User talk:Sycthos

Portions of this page have been archived. Feel free to browse the archive from a link below.

Archives: 1

Vandalism Count

vn This user talk page has been vandalized.

Counter Vandalism Unit

Template:TestTemplates

Hiya,

re {{mess2}} it is intended to be part of a series but a computer crash meant that the others were lost and have to be created. They were being created because I have come across quite a few edits where people were posting messages in pages — for example: one user posted the message "I can't find a book on this topic in my library" on a host of pages. Another I came across wrote "this is badly written" in articles. Another user posted 6 messages in 6 articles. They weren't vandalism, just someone making a mistake. The idea is to have a template with an automatic explanation of why messages should not be left in articles. I came across 5 messages in one day lately. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for recategorizing the template. I completely agree with your actions. SYCTHOS^talk 00:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. You're doing great work too, BTW. I think we have a great range of template now, both specific and general. So it means we can co-ordinate messages rather than have them written once-off every time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

How so?

How am i vandalizing pages? When i first came here i saw tons of broken links and vague information or typos. So i try to fix them or expand on them if it is a topis i have knowlage on. That is not vandalism.

If anything i have added has offended you. thats on you, not me. Some articals i come across in here i dont like but i dont try to belittle them or accuse them over it.

As far as guide lines, i keep within them. I dont go out of my way to break anyones rules.Larquitte 17:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in Wikipedia. Sorry for not being specific, but I was referring to the article Chocolate Cheese Pie. Please note that the message I posted in your chat is a template and may not be very accurate. Just take a look at what Wikipedia is not and you'll be fine.

Also, note that "If anything i have added has offended you. thats on you, not me" is not the right attitude. Any offensive material you add to Wikipedia can and will earn you a warning. If I have offended you in any way, please accept my apologies. Thank you for your time. SYCTHOS^talk 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User:PostScript

i don't think PostScript (talk • contribs) really exists. --71.143.232.143 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No matter, please do not fill up talk pages with irrelevant information. Your contributions, if done correctly, can be put into good use and you will become a welcome member of the Wikipedia community. Thank you for understanding. SYCTHOS^talk 02:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

no clue

Sycthos I am adding very important and useful and relevant information to the Westmount Collegiate Institute site. I do not understand as I post relative information you consider to be "vandalism" but is true. It says that I am welcome to put helpful information which it 100% is.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.29.96.99 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not a domain for advertising. Please take your play ads elsewhere. Thank you. SYCTHOS^talk 03:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

On Wikipedia:Templates for deletion there is a vote to delete thee template called behave. It is designed to deal with kiddie vandalism and works excellently, but by the usual WP mob are trying to delete it. (I'm all in favour of deletions of unencyclopædic content but the scale of deletions on WP is out of control. I'm on the brink of quitting WP at this stage I am so fed up of it. WP has gone to the dogs IMHO.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't quit. You are an important portion of the Wikipedia community, effectively reducing the number of vandals and keeping the site clean. If you have a major obstacle in life, I understand why you want to quit, but you are a Wikipedia administrator whom everyone looks up to. (By the way, if you are in this kind of mood, you may want to change your WikiStress level.)

Also, my vote has been cast to keep {{behave}}. Thanks for alerting me. SYCTHOS^talk 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Accusation

What on earth are you accusing me of vandalizing? Do not try to scare me into not posting. I haven't vandalized anything, and I will continue to post as I have been doing. You threatened to have me banned after I updated the Punk'd article by removing the information about the Rock as a Non-US/Non Canadian Star. The article had him from New Zealand. The Rock is not from New Zealand, he was born in California. His father is Canadian. His mother is not Hawaiian, but is Samoan (U.S. SAMOA). So take your threat and shove it. And by the way, I already reported you for falsely accusing me. --208.254.174.148 04:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Unwarranted_threats_of_blocking --208.254.174.148 04:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what? I read your talk page, and I see there are others who have no idea what you are talking about. I will certainly be advocating for your censure. You cannot be allowed to create a culture of intimidation here in Wikipedia for calling people vandals when they certainly are contributing constructively. You disagree with a contributor, you should discuss it first. I am not going to ask for your permission, nor defer any control or respect to you in Wikipedia. Please keep a regular tab on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Unwarranted_threats_of_blocking for further updates as I continue to post and respond to your content against myself and other innocent contributors. --208.254.174.148 04:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not violating any policies in Wikipedia. First of all, I am not an administrator. Only administrators have the ability to ban others. However, I do have the power to report and vandals for administrators to ban, and to post warning templates to attempt to stop vandals.

