to use standard templates on established editors and threaten them with vandalism blocks.  You can of course contact me to unprotect his talk page if RN returns to editing, since people would not be able to communicate as easily with the user concerning their edits.  Cheers. Syrthiss 22:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that it poor wikiquette to use standard templates on established editors, and I only did so after the use of regular notices were ignored/blanked. And quite frankly, User:RN's actions have been quite uncivil in the last couple of weeks.  He has created havoc all over the place, simple because he didn't like a redirect I created; some of what he did made sense, but he manipulated and twisted the RFD process by changing article names to have different meanings, and then trying to remove redirects that no longer made sense.  It was just plain weird.  What I don't get, is why he is allowed to break the rules, and then wipe the warnings on his talk page.  Why is this guy above the rules? Nfitz 22:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for this to be dealt with properly. Allowing someone to clearly break the rules, and then instead of penalizing or at least chastising them, to reward them instead, is not on.  If the Talk Page is to be protected, shouldn't it be protected in it's state when he went on his 'wikivacation' with the archives linked? Nfitz 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Awwwww, thanks! :)
Hugs and kisses and loads of platonic love, Xoloz 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mykungfu Harassment
Shortly after your request to Mykungfu, S/he flamed my talk page with an arbitrary sockpuppet template with a blank evidence page. S/he has already has posted a completely different template on my user page claiming I am a sockpuppet of Ccson, edited my talk page, and changed the comments and templates left by myself and others on article discussion pages, whether we have tried to reason with him/her, or reported his/her potential misconduct.-Robotam 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've left a final notice for Mykungfu that they are not to restore that warning. I have your page watched, but if it happens again feel free to ping me here. Can you provide diffs for where he/she changed your comments? Syrthiss 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I didn't do this right, but I am attempting to link some examples here and here (my personal talk page).-Robotam 17:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The first one is certainly correct, in that he/she should not have removed the comments made by other users. The ip certainly looks to me like it is his (i'm going to drop the he/she in favor of a more nonspecific he :) ) ip...but also without proof you shouldn't have changed the ip edits on your talkpage to his username.  Now that I'm looking at the situation, I'm going to go request a checkuser on the ip vs Mykungfu based on that second diff you supplied. Syrthiss 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for your clarification. -Robotam 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a prob. The checkuser request has been placed as well. Syrthiss 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the checkuser on Mykungfu was declined. That can either mean that because of the nature of AOL addresses sorting out socks / meatpuppets is almost impossible, or that they don't want to "out" a user's ip address.  Its largely moot in any case, as (1) we know that pretty much any AOL ip that places the warnings on your pages will be him or someone associated with him (as I don't think anyone else on the project cares) and (2) Alpha Kappa Nu was deleted per AFD this morning sometime. Syrthiss 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Robotam placed a message on my user page regarding the sockpuppetry issue placed by NinjaNubian; (I think it was comment by you to robotam). The comment was removed by an IP address saying the comment was vandalism. Who else could this be but NinjaNubian? here is the revert

Robotam
The user deleted the notice, which is against wiki policy. AS you stated no more new notices. This wasn' a new notice, just a re-insertion of the old notice. 152.163.100.202 22:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

in reply to.. You disregarded this notice and placed another sockpuppetry warning. Do not replace it pending that RFCU. If you do, I'm afraid I will have to block you from editing. Whether or not they are socks is now out of your hands, please let the administrators handle it. Syrthiss 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is the same person (Mykungfu, etc.) since they switched to a blind AOL IP to again replace the template on my talk page after your warnings--and then contacted you from one as well to "defend" their action. I'm removing the templates per wiki policy, but I'll put it back up if I'm required to. -Robotam 12:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, feel free to remove them. I agree as well that 152.xxx is Mykungfu, its implicit in his statement here.  His statement here is wikilawyering around my request. Syrthiss 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

NinjaNubian/MyKungfu
Has reported Robotam, me, Mr. Darcy (admin) and others to  Suspected sock puppets I have added harrassment and illegal behavior to the RfC page, regarding this user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian#Harrassment_and_Illegal_Behaviour_by_accused_user --- Bearly541 06:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he's shaping up for a blocking I'm afraid. *points above to wikilawyering by him* Syrthiss 11:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * this harrassment is really a revert war between myself and Ccson, his sockpuppet Robotam, MrDarcy, and Bearly541. I set up pages, Alpha Kappa Nu as well as Sigma Pi Phi, and Vaugn Lowery; in response to problems that occured in Alpha Phi Alpha these users simply set up harrasment on other project pages that I have set up.   Ccson has been in violation of 3rr and the other users are slick enough to do 2rr on one page and 2rr on another page.  That is why this is listed on the cases against them.  Please review the evidence presented.  Thanks for the time and understanding. -- Mykungfu
 * Even though sockpuppet cases are closed, Mykungfu is still adding sockpuppet cases without merit. Please see update here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian#Harrassment_and_Illegal_Behaviour_by_accused_user


 * Also, could you please protect my userpage, but not the discussion, because I am currently persuing other ventures and do not have time to edit my userpage. Thanks. Bearly541 19:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:67.163.214.166
I've unblocked 67.163.214.166, because I don't believe it to be an open proxy. Upon request, I looked into the matter- according to the woman who contacted me, her nephew visited and vandalized, and I'm inclined to believe so. I've left a message that future vandalism should result in an immediate block. Ral315 (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good. :) Syrthiss 11:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mykungfu
S/he's evading your block: Would you mind protecting my user page (once the sockpuppet notice is off, of course)? I'm getting pretty tired of having to revert it, and at some point, I actually have to leave the computer for a few hours. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Protected as well. Let me know when you wish it released. Syrthiss 20:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. Let me know if I can ever be of service. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * wow, this guys getting pretty abusive since he was blocked...what's going on with the "idiot" comment? And then,"help yourself to some fried chicken and watermelon?" Wow.-Robotam 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)




