User talk:Syrthiss/Archive5

Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.

It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.

Archived pages: July 2005 - Jan 2006 | Jan 2006 - Feb 2006 | 20 Feb 2006 - 3 April 2006 | 3 April 2006 - 7 June 2006

An inspiration

I appreciate your kind words. I was going to wait until after the 9th to say this, but I think it is ok to say it now that you have weighed in. Your approach with me, giving me corrective feedback as well as a wlecome with links was KEY in inspriing me to learn more about what wikipedia is all about. I appreciate the way you approached me (and the way you continue to approach others) with civility, warmth, information, support and clarity. I hope to be able to live up to the example you have set. Thanks again. Warmly, Kukini 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Awwwwwww. What a great comment. :) Syrthiss 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant it. If the RfA continues positively for the next few days, I will be seeking mentoring on occasion to be sure that I do good and do no harm. I hope you will be willing to serve as one of my mentors for me. Kukini 12:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gladly! Syrthiss 12:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham

Thanks for helping deal with User:72.242.65.58, but now User:65.4.73.246 is making essentially the same edits. Do we deal with this as a sockpuppet situation? Any help/advice is appreciated. thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yah, thats how I treated it. If we see another unconnected ip doing it I'm going to semiprotect the page and block them all as open proxies/zombie computers. I wish the confirmation tools weren't down. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. Syrthiss 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears we have another IP in the mix: User:65.87.132.70, [1]. --mtz206 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like semiprotection has been applied to Lindsey Graham, and I've blocked that ip as an open proxy pending confirmation. Syrthiss 12:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User Stemonitis

You have posted a final warning on my userpage. Can I ask why? I have made a factual alteration to an offensive insert on Stemonitis's userpage, he referred me to have a discussion about it to which we did have a civil discussion and continue to do. Why are you making such a belligerent threat towards me. If you make any more belligerent threats toward me, I will consider reporting you for hassling and offending me unduly. Can you explain your rash, ill-conceived and under-investigated actions please? I am now officially warning you off my userpage as I don't appreciate unfair and unreasonable forms of aggression and threats against me. You have the right to reply on this but only on this userpage. Thank you for your attention. Bazzajf 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He asked you to stop. Its his userpage. If you find it offensive I suggest you don't go looking at it. You can view my comments however you wish but I wanted to make it absolutely crystal clear that what you were doing was vandalism and will be considered as disruption, in case you seek other outlets. Syrthiss 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Me not looking at it doesn't stop it being offensive. DOES IT???? So as I am a new user, can you suggest to me what outlets I should seek to report offensive terminology rather than churlishly give me a final warning for attempting to address offensive terminology. I look forward to your assistance. Bazzajf 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may, there's not much you can do about the content of anyone's user page. You're free to edit it, of course, but doing so repeatedly, when the owner has explicitly rejected your change, is very poor form. Syrthiss was just letting you know -- in a very even-handed manner, I might add -- what would likely happen if you persisted. Powers 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Notification at protected talk page

You turned down the request to unpotect User talk:JackSarfatti, however do you think you could add to that page that such a request was filed and rejected, and include for instance this permanent link of the WP:RFPP page or an archive of the dialogue in that regard if such exists? __meco 17:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I modified the permanent link diff you provided by one step later in the version history so that the change is highlighted on the left (and the archiving is clearer). The version you supplied, while still having the discussion, tended to highlight the archiving of another section. The "unclear why" isn't meant to be snarky, I really don't understand why...and if you can (if you care to) explain to me I'll remove the ()'d comment. Syrthiss 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I think that all such administrative measures should be documented, i.e. any formal enquiry that calls for a decision of granted/denied should be documented at the proper location (in this case the page that was being proposed for unprotection). Secondly, Jack Sarfatti and/or online communities adopting his case seem to imply there is a conspiracy to deny him the right of free speech afforded to others, other conditions being equal. In that spirit I am of the opinion that transparency of proceedings is beneficial. (Just to make sure I will mention that there is an encyclopedia article, Jack Sarfatti that should not be confused with his Wikipedia user account now in question.) __meco 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have modified the notice. I am aware that there is an article on him here, and it looks from his talk page that he is blocked indefinitely because of legal threats per WP:NLT. Syrthiss 12:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nu metal

I'd say it's worth a shot, but please do keep your finger on the 'semi' button should those anons start up again. --InShaneee 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Looks like VoA has already lifted the protection. Syrthiss 12:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Andy5190

Thanks for taking this one. Unforunately, it isn't quite done. The user is apparantly confused about what constitutes an unfree image. I doubt that further pointers to Wikipedia:Fair use from me will be helpful. Thanks again. Jkelly 20:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 88.80.193.30

Hi, just a bit confused why you blocked 88.80.193.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 6 months on their first offence? Seemed a little over the top to me.--Andeh 16:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would typically block a registered user account indefinitely if their very first edits were vandalism. Since we shouldn't nessecarily block ip's for indef, since the next person who might have that ip should have some chance to respond, I block them for ~6months. If that really is Blu Aardvark, they'll know enough to place an {{unblock}} on their page or something. Syrthiss 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, just seemed a bit harsh. Keep up the good work.--Andeh 17:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm typically very very very harsh on people who screw with official pages. :) Syrthiss 17:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Blagojevich