Second of all, I am not using any method of extortion. I saw the one warning template on your talk page, and the one I posted was one level higher. This is standard procedure and is not, in any means, a threat. In fact, the tone of voice you used on my talk page is even more of a threat than the template I used. That warning I posted on your talk page is used extremely commonly to deal with regular vandals.

Third of all, the vandal fighter application is used to track down recently modified pages and to produce a rating of how commonly it is vandalized. I picked a higher-rated page, checked for any factual changes, and reverted believing that it was vandalism. I apologize for this error and any offense or inconvience it has caused you.

Fourth of all, when you posted "I see there are others who have no idea what you are talking about", two of the messages of my talk pages are vandals trying to deny their vandalism with replies of what happened. The PostScript vandal repeatedly edited out the talk pages of other Wikipedia users, replacing them with irrelevant links. The "no clue" vandal constantly edited Westmount Collegiate Institute, adding multiple advertisements about a school play, which others have repeatedly reverted and warned. Both were true vandals.

The "How so?" user posted a cookbook article, and I informed Larquitte about Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Finally, the "Opium vandalism warning" is a mistake I committed. The user posted a name of an opium smoker I had identified otherwise. However, I handled all of these with templates and responded civilly, without harassing the user.

Lastly, the "You disagree with a contributor, you should discuss it first" message you posted is definately incorrect. A vandal definately would not take his or her time debating over an issue.

Again, I am sorry for the mishap. SYCTHOS^talk 22:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to dispute the POV of an article, you should first discuss it on the talk page. Thank you. Are you and Will Beback the same person? Morton devonshire 03:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am in now way a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeteer. No, I have never heard of Will Beback at all.

Secondly, I did not think that was a POV violation, but a vandalism attempt. Vandalism attempts are, by standard Wikipedia policy, to be reverted immediately. However, our situation was that I mistakenly interpreted your edit as vandalism, and immediately reverted it. SYCTHOS^talk 03:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, you were the author of Fry Mumia? Wait... I'll make a section on your talk page about that.... SYCTHOS^talk 03:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A belated thank you

I never thanked you for welcoming me. That was rude. Sorry. Thanks.--◀Puck^talk▶ 04:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. You're welcome! Many people do not respond to these welcome messages, but you're an exception. Thanks for responding! SYCTHOS^talk 02:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It was because I welcomed someone and they didn't respond to me that I realized I had never said anything to you. I think the template is fine, but it does appear automated, at least that's what I thought when I first got here. The next time I welcomed some one I just added a couple of lines after the template remarking about something they had said on their user page. That one got a response. It seems a little personal touch is all it takes. Take care.--◀Puck^talk▶ 06:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What makes Google God?

Sorry, this "Google Test" is NOT Lord & Master over Wikipedia nor should it.

Also, not sure what "template" this is, but the LAST thing you want is blue on blue or black on a dark shade of blue in terms of text and background. It's plain sloppy. Kmac1036 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Google test is THE final factor in everything on Wikipedia. However, it does serve as a valid argument for AfD. I apologize if I have used it too much.

I'm too tired to correct the color scheme right now.... I'll consider it later, but thanks for the input. SYCTHOS^talk 06:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You can close AFDs!

Hi Scythos, I noticed you commented on a few AFDs with "already deleted, close this". Did you know you don't have to be an administrator to close AFDs? Especially already-deleted articles' AFDs can be closed with no contest. All you have to do is use the {{afd top}} and {{afd bottom}} templates. (See Wikipedia:Deletion_process for details.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 08:38Z

Thanks! This really helps. SYCTHOS^talk 21:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana Baptist University

The reason I did a copy-paste vote on the various articles up for deletion was the fact that the nominator had done much the same - mass nominated a list of articles related to one university on the basis that the university was non-notable Cynical 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks! SYCTHOS^talk 21:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dayboy

Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 13:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! SYCTHOS^talk 17:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

You could just call it what it is (selective removal of comments) and leave it there for people to see and make their own judgements, without calling it vandalism. Guettarda 03:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a policy to match with selective removal of comments. I agree that the term vandalism is too harsh, but I can't seem to find anything else for the RfC yet. SYCTHOS^talk 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not everything covered by an RFC has to be policy. It's a request for comment on a general pattern of behaviour. Even though you won't find policy to support that, it can be misleading to other editors. And, after all, we don't own our user pages. Altering comments isn't acceptable (see for example Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop#Removing_comments_on_Talk_page_in_violation_of_Guidelines

Guettarda 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Section filed against WP:OWN and WP:3RR. Thanks! SYCTHOS^talk 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comments to me

In many places, you said, "Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. SycthosTalk 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)"

This is a complete lie. I never admitted using sockpuppets to "aid myself in AfD"; nor have I ever done this, even when I did use sockpuppets in my first days in Wikipedia!