 * Thank you so much for protecting my page! Bearly541 00:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - I wasn't even aware that there was an RFCU on me, not that it mattered much in the end. Mykungfu is busy filing bogus 3RR reports against me anyway. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You can verify that these IP addresses are the same as NinjaNubian and MyKungFu by looking at the changes that were being made before he created the Ninjanubian ID on August 30, 2006. *He was following my contributions and saw that I asked Jossi to semi proctect the Alpha Phi Alpha page around 4:02. *Within minutes the NinjaNubian Id was created and he quickly reverted the Alpha Phi Alpha article. *I posted a note on his discussion page that he only created the ID so he would no longer be an anonymous user. He responded that he created the ID to add legitimacy to his edits. Its the same person. If you can't link the ID and IP address to the same PC, its possibly because he's using one PC for signing in, and a separate PC for his IP comments and changes. You can also see on the Alpha Phi Alpha talk pages when he makes comments with the IP address, he will later use MyKungFu id and say, as I mentioned above, or I have provide the website, etc, which were the IP user. It's the same person. Ccson 04:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any doubt that its the same person. The guys at 3RR don't have any doubt its the same person.  As long as he's on AOL though, we cannot block the ips for more than 15 minutes...because they cycle on to another ip in that time (which is why he appears from all sorts of ips).  So I'm perfectly willing to go around and semiprotect whatever page he's disrupting now, and am about to go indefblock his Mykungfu account. Let me know if you have any targets for semiprotection that I've missed. Syrthiss 12:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you semiprotect the Kappa Alpha Psi article? thanks Ccson 22:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Syrthiss 22:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It took a while, but I think MyKungfu may have moved on to his next ID?-Robotam 14:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, User:StrangeApples certainly isn't a new user; he jumped into two talk pages like someone who already knew what was going on, and now he's citing Wikipolicy. But as for now, he's not disrupting anything. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm keeping an eye out but for now I'm assuming good faith. Thanks to both of you. Syrthiss 15:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He's back to using an IP address to revert any change that I make. Can you semi-protect the Omega Psi Phi article.  We're trying to expand the article, and again, he just comes right in and removes content because "he thinks it irrelevant". Ccson 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

there is a talk section going on,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Omega_Psi_Phi#Alpha_Phi_Alpha_and_Kappa_Alpha_Psi

Ccson is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ccson Ccson is continuously placing Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity in various portions of the article. One time in the intro paragraph of the Omega PSi Phi article ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Psi_Phi&oldid=76794285

his contributions

of the omega psi phi article. this doesn't happen in any other article. i.e Alpha Phi Alpha  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Phi_Alpha

there is an entire history that can be added basd from the official website http://www.oppf.org/about/history.asp

his talks are semi helpful at best with other users, but his contributions at best seem be showboating for his fraternity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jsmith212

64.131.205.160 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

there are more than one member of Wiki that his written to him concerning this

"As for the change that I made on Jul 31, I didn't feel that Alpha or Kappa's founding was necessary to mention in the Omega article. For example, the Phi Beta Sigma page doesn't mention that Omega was founded at Howard before Sigma was founded. Nor does the Delta page mention that Omega was founded at Howard before Delta was founded.

I just thought it was irrelevant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ccson#Omega_PSi_Phi

this is currently in the talk section and honestly can be finished there. 64.131.205.160 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The honeymonon for user Strangeapples is over. He has begun reverting information just because I provided some copyedit.  His summary for the change was "just moving some stuff around", but it was a revert.  He also has begun signing as ManofTke Ccson 06:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with that edit? It looks like he did, indeed, just move some stuff around. I don't see anything that was removed, and he added a link to the civil rights movement (which an anon user immediately reverted out). | Mr. Darcy talk 14:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it back - they're the same person, clearly: Unless you believe that User:StrangeApples came here and happened to hit all the same articles MKF was using, including his IP socks. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And, via one of his anon IPs, Mykungfu is also trying to insert information into the already-closed (and bogus) sockpuppet allegation against me:, FYI. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And here as well I'm at three reverts today on that page, so I'm bowing out. I think this qualifies as simple vandalism, but I prefer to stay on the safe side of 3RR. I'm going to report this to WP:ANI as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 64.131.205.160 if looking at contributions of other editors and then going and just reverting the changes. He then says the original changes can't be reinstated under they have been disucssed and approved by him.  I thought the process was the other way around, the original content remaind until the new editor gained consensus.  Take a look at the Alpha Kappa Alpha article and talk page.  This originally had 4 footnotes yesterday, NinjaNubian/StangeApples has removed all content she doesn't like and now says it has to be discussed before it can be reinstated.  She states that on the Kappa Alpha Psi page will be reverted once the semiprotect has been removed.  Any help you can provide will be helpful.

edit war on blocked page
Can you have a look at User:Vít Zvánovec and User talk:Vít Zvánovec, it is a page of somebody who was blocked; now a User:Zacheus tries to revert there (see history), I guess, he is the User Zvánovec. -jkb- 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello. Thank you for reverting my user page. Hungarian anon. users attacked me cause I have reverted their vandalism of Ferenc Gyurcsány, who is quite unpopular in this days in Hungary :)). Cheers. - Darwinek 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you
For reverting the personal attack-esque comments by User:Fastnaturedude on my Talk Page. I realise that I could have been nicer, but my patience in regards to an increasingly non-good-faith editor had been worn thin with his actions, so of course I could only expect him to retaliate, even if it meant vandalizing my page. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for doing that for me and for letting him know that his behaviour wasn't the way it might have been. No need to respond or anything ^^; — K e  akealani  05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So, it has come to this.