Tdl1060 said on the Judy Baar Topinka history page that it was only meant for talk pages after I tried to put one on there. He deleted it. Why should one belong on Blagojevich's but not on his political opponent? That is biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hikiaroo (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grlutz

This user's page was deleted per the above MFD nom. The user is requesting that the deleted text be sent to him via email (glutz@epicsys.com) on the MFD's talk page. I saw you online & thought that you might be able to help him out. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 12:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I sent it to him. Syrthiss 12:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :). --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 12:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the user reposted the entire thing to his Talk page.  RasputinAXP  c 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I support your re-deletion of it. If he reposts it, salt the earth. Syrthiss 12:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ronnie Miller

Precisely. --Zpb52 15:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, looks like they were indefblocked by Deskana and the userpage was deleted by Radiokirk. Syrthiss 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Urgent rename request?

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. As for your question, I realized that I made a mistake. I have since deleted them and moved them for discussion. This is the first time I am doing this, so bear with me! In the mean time, please comment on the proposed renaming under the discussion sub-section of this article. Your views would be deeply appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I do need help for nominating them for speedy rename. However, in that page under the subsection of Speedy renaming, it is stated that only 5 types of category titles are 'strictly' limited to this. MOSNUM does not seem to fall under this process. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking the user who was vandalizing my talk page! — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

6 month block on User:172.163.83.110

I noticed that you blocked an AOL ip address for six months. When it comes to dealing with AOL ip addresses it is better to block for only a few days or hours as they are dynamic and many users can be affected. I suggest that you reduce the block significantly (Maybe to a few days).--SomeStranger^(t|c) 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly remove it in a few hours when I know our rotating ip aol vandal is gone. Syrthiss 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I was just making sure. Blocking for 6 months seemed a bit out of line in this case.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 16:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I was actually enjoying the vandal being all concerned for the other aol users. Syrthiss 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The upside is I got to block one of their vandalism registered accounts that had been around long enough to get past a semiprotect. =D Syrthiss 16:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Another upside is that you learned a very valuable lesson about abusing your admin tools. I'm very happy for you!  :) 172.128.217.130 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

lol, do you see any admonitions against me? Syrthiss 14:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

DUDE, I like TOTALLY had to look up the word "admonition" in the dictionary, and I've almost got a Master's degree in English! Nice work, you crazy freak!!! To answer your question: yes, see above. All the best to you. 172.147.118.175 15:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving the post to Xtremeruna21; you were indeed correct that it was intended for the talk/discussion page. John Broughton 12:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A belated thank you re. my RfA

Hello, Syrthiss/Archive5, and thank you for the supportive vote and very kind words on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks also again for the great example you set as an administrator! - Kukini 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Bazzajf

A while ago you gave User:Bazzajf a good, stern warning about interfering with my pages [2]. Well, he's at it again, not the user page itself (because that's protected), but on the talk page. I don't mind his comments, but I don't see that the order of the sections is any business of his [3]. Perhaps another prod would help. --Stemonitis 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

His calling you a bigot is over the line into personal attacks, and I've warned him to not go near your talk page if he can't be civil. My apologies. Syrthiss 11:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're apologising for; I certainly don't think you've any reason to. Thanks for your help. --Stemonitis 12:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Anytime. :) Syrthiss 12:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you've taken to deleting my contribution here which was in context I might add, what a fair-minded approach you have. Bazzajf 12:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was pleasantly surprised that it was in context and coherent...but as my edit summary said, my talk page is for discussing matters with *me*... not talking to another editor. I don't need more orange boxes. I would suspect that were you to place the comment you made here to Stemonitis on Stemonitis' talk page perhaps, then he/she would know that you left a message for them and could reply / blank / whatever it on their own. Syrthiss 12:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of personal insults, in fact the most underhanded personal attacks of them all, those that are veiled - "Actually, I was pleasantly surprised that it was in context and coherent", Well done, give yourself a pat on the back for being a hypocrite, a devious one at that.