If you look at the history, an admin checked IPs and confirmed that I never did this to sway a vote and I still never have done this.

You need to get your facts straight and show that you care for the folks at Wikipedia. This atrocious lie/accusation at the top of many pages is inexcusable and I'd like an apology; and I think the good people that you may have influenced with this lie should receive an apology as well. --Jason Gastrich 04:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge your attempts to evangelize Wikipedia, but your argument will not stand without a statement disputing against it. First of all, if your statements remain true, then why is Wiggins2 blocked 24 hours for "external campaigning group spamming talk pages to pack Wikipedia debates"? User:Big Daddy is another one of your main sockpuppets. If you look at its contribution history, there is no doubt that you have violated WP:SOCK for using sockpuppets to create an "illusion for a broader support" for your position.

I do not appreciate your constant and veiled use of euphemisms and words/phrases with a slightly more negative connotation when used against others. This is a complete lie is not correct, as you have, in fact, used sockpuppetry for AfDs. Also, I, in fact, do care for the folks on Wikipedia. If I didn't care, I would not even mind editing any mistakes I catch in articles, reverting and simple vandalism I see, or voicing my opinion in Wikipedia debates. I openly apologize to you if I have offended you, but I would also request you to conform to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Thanks. SYCTHOS^talk 05:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Inside view by Perfecto

Thank you. -Perfecto

No problem! I always format articles and discussions if I see the need to, and I completely agree with your opinion! SYCTHOS^talk 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Batman sequel

Hi Sycthos! A couple notes: First, you appear to have subst'd a db- entry on the untitled batman sequel page. Speedy delete tags are usually left in normal template form. Second, I couldn't the pre-existing version in the deletion log, are you certain it was under the same name? I'd like to see the original before deleting and protecting against recreation. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the speedy delete tip. I have been doing that with every speedy delete nomination I have created so far, my mistake. I actually do not know how the article is duplicate, but Bugs5382 from the talk page of that article seems to know. I'll go ask him now. SYCTHOS^talk 19:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I looked up it up in the deletion log. It was not under the same name, but the content was almost exactly the same. It's been a while since I looked it up original. I know it was deleted before. I added the future tag and then someone keep editing the article with speculation and then I put up the Afd. the person who was doing the editing never added to the discussion when I asked what was going on. --^BuGs^ 22:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I went a step further... Batman_Begins_2. --^BuGs^ 22:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! SYCTHOS^talk 22:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a vandal?

How did I vandilise the delete page, I simply forgot to sign my message... Vninja

Sorry for any mistakes. However, it seemed like vandalism, as you were adding unsigned text into somebody else's post, which gave me the impression that you were trying to change what somebody else is trying to say. SYCTHOS^talk 00:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Hi there. I am a sysop that have been active in RC patrol as well as WP:RFPP. I would like to spend some time in closing AfDs. Can you give me some tips, pointers and wikilinks about this procedure? Pls respond on User_talk:Jossi my talk page. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey! My response is now on your talk page. SYCTHOS^talk 01:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wit

How did you develop such stellar wit? You slay me. 24.0.91.81 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mind my chatspeak, but o_o *is speechless*. Thanks? SYCTHOS^talk 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: The Fight Network

What are you doing!?!?!

I was in the process of adding some new info to the page, why have you deleted everything?? What vandalism crap are you talking about, I wasn't finished yet?! Please look before you leap next time! I am the one who created this damn page so why would I vandalize it, huh?!" HeMan5 04:38, 01 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I cannot locate my edit on The Fight Network on my contributions history. Secondly, as stated on its deletion log, The Fight Network has never been deleted. Yes, I have warned an IP address (24.42.152.63), but that is not the original creator of the article (69.198.108.51). Please clarify the situation.

Finally, you should take a look at Wikipedia's civility rules. SYCTHOS^talk 21:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the spelling and reverting on the Safe sex page. It's most appreciated. Chooserr 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem! SYCTHOS^talk 02:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My thanks

For your quick action in reverting the attacks on my userpage. I would not be very surprised to learn that the IP was operated by Philip Schmidt, since it can be traced to Washington...

Once again, thank you.

–ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 05:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem (although it is surprising that the U.S. Congress would do something like this)! SYCTHOS^talk 19:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've all heard of the approval given by some Congressmen for staffers to whitewash their articles, but the most immature of the crap seems to be coming exclusively by the staffers'/interns' own initiative. You know the type, young kids in their twenties or so, strongly political and opinionated (obviously), and arrogant by their own status. The actual involvement of the Congressmen seems to only be the tip of the iceberg. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook Copyright Question

You mentioned that my inclusion of the CIA World Factbook text on Israel in the Israel article was a copyright violation. However, CIA_World_Factbook says that the Factbook is in the public domain. Doesn't that make it okay to include in a wikipedia article (every edit page says "public domain resources can be copied without permission")?

Ah, thanks. I did not notice that. Yes, you can copy from the CIA World Factbook, but please try to paraphrase it a bit to make it less of a "direct copy." Thanks for alerting me! SYCTHOS^talk 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell the truth is vandalism?

If you aren't Brazilian, take your body off. Cabral is a Killer. It is documented here, the history of Brazil is a History of Coward Man killing indigenan people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.58.154.212 (talk • contribs) .

I meant to delete the spam comments on the bottom (including "heya guys this is boring". I did not intend to delete the real comment on the top, but that is what the last reversion has done. Fixed. SYCTHOS^talk 00:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Sycthos/afcaccept

Hi Sycthos. I generally like the idea of your afc notification templates. Here are a few thoughts

1. When an anon with a volatile IP needs to warned for something, we bite the bullet and warn them on the IP's talk page knowing that others may be the ones that end-up getting the message because getting the warning out is really important. AFC notifications aren't as important, so do you think it's worth posting these notifications to, say, AOL IP talk pages? I honestly think notifying acceptance isthe much more important of the two, not just so that they know that they can start editing the new article, but also to hammer-home the message that they should register instead of continuing to use AFC.

2. Have you thought about linking back to the submission (like this), where we've usually already offered explanation. It's far less personal, but easier for us. Actually, that's no kind of reason. Nevermind.

3. I could always create my own decline template, but since you're in the early stages here, I'll share my full thinking with you. Generally, I think your two decline templates are too rigid. The simpler one places the "Reason" parameter directly into a sentence. To use this correctly, and avoid grammatical nightmares, it seems like a lot of work. It also bars us for offering longer explanations. One solution I'm thinking of is using a construction similar to the Template:Prod, which says It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern: {{{concern}}}, and can somewhat-gracefully accept a wide range of phrases, full sentences, or even multiple sentences. In this case, Hello! Your request posted in Articles for Creation for the article {{{article}}} has been declined for the following reason: {{{Reason}}} would gracefully accept all of our usual reasons, verbatim from the AFC page, such as
   • Wikipedia is WP:NOT a slang usage guide.
   • linkspam, self-promotion, and neologism
   • Article lacks context (WP:CSD A1)
   • We cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. Thanks.
   • I believe this is a youth league team for a synagogue, and not notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia.
   • I think this topic is better-covered as it is, as part of Air traffic control. I've removed the red link from that article, as well.

That's it. Again, I like the idea, especially if it'll help dissuade people from submitting article after article (like this week's U.S. Navy ships and villages in Kent, England). ×Meegs 23:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! As you have listed your opinions, I will list my corresponding replies:

1. I am a bit confused by your statement, but if you are saying I should remove the AOL/multiple IP message on User:Sycthos/afcaccept, I agree.
2. Eh, it's a bit of a hassle on the person who sets the message template.
3. That's a pretty good idea. I have just remodeled all of the declining templates to match with those of WP:CSD.

Again, thanks for the feedback! Reply here if you wish. Happy editing! --SYCTHOS^talk 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello again.

1. Oops I missed that instruction altogether. Actually, it pretty much reflects my feeling: these messages aren't important enough to post to the talk pages of shared IP addresses. On the accept template, maybe there should be a more liberal policy, but I'm not so sure.
2. Forget 2. It's just as much work on our end for a worse result. It's better to just repeat the rationale on the talk page.
3. I like that. Since all your uses of the the template are subst:ed, I played around with User:Sycthos/afcdecline, taking the change even further by giving {{{Reason}}} its own indented section. I also removed the signature parameter – including it seems to break the pattern of similar templates (like Template:test2), and it's the same amount of typing whether the tildes are inside or outside the template. Feel free to revert or propagate either change to the other templates.

×Meegs 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Template for AFD results

Heya, last time you gave me some good pointers on closing AFDs. .. so here I am again. I would like to know the template for placing a notice in the talk page to announce the AFD results. Thanks in advance. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)