 * Uh oh, what did I revert now? I'm hoping to one day have legions of lackey-admins to do my bidding so I can laze about. Syrthiss 22:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed
Sorry didn't mean to revert you actually.--Konstable 13:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

End of the road poll
Please see here for the final stage of the state road name poll. --CBD 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing three links to same trade journal from Watercooling article
I also removed those same three advertising links from about 4 other water and wastewater related articles on my watchlist by that same user CDM2. If you will take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=CDM2, you'll see that he added those 3 links to over 20 articles. Can anything be done to block him? - mbeychok 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted all his linking and gave him a spam1, so we'll see if that stops him. If he continues I'll block and add his sites to the spam blacklist.  Thanks for leaving me a note, I was in a hurry and didn't look if he was doing it anywhere else. Syrthiss 18:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Alpha
Please protect Alpha Kappa Alpha because Mykungfu/NinjaNubian is making unwarranted edits. Bearly541 23:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

please go to the Alpha Kappa Alpha article, in dicussion is whether or not a personal website is valid for a reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Alpha#Skip_Mason

when it is indicated that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources

while also publishing on his website that

"As a historian who recognizes that laying a foundation for any period of history, I find their omission inexcusable and without merit. Permit me to share some a few statements (and of course my personal commentary in between) from their books: "

http://www.skipmason.com/hm/hm08.htm

on some of his website pages he states "DISCLAIMER: This page is not affiliated with the National Organization. I am not the Historian of the fraternity, just a brother who is and has always been thirsty for more knowledge on this organization. The information provided has been thoroughly researched and documented and is brought to you with all the fraternal love and spirit I possess. Sources are available upon request. " http://www.skipmason.com/about.htm

thanks for taking the time to read. 64.131.205.160 02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Kappa Alpha Psi
Please assist

The Fraternity is the first NPHC member to have been incorporated as a national body. It is referenced here by a Official Fraternity WEbsite. http://www.kapsimwp.com/News/MW0402/MW0402.html. There is a claim that this isn't the case by user Ccson, though the claim is very specific in that it states to have been incorporated as a national body. Ccson submitted this http://mblr.dc.gov/corp/lookup/status.asp?id=6210, but nowhere does it state that Alpha Phi Alpha was incorporated as a national body here.

Later on it was pointed out that in Wikipedia there is no original research when Ccson decided to write an email to Washington DC patent office and stated

"Here is the response from the District of Columbia Corporation department.

This letter is in response to your e-mail dated September 22nd. Corporations Division has the following companies on record: KAPPA ALPHA ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INC. THE (this is the closest in terms of name company to the one you are looking for) Incorporation date is 08/29/1918. ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY Incorporation date is 04/09/1911. Should you have any questions, please, contact Corporations Division at (202) 442-4432 Corporations Correspondence Unit #4302

There is no record of Kappa Alpha Psi, however; that's unimportant since the incorporation date for for Alpha Phi Alpha is 2 days before the date that Kappa Alpha Psi filed for incorporation.

This information is verifable and other editors are encourged to contact the D.C. office at the phone number listed above to confirm. Please update your findings in this section. Ccson 03:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)"

Original research..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

2 valid points I believe are given in that it states that Kappa Alpha Psi incorporation as a national body (and this hasn't been disproved) and the other is of original research and unpublished material (which is what Ccson has done)   thank you and feel free to reply at my talk page or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kappa_Alpha_Psi#first_black_fraternity_incorporated_as_a_national_body    thank you. StrangeApples 04:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * NinjaNubian heard the term "original research" used against him when using his bobbydoop Id last fall. Since then he brings it up repeatedly and always in the wrong context.  I'm not performing original research; I pointed out the D.C. website listed above, and then wrote them to get the info for Kappa Alpha Psi, they have no info,  My actions were verifying a source and their input, not creating new information.  the D.C. website states APA was inc on April 9, 1911, the KAPPA website says they applied for inc on April 11, 1911.  Nothing original, info has been available since 1911. Ccson 07:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When someone's refernce tells them to call the Washington DC patent office I believe this to be non-published, original research. The Kappa Alpha Psi website states that it is the first black fraternity to be open to incorporated as a national fraternity, not a local one. 64.12.116.202 03:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism
User:Mykungfu/User:StrangeApples is back to vandalizing userpages from AOL IPs. I'm guessing it's a retaliation for the latest sockpuppetry allegation against him. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Per all the above messages, I'm off on a trip for work and can't spend a whole lot of time touching wikipedia (my laptop is super ancient, this hotel charges for internet access...which is why I haven't had barely any edits). I've talked a little to Xoloz over email, and it looks like some other editors are getting into the mix as well. If things are still going on when I get back I'll be happy to look into it. Syrthiss 18:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You blocked my ip address
It's a schools one, so please don't block us. I apologise on behalf of the vandal, but lots of people are doing good on Wikipedia. By the way, how do you start a game on a MMORPG, does it cost, and are they addictive? My user page is Don Black.