Getting back to your point, one can't reason with bigots, believe me I have tried if you read his userpage but this is why these people are bigots, they don't stand to reason. Bazzajf 12:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparing your reply to my last warning on your talk page to the reverted text here, your text here was less angry. Ergo, it was pleasant to read inasmuch as you weren't calling me or him a f@cker or a clown and it was "coherent". I'm blunt, and will continue to be blunt. Syrthiss 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are backtracking now. On an aside, I never called anyone a "fu*ker" so please get your facts straight. Bazzajf 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Syrthiss

Strange strange admin, very strange decisions.... (unsigned comment)

• I agree. I'm not saying for sure that there's a cause for alarm, but just to be on the safe side, somebody should really look into this guy. 152.163.100.202 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bazzajf

He can submit evidence privately to the arbcom via email, if he so desires. That is standard procedure for arbitration cases where any interested parties are blocked from editing. We generally do not unblock editors merely to allow them to contribute to arbitration cases, although should they assure us that they will refrain from the behaviour that got them blocked and/or confine themselves solely to the arbitration case, they might be unblocked. (In short, it's up to you really, unless the arbcom intervenes.) Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Infamous Rob Steadman

I understand that this guy has been the focus of multiple blocks involving you as an Admin, under many names and false names. He has been reported as a troll today. He has been harrassing the entire Ice Hockey WikiProject. Here is our investigation request: [4]. He has also declared that he plans to eliminate all sports articles below the Pro level due to his personal belief that if HE personally (without any reason other than his unnotability belief, and with no consensus) does not find an article notable, it therefore does not belong on Wikipedia. He has started with multiple AfD's on a stub article [5] [6], with the hope of generalizing it to all amateur hockey articles -- and then all sports articles. The WikiProject feels that this does not remotely pay justice to Canada's incredibly popular junior hockey systems or their cult followings. Also, his personal harrassment and often stocker-ish "contribution watching" has put many people on edge in the community. I am saddened to think that a user that has been blocked as many times as this guy still has free reign to bother whomever he pleases. I feel that he has abused our "assumption of good faith" and we no longer want him in our lives. DMighton 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still on wikibreak, but I feel I have to address this. First, your statement on RFI is incorrect: I am not acting in any way to mentor Robert Steadman. I have a very simple connection to him as the admin who lifted his indefblock. With that said, and without taking the time into digging into his interactions with the Hockey WikiProject et al, though I personally disagree with his stance that the hockey / sports articles do not belong on Wikipedia my assumption of his good faith in trying to improve the encyclopedia is not damaged. I still believe that the afd process won't result in any good article being removed, so his nominations of the articles will produce no fruit unless they are indeed bad articles. As for the stalking, I would need to investigate it...which I cannot do atm due to IRL work. There are several other admins watching the situation so as long as both sides put forth their arguments without personal attacks we can all continue to work on the encyclopedia. --Syrthiss 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about the whole mentor thing, I didn't post that little bit of news. Thank you for the response. Just wanted to know what was going on around here. DMighton 14:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Syrthiss - I am not, as you suggested on the RFI, against sports articles on WP - not at all. I am against WP being filled up with pointless articles about non-notable things - such as JUNior sports teams that play in jevenile leagues. Are you really saying that EVERY teen team should be listed on WP? If so, where does it stop? Secondary school, Primary school, KINDERGARTEN? That is my whole point. DMighton and his club have overreated and been name calling, using personal abuse and creating a situation out of a genuine desire to keep WP full of only that which is worthy of inclusion. So much that he has written is overreatction misleading and untrue and, I believe that someone else has been asisting with info. I'm sure you know who. That situation is ridiculous and urgently needs to be looked into. Thanks for your time, sorry that you have had to be bothered but, really, I just WP to be better and not filled with junk. I never said wanting to spread it all ice hokery articles or all sports - that is an outright lie. I would also like Dmighton and his club to stop libelling me on as many pages as they can on WP - that is absolutely unfair and unreaosnable when I acted in good faith and have done nothing wrong. Robertsteadman 16:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour and give RobertSteadman a chat about appropriate behaviour? He is currently clogging up the checkuser page with requests but has not provided links diffs or sock names. Please explain the purpose of this page (he should really know considering how many times he has been referrred himself). He is unlikely to listen to anyone else and, after all, you did unblock him despite the indefinite block against him. Don't forget the native american philosophy about being eternally responsible for the future actions of a man whose life you have saved...... Neuropean 19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(from Neuropean's talk page...) Actually, I'm very sure you are a sock account created solely to create WP:POINT disruption. Desist and find other ways to constructively contribute, or you'll be blocked for disruption. Syrthiss 12:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Please assume good faith and remain civil in all dealings. CheersNeuropean 18:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Syr - I've asked for a RFCU on this guy, writing style, etc. just too familiar.... Robertsteadman 17:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Please AGF.Neuropean 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please seethis - this is someone out ot make a POINT and, quite possibly, pursuing a vendetta. What can be done? Robertsteadman 19:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Category rename request for bot

I'm looking to rename articles in Category:Cults to refer to Alleged Cults because labeling an organization a cult is highly subjective (see Category Talk:Cults and the CFD entry. I'll probably add the request to another bot owners page or two so you might want to check that it hasn't been done yet. If you do get to it, please leave a message. --Antonrojo 01:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The category needs to go through the official process at CFD before any bot can undertake that change. I added an official {{cfd}} template to the category in addition to the discussion notice that another user placed there. :) Syrthiss 12:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am fed up

I am fed up with user: Neuropean]] and the Hockey guys - all of whom are having a go, making apoint, getting their own back on Anne Frank's cats. Sadly some are not seeing through the sockpuppet and those getting their own back. What do you suggest? As a teacher I have known kids ask about this subject, it is verifiable, it is sourced, it has quotes.... and yet, oddly, these people want it removed..... Robertsteadman 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mangojuicetalk 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you've been impersonated

Your name was added to this page (a user talk page) by user Syrlhiss. I am not sure quite what is happening on that page, it is getting some strange tags added. I have reverted it to the last obviously good page. I am not sure of the 'form' here; I cannot find any boilerplate text to send to Syrlhiss, and anyway, it's their only edit. Regards, Mr Stephen 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. JoanneB already indefblocked them. My first impersonator. *single tear*. Syrthiss 12:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's the first time I've ever seen an impersonation, I wasn't quite sure what was going on. It's obviously a banning offence, but do you know if it happens often? Regards, Mr Stephen 09:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it happens every so often, though it happens more often with adminstrators than standard users. It also depends on the name whether its easy to substitute characters and make it appear to be the same person. Syrthiss 19:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I have become convinced that Syrthiss may well be God, or at least a supernaturally-blessed being. Truly, he is everywhere at every hour! That merits recognition. :) Xoloz 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So, Omnipresent One, mind checking in at DRV while I'm away! ;)

Best wishes, Xoloz 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

and Kent... Stop playing with yourself! Syrthiss 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: lmao

Well, at least we got the job done in the end, but your unblocking summary was definitely the best. :D Cheers, Sango123 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Beer & brewery notability criteria discusion document

A discussion document has been opened up. Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria. Please put in your views either on the main page or on the attached talk page. SilkTork 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you, much appreciated :) Conscious 18:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo!!

Congratulations, ubiquitous one, on both your wiki-anniversary and the completion of your "real-world" work. If you're 1/100th as fast in the outside world as you are in the wiki, I expect you to discover warp drive by next week! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 23:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who prefer rare steak

You closed the CfD discussion of Category:Rare Steak as Rare-name which I assume is a variant of rename but didn't rename the category or remove the CfD template from the category. I assume this is an oversight of some kind but would like to see the matter resolved. Thanks. Eluchil404 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No oversight. It is in the queue on WP:CFD/W to be renamed. It'll be closed out whenever one of the bots gets to it, tho you can of course work on moving the articles in it to the new category name as well. Syrthiss 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I obviously have more to learn about categories than I realized. Eluchil404 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Yes, categories are weird beasts - even administrators can't just move them like normal pages. Each article in them has to have the link to the category changed to point towards the new name. :/ Syrthiss 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Re : Welcome back!

Indeed, I'm back...thanks for your well-wishes! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ivan Grizov

User:Ivan Grizov imitates User:Oquanbo! - CobaltBlueTony 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats why they are both indefblocked. Syrthiss 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the block notification hasn't/hadn't shown up yet. Otherwsie I wouldn't have bothered you. :-) - CobaltBlueTony 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

heh heh heh. :) Syrthiss 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Following denial of semiprotection

Referring to: The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (edit|talk|links|history|logs) I appreciate your quick feedback on this although I am not happy about the outcome. Wikipedia is quite an inspiring place in global cooperation and I would appreciate if you could explain: I saw the article in question and I find out that a credible e-commerce site has certain postings. I think this may be useful to the reader and I make the edit. Some users just reject it (do not change) and their only explanation is Wikipedia guidelines. I spent some time reading the policy and to my understanding my edit is much more compatible with Wikipedia than some of the arbitrary opinions that they have posted. So your denial confuses me and I would greatly appreciate some discussion on that. I want to be a contributor in wikipedia and their reactions is very dissapointing. If you find it more convenient we could discuss this by email. --Book-worm 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets discuss it here, but I'm about to run out for a bit to a meeting... I'll update here and leave you a note when I'm back. Syrthiss 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, since I saw you felt I had deleted your question. Syrthiss 12:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

some category help

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/History only undeletion

I've got a few things that need undeletion.

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 11

The SPUI re-nomination of Freeways, trying to reverse his previous loss just a few weeks ago, and a few weeks before that! Just about every regular closer has weighed in, leaving you (as you've been gone).

It seems clear that no new name will cover all the subcategories as well as the current name, and that nobody agrees on another name. The most popular is the one that covers parts of the US and UK, but it didn't come anywhere 67%, as it doesn't cover such minor areas like the US eastern seaboard, and all of China, and most of SE Asia -- but hey, this is wikipedia, and we just make things up! Anyway, it needs closing....

--William Allen Simpson 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oi, super rushed at the moment. Lemme go do those undeletions for you and I'll try to get to closing it tonight (assuming Conscious doesn't get to it before I do... I didn't see him on the discussion). Syrthiss 19:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All the DRV stuff has been undeleted as needed, though I'm not really sure why the cats needed undeletion...since undeleting them doesn't repopulate them... But in any case they are back for CFD discussion pleasure. :) Syrthiss 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much on the undeleted history. The problem was that a user was reverting the BetacommandBot deletions, giving rise to re-populated categories even while the categories weren't viewable. It seemed best to have them visible during the CfD relisting.