Maya Angelou article and title
Hi, the title is On the Pulse of Morning please google if you question it.CApitol3 Apologies, posted on wrong page. CApitol3 22:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can assume that wasn't me.
Thanks for notifying me. The strangest thing is that I can't recall having ever issued anyone a barnstar, so I suppose the guy just pulled my name out of nowhere... Ral315 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mykungfu Sockpuppets Page
Bearly541 06:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been putting the sockpuppet notices on the user page of each IP, not the talk page, since an anon user is much more likely to look at his/her own talk page than user page. What do you think about that? I think it's important to label those IPs, because MKF continues to do things like file protection requests. This way, an admin can click through and see that the IP address in question is a suspected sock of a blocked user. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is necessary in order to illustrate the scope of Mykungfu's activities. I too agree with Mr. Darcy's post above. Also, I need to edit my user page as well. Thanks! Bearly541 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For Service Above and Beyond the Call of Duty

 * Thanks! Syrthiss 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you very much for your suport and for your very kind words!

Atlant 13:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anytime. Good luck with it! :) Syrthiss 13:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (I went and looked and we were talking on Hokusai's talk page about a month in on my contributions)


 * Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!


 * Atlant 14:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SRNC thanks
Thank you for your participation as a judging admin at WP:SRNC! We appreciate your willingness to be involved in a contentious situation, and to deliver an unbiased verdict.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Syrthiss 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bastille reversion
Sorry about the reappearance of the duplicated "background" material. I only meant to correct a minor typo in a previous entry that I had made and have no idea how I suceeded in cancelling the earlier correction (including "bes"). Result of late night editing I guess. 210.246.12.233 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a prob. Syrthiss 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
For catching the vandalism on my userpage. Much appreciated. --Kbdank71 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. ;) Syrthiss 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay then ;o)




Sorry for not thanking you earlier
As you would know... work, school, etc sometimes gets in the way of things like looking at my Talk page, but thanks for unblocking me and seeing that I was not a sockpuppet :)

Insanity13 20:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your image Hello.jpg
Nothing personal, but I think you should rename this image as some people might think it's the dreaded goatse image. (I for one thought it was that! :P) That's all. And again, nothing personal. I just want to keep this place on the safe side... --AAA! (talk • contribs) 07:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It used to be teh goatse, and was used for vandalism...which is why I uploaded the birthday cake in its place. Syrthiss 12:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can place it on IFD if you like, then re upload the cake with a different title. And I might see if I can get it protected from re creation. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 11:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:RN
Please unprotect User talk:RN as users such as myself need to leave message on it regarding that person's edits. It doesn't matter if they are on a wikibreak, they have made edits in the past that myself or others need to talk to them about. Also, RN removing all messages and warnings from their talk page is not acceptable. --Pmsyyz 08:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can feel free to email them then. They haven't edited since I protected the page so I seriously doubt that leaving them messages there would result in any kind of response.  When I protected the page, I placed a notice on AN and nobody at that time saw fit to reverse my actions.  All the warnings are preserved in the history of that page. Syrthiss 12:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Way back when
There used to be Category:Boy Scouts of America controversies which was deleted because of a cfr. When that was done, the history was neither merged to Category:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America, or Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. Could you db-histmerge the old details to either the page history or the category history? Much appreciated. --evrik (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Willing, but not able. :/ The way a history merge would usually be done involves moving the article, and categories cannot be moved...which is why we have to create new categories and edit all the articles in them to point to the new category when we want to rename.  I'm willing to do a cut and paste of the page history summary (just the who edited it when with what edit summaries) if you think that would be of any use, but I'm not sure how much use that would be to anyone.  Let me know what you want to do. Syrthiss 00:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the cut and paste is the best option. Do what you can and I'll be grateful. --evrik (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, to the talk page of Category:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America. Syrthiss 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --evrik (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop it, you guys are killing me... :)  --Kbdank71 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

204.10.217.82 block
Could I suggest you give an identical block to as well? Cheers --Pak21 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

School IP vandal
Thanks for the block to User:81.144.184.82. --Dweller 13:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a prob. :) Syrthiss 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

AVB
Thanks for the info n Anti Vandal Bot. I know there is something wrong when I am beting it to the obvious (blanking page) and replacing page with PENIS types of vandalism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've got it right now, grateful if you would check, jimfbleak 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking humor
Thanks for the laugh on the User talk:64.132.81.90 block notice:) DMacks 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * /bow :) Syrthiss 18:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wonderng Before I Make It
I am considering creating an article for a ghost town in Colorado. However, it has little notabiity as a ghost town. (It doesn't show up in any of the atlases I checked.) The only real proof such a town existed is because it's where the movie Red Dawn takes place. The town does have some google hits, though granted not many. Article worthy or no? -WarthogDemon 00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well it is mentioned in the trivia section on Red Dawn, and its a redlink in the List of ghost towns in the United States...but without any other sources it would be hard to build an article. The few google hits I looked at only confirmed that it was in Red Dawn.  If you were really interested in making an article on it, I'd see if you could find a source for the history of the town at the very least.  Otherwise, I suspect it would end up being deleted and redirected to Red Dawn or something. :/  Hope that helps. Syrthiss 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was I who put the red link in the ghost town list. Though if nothing comes of this, I'll just have the name written without a link.  And despite the fact at this point I'm grasping at air, would geographic coordinates count?  I did another google search and found the coordinates.  (Putting the coordinates in Google Earth which I have, the location does look like it may have been a town long ago.)  Would  be a suitable source enough? -WarthogDemon 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say go ahead and make a stub of it, with the coordinates and perhaps to a link for the Calumet mine. You can at least reference those things, and you can mention that it is currently a ghosttown.  Then hopefully you or someone else can find other sources to fill out the article. Syrthiss 15:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thx
Thanks for the rv on my user page, jimfbleak 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a prob. :) Syrthiss 15:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Request to Block Repeated Vandal
208.108.160.131 is at it again, vandalizing the Maya Angelou, Overweight, and Speech disorder articles. Is there a ban longer than 48 hours? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.253.240 (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I've blocked them for a week this time. Thanks. Syrthiss 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please block this user from adding link spam
Take a look at Special:Contributions/CDM2 and you'll see that this user has added three trade journal advertisements on 11 different articles today. As you will also see, he did the same thing back in September 28th and they were all removed. Also look at his Talk page, and you will see that both you and Oasisbob have warned him not to do this. Can you please remove all his spam and block him as well? Thanks, - mbeychok 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for finding a text reference for that Hoffa story. I've copyedited it to follow the wiki manual of style, so if you could take a peek and let me know if I've screwed any of the information up I'd appreciate it. Syrthiss 13:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome, I'm still learning the wikiway of entering info, so thanks for helping me with edits. The edits you made look great.Spectre7277