As to SPUI re-nomination of Freeways, Kbdank71 (talk · contribs) took care of it (without prompting), with the expected result, and was immediately challenged by SPUI at Deletion review. What a mess. I've just nominated SPUI (twice in 2 days) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. S/he's just incorrigible. I had no idea s/he had so many previous arbitrations....

--William Allen Simpson 21:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Brewery vote

Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [7] SilkTork 11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Xanax

I've indef blocked this user, until a consensous can be reached at AN. Other administrators are free to unblock as they see fit. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Neuropean

Hi, thanks for posting re Neuropean. I understand what you're saying and I was aware of the history of his early edits. But still, I am shedding (proverbial) tears. Whether he's a sockpuppet or an incarnation of an earlier stalker I can't say. To be honest although I have no idea what the motivation was behind the AfD of Anne Frank's cats, I think the later nominations were a response to his being told that other cats have pages of their own - they weren't bad faith nominations but the mass nomination of a whole category of pages he didn't believe should exist. Although there is no excuse for some of N's personal attacks they're quite mild and he was heavily provoked, which is more than I can say for Rob who seems to have taken exception to almost any action made by Neuropean. Anyway, look through N's edit history - I see some nominations for deletion, a small number of erroneous/ bad edits, some good edits and a lot of pleading that RS's behaviour be stopped - apart from the last it's pretty typical and I don't think the user deserves to be hounded out. We have no way of knowing whether claims of clinical depression are true or not, I'm sceptical but reserving judgement. Nevertheless I'd be pretty distressed if I'd undergone what Neuro has endured. Anyway, I do appreciate knowing that my comments are being taken notice of. Best. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Syrthiss, please see my report at AN/I. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Tags

Thanks for the heads up, I thought that could only be done by the admins, so I haven't done it as of yet. I'll make a note of that in the future! Wildthing61476 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

158.123.229.2

158.123.229.2 vandalized Tom Carroll so maybe you could go ahead and block him. Thanks.--12.184.78.34 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Welllllll, while they did vandalize Tom Carroll...they did it back in June sometime. Its very unlikely that any block applied to that ip would hit the vandal. :/ Thanks for reporting it though. Syrthiss 11:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

I used to clean up articles with unsourced statements, but I'm not sure where to find those any more. Is there a central location? Thanks! Dreadlocke 05:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a category for it, but there was a discussion on WP:CFD that decided it was too overpopulated to ever be useable so they depopulated it. :/ There had been discussions of alternatives, perhaps templates that automatically placed it into a month-and-year category but I don't know if that has gone anywhere. If you want a way to get around them not being in a big category though, you could go to {{fact}} and click on "what links here" over on the left side of the page (in the toolbox). Cheers! Syrthiss 11:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do as you suggest - click on 'what links here' to find unsourced statements. I liked having a category to browse - made it easier to find subjects I was interested in, but reading through the discussion, I guess others didn't agree. Thanks again! Dreadlocke 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Another last chance" for Rob(ert)?

Hi, Syrthiss. The quick answer is no, but I'll post more fully on the subject later, perhaps at WP:ANI. First of all, I don't believe that he has never used sockpuppets. It sounds plausible — he knows we know he works in a school, so he says that at least one of his students has told him that s/he was one of the people linked with him in a usercheck. The problem is that at the time of the usercheck, the admin who carried it out knew that he worked in a school, and absolutely rejected that explanation. When he (Jayjg) was accused of libel and corruption, etc., he asked other checkuser admins to look at the evidence, and they all, without exception, rejected Rob's protestations of innocence. Secondly, it is true that Rob has claimed he was being stalked. From the evidence I have seen (which he e-mailed to me), he was being teased on another website, and the teasing sometimes got nasty, but no nastier than his own behaviour. I do know of cases of people being stalked on Wikipedia, and I don't mean just following someone's contributions and showing up at the page's he's editing; I mean real stalking — discovering someone's real identity and contacting that person's employer, sending threats, etc. Rob was extremely unsympathetic towards two victims who had disagreed with him over article content. There is no evidence that he really has received hate mail. He may or may not have, but I'm afraid I can't accept it just because he says so, since I have seen so many ridiculous claims he makes against people who have actually tried to be very fair to him. If he did receive hate mail, there is no evidence that it came from Neuropean. FWIW, I know that we can't accept Neuropean's statements at face value either, though I don't see that we can accept Rob's stalking claims and reject Neuropean's depression claims. I feel more inclined to accept Neuropean, because I don't see a long history of him making untrue claims.

Rob was making trouble long before his Anne Frank's cats was nominated for deletion. On a side note, I recently created articles about Princess Diana's two sisters, and they were tagged for speedy deletion within a few minutes. Then one of them was AfD'd. I didn't click on the user's contributions to see if it was a new user, a sockpuppet, a vandal, a stalker, etc.; and I have been stalked in a very serious way here at Wikipedia, extending into my personal and professional life in a way that makes Rob's claims (even if they're true) seem ridiculous and petty — and have remained calm and courteous throughout — so I think I'm in a position to reject the argument that we don't know how stalking can affect people's future behaviour. (I'd prefer not to go into further details, but, unlike the stalking of Robert, this is not something where you just have my word for it — it will be confirmed by Jimbo, Angela, Anthere, and dozens of administrators.[8])

I notice that Rob's "regret" only happened after he realized that he was in danger of being reblocked. There was no regret when Neuropean left a message about how Rob's behaviour was making his depression worse. There was no regret when Neuropean left Wikipedia.[9] Rob was wiki-stalking me as well — would turn up at an article I had just edited, and would make a minor edit, and Deskana and Frelke noticed that he was wiki-stalking them. It didn't bother me, but I found it in very bad taste to track the contributions of people you've had disagreements with, and follow them to articles, especially when you've been given another chance after an indefinite block.

He was incapable of recognizing and acknowledging the considerable generosity shown to him by people that he had been in disagreement with. Gator1 tried to help him when he was accused of sockpuppetry, blocked someone who abused him, reverted vandalism to his user page, etc. and he kept accusing Gator of bias and corruption, on one occasion referred to him as one of the "shallow and twisted admins", and said that he should be desysopped and banned. He made a particularly spiteful remark when Gator left after his identity was traced and a letter sent to his employer. Deskana voted to keep the Robert Steadman article, helped him when someone was changing his talk page, and agreed to let him back on probation. He has been wiki-stalking Deskana ever since he was allowed back, and filed an RfI against him, instead of being grateful that he had been allowed back himself. I voted to keep the Robert Steadman article, I reverted vandalism to his user page, I asked people to leave him alone, I asked for the reference to Robsteadman to be removed from the Robert Steadman article, as I thought it wouldn't be nice for him if people looked up the article on the composer and discovered that he had been banned indefinitely for his trolling behaviour. I removed attempts to link notices about his sockpuppets from the Robert Steadman article talk page. I agreed to let him back on probation. There was never any indication that he was thinking, "well, we may disagree on article content, but that's decent of her — she's trying to be fair." All he did was call for me to be banned and desysopped, and more recently make insinuations about my integrity as an admin when I protected the Little Woodham page and when I made a report on this whole sorry business. If you feel inclined to believe his claim that I'm just using this as a trump card to win an old battle over the Jesus article (and I'm sure you don't), I can point out that when he was revert warring at Jesus, and spelling it with a small j to make the point that there was no such person, I was doing all the things I've mentioned above. And, to the best of my knowledge, I have not edited "Jesus" since I agreed to give Rob another chance. I don't think he has either.

Finally, the whole "Poor Robert, he's being stalked" argument falls flat when we consider that he left as Robsteadman allegedly because he was being stalked, and then returned as Robertsteadman! ! ! ! He felt stalked, so he started tracking the contributions of people that he had been in dispute with, and turning up on those pages? ! ! ! He rejected pleas to stop. He rejected an agreement that if he stopped editing the articles Neuropean was editing, Neuropean would do the same. He knew perfectly well that the Robert Steadman article reports where he lives (it has done so for months — long before he chose to return under his real hame), and he had a history of deleting Neuropean's messages from his talk page. But when Neuropean put "of Matlock" on this message, Robert didn't delete it. He went to RFI, to say "he has published where I live.... surely this should be blanked?"[10] This is not the behaviour of a victim of stalking.

I'm sure I can think lots of other points, but that's probably enough for the moment! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Harvey Bullock (writer)

Are the external links just external links or also references? (it's especially relevant for DYK: the article looks as if it doesn't has any references) Also, I think it still qualifies as a stub. There is practically nothing about how influential his work was, or about his writing style, if any. Circeus 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A little of both. I mainly used IMDB for the works and the AP Obit and the Emmy site for info, but didn't want to link them as references because I'd prefer primary references. I was trying to find other sources, but haven't been successful yet. :( Syrthiss 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with secondary sources. Actually, we tend not to trust primary sources that much (e.g. {{Primarysources}}). As most of his work was done in the 70s, it's likely you might need to consult paper sources. Circeus 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping I could find newspaper articles or a book. There was information on the Emmy bio that said he had won an award and been nominated for an Emmy... You think that is sufficient sourcing to mention them in the article as well? Syrthiss 19:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the official site of the Emmy's, so I'd assume it's reliable XD. It's likely at some point his IMDB bio will have the awards and noms section added. I'd expect that there is some sort of fcatbook that list all Emmy noms and awards. Circeus 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To an admin who hates to see CFD get all confusing

Whoops:

• [11]

--Mais oui! 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Robertsteadman

He does make a point that perhaps stricter, clearer probationary terms might have been a better idea. I will say, however, that I do not believe that this user can be made into a productive member of the wiki. I'm not going to wave the Wheel War aegis here; if there's any sort of consensus to unblock him, feel free to. --InShaneee 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK Update

Yep, brilliant for your 1st time - no longer a Virgin :-). Thanks for doing it, I've not had much time to do it recently, so it's always good to have more on "the team". You've probably spotted the couple of minor things that I fixed. I was going to leave you a note later, I have to dash out, but I'll do it now.