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spectre7277"

Block of User:CovenantD
I am not inclined to remove the block. Here are my reasons:
 * 1) I blocked Daffy due to a 3RR violation.  It can be perceived as favoritism if one person is blocked for an edit war incident, while the other party is not.  Both were participants in the edit war.
 * 2) CovenantD had other options.  The page gets quite a bit of traffic from regulars.  He could have simply waited until a regular made the 2nd, 3rd or 4th revert, or put a comment on the talk page asking for another opinion.
 * 3) There was no pressing need to remove Daffy's post.  It was not blatant vandalism, it was just a bad citation.
 * 4) None of the exceptions mentioned at WP:3RR apply.  Making additional exceptions to 3RR weakens the guideline, and sends the message that it might be OK to ignore 3RR.  I don't think we should be adding the exception "You may violate 3RR if your position in an edit war is correct".  We should be moving towards 1RR, not further away from 3RR.  Admins should not take a position on the veracity of each side in an edit war when applying blocks.  My concern was just deciding the length of the block.  I only considered past behavior to make a decision.
 * 5) A 24 hour block is a short enforced wikibreak.  It is not a big deal.
 * -- Samuel Wantman 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with the Tomás Quinn vandal and page protection. I'd never even heard of Tomás Quinn until yesterday at RC patrol, and I was really going nuts over there. Much appreciated. Kafziel Talk 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anytime. :) Syrthiss 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Two minutes, impressively fast! I notice that User talk:Supernova angel has a message for you, probably made up, but I thought in fairness you should be aware of it. jimfbleak 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm scary that way. ;)


 * I went and released the autoblock on the IP, so hopefully the brother won't have any problems. Thanks! Syrthiss 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And thanks again - they're coming out of the woodwork today!, jimfbleak 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ode to the helpful admin
I spend a lot of time patrolling Recent Changes,

Looking for destruction that's been wrought on our pages,

There are more silly people than I could possibly handle,

So thank you blocking this annoying vandal. Dweller, 2006

--Dweller 15:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * lol, thanks. Syrthiss 16:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Parkin's revenge
Syrthiss, thanks for taking care of that block. Cheers! --Daysleeper47 13:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a prob. :) Syrthiss 13:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of 206.246.188.234
I'm sure you saw the talk page for 206.246.188.234 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves ] • block user • [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log ] ) -- it's nothing but warnings about vandalism, and his contributions page shows he's made no legitimate edits ever. I suppose we can wait and see what his next edit is (unless he waits the requisite week, which by the terms of AIV, resets the clock). But doesn't that seem a little gullible on our part? Pop Secret 14:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Blocked them for a month. I don't want to block for longer at this point in case the ip gets handed to someone else who isn't interested in Clive Owen living in a van down by the river. Syrthiss 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFPP icons
They're in the appropriately named RFPP. Read the talk page there for how to use them. -Amarkov blahedits 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, though that still doesn't tell admins further down the line what incantation they need to use to call them forth. Perhaps we should have a note on either the instructions on that page or the talk page where to find them? Syrthiss 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Re-reading that, I sound like an old fart. "In my days we didn't have this newfangled semiprotection. We protected articles fully or not at all, and we liked it!" =D Syrthiss 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL
It's down to tough love, jimfbleak 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock
Thank you--St.daniel 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a prob. :) Syrthiss 18:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

G-Unot
Sounds good to me. Cheers. L0b0t 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
I am glad that you had taken the time to address this conflict with me and the user. I will try not to do 3RR. I will next time try to come to a compromise with the user. If all else fails then I will report this to intervention for vandalism. Thanks again. LILVOKA 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not reposted content
Please note that, contrary to the speedy deletion tags applied by, none of these articles have acually been through AFD. Also note that the re-posting by effectively contests speedy deletion under criterion #A7. Uncle G 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that articles previously speedy deleted aren't speedyable as recreated content only if they corrected the problems that caused them to be speedyable in the first place. Syrthiss 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject. This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply. Syrthiss 18:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You've just quoted the part of the criterion that tells you that you may not speedily delete under that criterion if something hasn't been through AFD. You can only speedy delete under the original criterion, and the original criterion was #A7, which has been effectively contested, and which, if contested, says to go through AFD. Uncle G 09:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:LittlePlasticCastle
We're going to need a protected/deleted combo on that, he habitually recreates them after they are deleted. --tjstrf talk 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And already has, in fact. --tjstrf talk 18:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!
I HATE it when I spill stew on my shirt. Har. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bear Community
Hi,

I have blocked the offending IP for 12 hours, to give him time to read up on civility policy before posting anything else. I have also removed the link in question from the article. In my opinion, the link does not violate WP's policy on external links prima facie, but editorial consensus is free to determine that the link is inaccurate or not sufficiently informational; based on your representations, I believe the consensus to remove exists (and I think it is the correct choice.) The fact that the link's advocate refused to discuss the matter calmly is also relevant to consider -- he may have added it for promotional/personal reasons.