(pictured) is usually in italics; include the image link with tooltip in the archive section at the end of the top entry; dont forget to unprotect or delete the imgae when it's off the main page. Other than that, a perfect update. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw the italicization happen, but hadn't noticed the link for the image. I was just aboot to delete the image when you did it. ;) thanks! Syrthiss 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for letting me know! I hope you have a chance to take a look at the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, stents are placed to avoid surgery! Nothing's cut open. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello! When temporarily uploading an image from the Commons, please use exactly the same filename. Also, please select images that are useful when displayed as thumbnails. (Diagrams generally aren't the best choices, as they can be difficult or impossible to read at such a small size.) Thank you! —David Levy 17:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Allright, thanks. Syrthiss 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, those are just minor points. And, no need to spare me from "the orange bar of doom" (great phrase), often it's somebody with a nice message. We all live and learn, sometimes we get compliments too. Keep updating, please. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Another voice of thanks, I haven't had time to do as much DYK as I'd like (I had an RfA to help prepare, perhaps you've heard of Phaedriel (grin) ??) and I'm glad that you've put your hand in! Please do so again! DYK is a wonderful program for reeling new editors in and encouraging article contributions in general... ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

CK Ban

Check the time again, it was enacted at : Enacted at 12:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC) which if you check the page history is when Tony posted it to the page. Since that time, CoolKatt has made the following edits:

1. 18:11, 27 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:TrackerTV (Subpages) (top)
2. 18:07, 27 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999 (→Statement by CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs))
3. 18:05, 27 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:CoolKatt number 99999 (removed vandalism)
4. 14:08, 27 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:CoolKatt number 99999

Tony left a message on his talk page: 12:02, 27 July 2006 Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs) (→Temporarily banned) informing him of the ban. Those are all well after his knowledge of the fact that he is not supposed to be editing.--Crossmr 18:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what you're right. I misread the time. Yes that last edit had nothing to do with arbcom he was discussing the handling of his subpages with that user.--Crossmr 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I did for someone reason mix up the 24 hour clock. I thought I'd remembered reading about his ban before I went to sleep last night, so it was obviously more than 8 hours old and seeing twelve I had thought midnight for some reason. Thanks for catching that.--Crossmr 18:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Curses! :o)

➨ ЯEDVERS award yet another bloody Barnstar to Syrthiss for anti-vandalism work including reverts to boring vandalism on my user page etc, blah, blah.

Vandalism of my talk page

Please stop vandalizing my talk page, or reverting my legitimate edits. Your behaviour is unnacceptable on wikipedia. Thank you for your cooperation.

64.110.251.69 12:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Warnings from admininstrators are not vandalism. Cheers! Syrthiss 12:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

70.49.242.163

Hello! 70.49.242.163 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) isn't an open proxy according to http://who.is/whois-ip/ip-address/70.49.242.163/. Am I missing something? — getcrunk what?! 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, two things... it was an ip that had no prior contributions who suddenly was the anus bandit vandal, and it got one red hit on the CRBL blacklist. Syrthiss 12:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

That was some nasty vandalism you caught there! Thanks for being quick on the rollback button.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 00:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob. :) Syrthiss 12:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

w00t! DYK

Thanks for the message! Did you read the article by the way?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do you know any good or fast ways to the get the "What links here" number up?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nadar and Sarah

I see you moved the Sarah Bernhardt photo down into the gallery. I agree the page was too crowded. What would you think about replacing one of the self-portraits with the Sarah photo? This photo is used in the Icons of Photography book as representative of Nadar and it seems like we don't need two self portraits at the top of the page. SteveHopson 20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as well. :) Syrthiss 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks SteveHopson 20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Password concern

The reason I am concerned about my paswword is the concern for vandalism on my webpage, article contributions, and any issues I have with Wikipedia. All I want to do and am trying to do is make the article better. That is all. Chris 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Banner Making Competiton

Re the banner making competition vandal, I'm inclined to indefblock as vandalism only... would you mind if I overrode your 31 hour block? Syrthiss 13:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. My first impression was to indef block but I decided to give the user the benefit of the doubt.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

lol firefox just indefblocked before I could get back to it. Syrthiss 14:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Chris 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Success

Yes, whatever you did has worked. Thank you. Yours hacked-offedly. --Mais oui! 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okee, all refactored and now I'm likely out for the night. Too much wiki today. Syrthiss 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

UK MP mix-up

Many thanks for the notification - I'll head there now. Aquilina 22:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

May I ask for your help again? User:Cactus.man has refactored the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 2#Category:British_female_MPs again, creating a third discussion and moving comments around so that things are out of sequence. That may have been well-intentioned, but the result is a complete mess, and I can see no possibility of a coherent outcome. I am now the third person to propose closing the CFD: is this something that you would be able to do, if you agree that it is appropriate?