Although my interest in sexual fetishism is heterosexually focused, I've certainly seen much worse than that link in my time, so don't worry. In fact (and this observation may give you nightmares), except for skin color, I strongly resemble one of the gentlemen pictured on the disputed link. ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing the copyvio tag
Hi Syrthiss!

You removed the copyvio tag on Modularity in networks that I placed there, giving the reason that, "The site that you cite as the source is itself a wiki, and I saw no assertion that the material was copyrighted on that site." I'm sorry, but Wikipedia's policy works the other way: unless there is a specific message on that 'wiki' that says, "this content is under the GFDL", one should assume it is a copyvio. I have reverted your edits to replace the copyvio tag; please discuss it with me on my talk page before removing it again. Cheers! Yuser31415 21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Toojay Seinfeld
This user is requesting unblock. Seems like a good case of a "second chance". ---J.S (T/C) 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've unblocked him. Syrthiss 22:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Many thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. It's nice knowing there are people who are watching any time I'm not. WHeimbigner 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to help! Syrthiss 22:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef
Well done. I was probably being too lenient. --Guinnog 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the hard part is we'll never know if I was too harsh. I block a lot of vandal only accounts with a fairly low tolerance, and I wonder what the ratio is of them going and making another account to vandalize vs them going to make another account and make good edits. :/ Syrthiss 13:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More on User:207.8.197.2 (Blocked by you-- Add two other articles)
re: this action   Hi, Just exchanged an email with Piotr on this guy. This tis just a heads up that I added two incidents to his talk page in ancient history articles. Not sure how the dates work with the Rome vandalism. Is there a template I should be using when I spot this kind of thing? These were in history, and not even really clearly remarked as rv's, so I figured to annotate his talk. Best regards // Fra nkB 01:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't know of a specific template for that. I know that some users wouldn't think to check someone's block logs if they see them doing subtle changes to articles (not that most of 207.8.197.2's edits were subtle), but I tend to do that.  That IP is a school, so really if I see any more vandalism out of it I'm probably going to block it for a couple weeks with a soft block. Syrthiss 13:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Aleks Kwas
I'd be happy to, usually, but right now I am very busy in RL - so if you want a quick reply, you may want to try WP:PWNB - likely a better place than ANI.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I come upon your message at WP:PWNB. I scanned quickly the text. Generally, the sources are quite reliable and/or well-established. This includes


 * Warsaw Voice, a journal for diplomats (many links in the text)
 * Gazeta Wyborcza, a major newspaper, slightly left-wing POV)
 * wp.pl a major polish portal reporting here Polish Press Agency depeche
 * Gazeta Polska now important weekly magazine (right-wing POV in opinions, but quite careful at the level of facts)
 * ] Newsweek equivalent, say
 * money.pl established finance-oriented portal; IMHO quite well balanced.
 * IPN, government agency (for historic issues, of course)
 * TV puls well-known private TV station, right wing option
 * radio zet a major radio station, left-wing option

The first YouTube film comes from the public (governmental) TV station. The second one appears well-known to me, but I can not identify the source. The above list does not imply that the other specifically polish links in the text are not reliable (simply, I can not assert this). But even those listed above seem to cover pretty well the text; actually, none of the inserted controversies were not known to me before. They appear on plwiki too (not well sourced, though). Best, --Beaumont (@)  23:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the help. Syrthiss 15:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Since you appear to be the only admin online right now, could you take a look at the MASSIVE backlog at WP:AIV? Thanks. --Wafulz 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasnt as bad as it appeared. CSCWEM had a bunch of them blocked already. :) Syrthiss 15:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Just to say cheers for blocking the pesky school-kids so quickly :) Hackloon 18:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. :) Syrthiss 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Same goes from me... the backlog at WP:AIV allows them a bit too much time these days! Cheers! Budgiekiller 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RfA
You are quite right as regards the relative frequency with which "doomed" RfAs have been closed early by non-bureaucrats, and I meant to convey that (aero)'s wasn't the only such close to which I ought to have objected. It may well be that there is a consensus amongst editors toward the proposition that such closures are fine (and, indeed, I'd probably support such closures, although not because they can spare RFA-ees [I love that term!] from overly harsh comments; I cannot imagine that anyone who should be off-put or discouraged by overly harsh comments at RfA should ever be possessed of the demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin or, hell, any editor, is propitious, but that's another issue), but RfA, as CSD, is an area in which we ought to be especially reticent to invoke IAR and its progeny, and so if such consensus exists we ought to modify extant policy to reflect such practice. Joe 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your intervention, it needed someone to pour common sense over us. I'm usually better at dealing with these issues, must make a NY res to be nice to people. jimfbleak 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. ;) Syrthiss 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Squidward vandal
Re your message: I'm not familiar with that particular vandal, so I looked around a bit and it looks like the Squidward vandal mostly does image replacement on articles with "SQUIDWARD!" in the edit summary. This one did something different. If I'm missing something (there a dossier for this guy somewhere?), feel free to extend it. =) -- Gogo Dodo 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Re your message: Ah, thanks. I'll try to remember to look in on the account tomorrow.  The vandalism was "in character", unlike the Squidward vandal (though how he found Verão Vermelho, I have no idea).  If he comes back, I'll indef block him. =) -- Gogo Dodo 21:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New message
Sorry for the rant - I thought it was funny. Hey, I wasn't ever going to be back on Wikipedia, why not have fun? I already edit constructively with another account people here do not know about, FYK. See ya,

Encyclopedist23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page
Hi, I saw that you reverted an edit on my talk page left by a vandal. While I do appreciate other Wikipedians looking out for each other like this I just wanted to tell you that I reverted it back because I personally like to keep a record of all talk page comments (so long as they aren't blanking edits and extreme vandalism). I find that it helps stop vandals as well, for instance I've been in situations where I've seen personal attacks on other user's talk pages and it motivated me to look over the edits done by the user whom left such comments (this of course would never have happened if those comments were removed). Thanks anyway and happy editting.--Jersey Devil 03:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks
thanks again, i think it's impossible anyway, jimfbleak 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats why my userpage is protected. ;) Syrthiss 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too
Thank you for your interest in my Wikistress. I have been severely disillusioned by the actions of certain admins lately, and am currently looking at whether Wikipedia is an appropriate venue for me. I am waiting on the outcome of an RFAr and ANI before making any decisions about further participation (and I believe you weighed in on the ANI--it regards User:Nkras). Once again, thank you for your interest and your gesture of friendship. Jeffpw 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

212.17.194.130
Hi, Syrthiss. I noticed that you blocked the ip(212.17.194.30) user indefinitely as an open proxy. As I looked through this ip user's contribution, this ip user just tried to make personal attack, and harrassing the user on user's page, and user's talk page on (Bhadani's page). I didn't see any slashings and putting same things in other user's pages. How could this ip be as an Open Proxy? Could you explain to me how this ip is an open proxy? Please reply in my talk page. Thanks in advance, and happy editing. Daniel5127 &lt;Talk&gt; 07:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Buzzards39
FYI, has reverted the cleanups you made on the Farmers Insurance Group article. I do not pretend to have the qualifications to get into the middle of a dispute-when I deleted some of his criticisms I found out that is called Vandalism, but can at least plead beginners ignorance...FWIW, Router appears to be the owner of the Farmers Gripe site. Would this be considered a conflict of interest? Inquiring newbie Wikis wanna know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buzzards39 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC).


 * How do you know that Router is the owner of that site? Even if he isn't, he looks like he's strongly editing from a biased position. Bringing this matter to the admin noticeboard, since it looks like he's a WP:POINT account. Thanks! Syrthiss 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know for certain that he is the actual owner. I do know that the examples that you deleted and that he reverted are lifted directly from the gripe site, and that the former leading sentence of the criticism section "Worst insurance company in the USA" is a verbatim quote from that site. The owner of that site hails from Arlington, TX.  Does his IP address give away his domicile?  Personally, I didn't even mind the examples, it is the nature of insurance that some disputes are going to occur and I am not going to suggest that the insurance company is always going to be in the right.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers Insurance products.Buzzards39 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

IP Blocks
Thanks for the IP block. I like the new template directing folks to make their own accounts. This should save us a lot of work. Rklawton 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a prob. That IP has been blocked by me several times before.  I agree, this new template is very nice :).  Even though it says that they need to make an account at home and then try to edit at school, its pretty rare that I actually block account creation on the IP. Cheers! Syrthiss 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How 'bout this one: (you know this was coming)  User:71.144.32.231. Check out the talk page's history. Rklawton 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Vsmith already beat me to it, with a week block. Syrthiss 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well, there's always next week. Rklawton 19:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * lol. Syrthiss 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Beefjerky dot com spammer
Ref: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive174

Thanks for taking this up with the meta blacklist folks.

Unfortunately, they declined to blacklist those domains, recommending administrators here protect the page.

So:
 * I documented everything on each user page
 * I documented everything at WT:WPSPAM
 * I requested spammers be blocked at WP:AIV or barring that, semi-protection
 * That was bounced to WP:ANI
 * You helpfully took it to the blacklist
 * Blacklisting was declined
 * I'm back to square one, chewing jerky

Suggestions?

I've put hours into tracking this stuff down and documenting it after someone made a request for help at WikiProject Spam:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

At this point I'm getting a bit discouraged. I really don't want to spend another 15 to 30 minutes writing this up again at yet another noticeboard if nothing's going to happen.

Thanks for your help. --A. B. (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Boo, don't be discouraged. I blocked the most recent guy for 6 months (about as long as I can do on an ip), and semiprotected the article.  If you see it popping up elsewhere (I'm going to go down your list at WPSPAM and see what the activity is on the other articles (?) for the spam sites and see if they need some blocks or protection too). Syrthiss 12:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And I'll try to go and do it a bit later, but can you help edit the notices that you placed with the various spam links so that the links are inactive? Just getting rid of the http (ie www.beefjerky.com) is usually enough.  If they are linked, and the links do eventually make it into the blacklist then those pages will be uneditable until the active links are removed. Syrthiss 12:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help. The links are no longer on any article pages; they remain on talk pages since this makes it easier to track who's spamming what. Here's an example from User talk:63.239.251.86:
 * www.beefjerky.com
 * Current [ list] of articles with this link


 * You can click the linksearch link and immediately see who's spammed this stuff. Many spammers use an account until it's warned, then move to a new one such that no one sees an obvious trend (hence the need for WP:WPSPAM.)


 * This sort of documenting, while time-consuming for me to do, makes it easy to at a glance see that collectively, users of these accounts have received many, many warnings. It also turns up a connection to a prior discussion at WT:WPSPAM


 * If the link gets blacklisted, I'll go back and break the links on the user pages -- here's an example from last night:


 * Again, thanks for your help. --A. B. (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. We can always use more help at WP:WPSPAM -- check out the talk page if interested. --A. B. (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

comment removed cuz it didn't work like I'd hoped OK thanks! Syrthiss 15:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User:66.217.0.2
Long time Pirates sock is back. -Patstuarttalk 17:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked the ip for 6 months with account creation blocked. Syrthiss 17:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice; at least he won't be logging in from the same station at school anymore :) Patstuarttalk 17:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't tell from the whois if it was a school or a company, but whatever. ;) Syrthiss 17:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

168.254.226.15
May I know the reason for the quick block of this IP which did not receive appropriate warnings before being reported to WP:AIV? The particular user does not have a verrry long history of vandalism. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If by "does not have a verrry (sic) long history of vandalism" you mean "every edit since perhaps the first two to Jade Empire in 2005 has been vandalism" then yes. While I'm sure its a shared ip at a school (I did tag it with schoolip), looks like its in a library or study hall based on the prevalence of vandalism.  You are as always welcome to unblock any of my blocks, but I don't think we're going to miss out on anything from an anon only block on this school for 48 h.  Cheers. Syrthiss 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MWHS' deletion review
Thanks for fixing what you did fix. Although I'm a DRV regular, I am not going to opine in this DRV. I mentioned a dispute involving them in my RFA last month. While I think the editor will eventually end up with an ArbComm discussion, the wider the circle of those interacting the more likely they will start understanding how Wikipedia works. GRBerry 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Farmers Deletion

 * I am agreeing with FT2. This is self promotion.  Please Revert
 * I will take your silence as agreement that a company should not manufacture its own news to be cited on Wikimedia. It is a blatant conflict of interest and is certainly not a reliable source.  I will revert it myself unless you would like to discuss further.  Router 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to discuss it... on the talkpage for that article. I completely agree that it itself is biased.  Obviously a company will tend to have positive stuff about it on the webpage.  However, there are laws against them just putting up false statements and attributing them to people so I'm extremely confident that this person said this thing.  I would prefer a better source, but its what we have.  I don't care personally if this material is in or out of the article, but you need to show a consensus that it needs to be removed.  Perhaps you could raise a question about it on the talk page to get FT2's feel for it being removed beyond his edit summary? Syrthiss 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough Router 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

194.83.69.103
Thanks for stepping in with the schoolblock for the IP at Cardinal Newman college - my best guess is it's a couple of kids in a computer studies class. No reason for them to spoil the wiki for everyone though, and they were going at it faster than I could revert! --RedHillian 13:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a prob, glad I could help. :) Syrthiss 14:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy 219.95.138.66
Hy Syrthiss, thanks for the note, though you needn't waste the electrons in letting me know. Most of the Supermortgagerate spamming IPs are open proxies anyway, but I'm just temp-blocking pending results of the check just to prevent the spamming immediately. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Conerning and Vandalism
Thanks for looking into the vandalism by User:Puck_is_awesome that I reported earlier. Puck did in fact vandalize since his "final warning," the MSMS page. He had received a final warning before he vandalized this page, and I put another final warning on his talk page after fixing the MSMS issue. Hope this helps! I'm rather new to all of this, so please let me know if I'm going about this in the incorrect manner. I just want to ensure that Wikipedia stays vandalism-free.

Thanks so much for your help! We certainly appreciate your involvement, as well as the involvement of the other moderators, in this online community. ElentariAchaea 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see that now, you're correct. I'm tempted to leave him alone for now and see if he vandalizes again.  It was several weeks between the previous final warning and this vandalism, even if he did add some stuff to his talk page after your final warning...he hasn't vandalized the main encyclopedia pages since that warning.


 * I'm going to continue to keep an eye on him though. :) Thanks for the help! Syrthiss 18:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ps - his username is actually "Puck is awesome." (including the period) if you have to make more vandal reports about him. The one you did here and earlier didn't have the period, and the pages it links to aren't him. -S

Deleted article
Just a quick question regarding the deletion of ReproMAX. As to notability, I was surprised to have it gone, considering that articles exist for American Reprographics Company - which is essentially equivalent to ReproMAX. Appreciate any pointers! Jkstark 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: RFPP
Today is not February 4, that template is not part of main page at this moment, please also have a look at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 5, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 6, Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 7..., all of these pages are not protected. HELLO, WORLD! 13:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why thank you! I would never have noticed that it was not Feb 4th myself. Denied. Syrthiss 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Syrthiss
I assert that I am the same person as User:Syrthiss on commons. Syrthiss 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Block
Here, it looks like you made the block anon only- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:NYkid0709 I don't think you meant to do that. JoshuaZ 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ? I thought that anon only did nothing when blocking a user account, only when you block IPs.  *goes to read up on WPBLOCK*. Syrthiss 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, per WP:BLOCK

"Block anonymous users only prevents anonymous users from the target IP address from editing, but allows registered users to edit. Prevent account creation prevents new accounts from being registered from the target IP address. These options have no effect on username blocks."


 * Unless it doesn't actually work that way in practice? Syrthiss 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, you appear to be correct. I didn't know the blocking tool was that smart. I should pay more attention. JoshuaZ 03:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * *whew* I mean, I block a lot of vandal accounts... Its kind of my thing. I would have banged my head on my desk for a few hours if I had been doing it wrong ever since those changes went in. ;) Syrthiss 12:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)