I would hope that that those concerned will now partcipate in the discussion at Category talk:British female MPs, but unfortunately any CFDs in this area seem to be joined by a few vocal contributors who do not participate in the Category Talk, so I have some doubts that it will prove successful :( --BrownHairedGirl 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If I can ask your indulgence for a little more time, I want to see if anyone else comes in from the people I contacted and refactors their comments to the new discussion. All Cactus.man did was move comments with timestamps after my refactoring comment to the top under my comment (which is what I had requested anyhow). With three calls to close it, I agree that its probably a no consensus close at the moment but I still have some hope that it can live a full life. :) Syrthiss 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. If you reckon it needs more time, fair enough. But I still think it has become too messy to proceed: it opens with a vote referring to an earlier one which is now much lower down, and it opens without a statement from one of the original nominators, but not the other. --BrownHairedGirl 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, my apologies. I hadn't read your proposal properly when refactoring, so I've modified my statement at the top to reflect your original intent. Is that better? Syrthiss 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No apology needed, but thanks anyway :) All the same, I still reckon that it'd be better to close this CFD and, if no consensus is reached in discussion, try again at a later date when the proposals are clear from the outset. But we may just need to agree to disagree on that :)

BTW, I have your talk on my watchlist, so although it's v kind of you to copy replies there, I am watching here, and I don't like seeing work being duplicated (too much effort!). --BrownHairedGirl 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:89.138.23.12

Thank you for your support with regard to 89.138.23.12‎. They replied again on my talk page and I wrote what I hope is a correctly-modulated reply.

Atlant 12:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh not a prob. Let me know if they continue (if I don't notice it already). :) Syrthiss 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for blocking that redicolous SomersetWalkSand, cheers —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 12:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob :) Syrthiss 12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my talk page. --Muchness 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncategorized Categories

For the past several weeks the uncategorized categories list has been regenerated every wednesday and saturday morning. However, the current list hasn't regenerated for over a week. My guess is that the regular person who does this is just on vacation, and it will clear itself up eventually, but in the meantime I bet it's building up quite a backlog. Do you know how to regenerate this page? Is is something a regular user can run? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hiya ProveIt. I looked and didn't see anything obvious that would show me how to regenerate it. I believe it is a product that the database developers provide, so I can bring up a post on WP:AN and ask about it. I don't know if its something having to do with one of the toolservers being down, or whoever is out of town, or what...but I'll try to find out for you. Syrthiss 11:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it regenerated today. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER!itty bitty living space. Syrthiss 22:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

You reverted an instance where an anonymous editor (perhaps a sockpuppet) left a comment on my talk page. I saw his comment anyway and I reverted your edit. He wasn't going to do that much harm and I could've removed the comment myself if I found it necessary. But I appreciate your efforts. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Okee. It was a sock of a banned editor, btw...which is the only reason I reverted it. :) Syrthiss 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Retiring cfdu and cfdud

I've cleaned them out,

• Template:Cfdu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
• Template:Cfdud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

are ready to be deleted. They have been superceded by

• {{cfd|optional umbrella section|date yyyy Month dd}}

--William Allen Simpson 11:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Retiring cfdu and cfdud

--William Allen Simpson 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Qwerty sockpuppets

Hey, thanks for giving them indef. blocks. I guess I must have done something to upset him/her in a previous edit...! Budgiekiller 14:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh not a prob. Yah, vandals are pretty petty. :) Syrthiss 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:217.224.223.117

Well, it's no open proxy or zombie computer, this guy (we call him "Dieselvandale") is vandalizing in de:wp for nearly one year now. There have been 2 abuse complaint, one to T-Online and one, after he changed his ISP, to GMX/United Internet (read his story here (german)). Actually, this guy creates bewtwenn 10 and 15 new accounts per day and vanadlizes articles about german cities (<city> is famous for pub affrays). His address is a simple dynamic address, but his IP range is always the same: 217.22x. Well, i hope for you guys that he won't proceed, he is really annoying... greetings, --Felix Stember 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is video.google.com a reliable source?

I would argue that in this instance, video.google.com provides the primary source. In this part of the World of Warcraft article, the point of discussion is a video clip which has become popular among players, and the way people have been able to find it and view it so easily is video.google.com. People have been able to find and view the Jeopardy! clip so easily for the same reason. I would agree that this may not technically qualify as a reliable source because it does not corroborate the claim -- it is rather a specific example of what the article is discussing. NBS525 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

solenoids.com.tw & spam blacklist

User:Shihhsin used this URL as a source for images he uploaded. Could you check this for copyvio? In case they're really GFDL I guess we shouldn't blacklist source for them. MaxSem 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, from what I can tell from going to the site Shihhsin is the maintainer of the site...so would be able to release his own images into GFDL. However, once he has released them into GFDL doesn't it mean that the images are Wikipedia's as long as we don't try to assert that we are the copyright holder of them? I'm not the sharpest tack when it comes to copyright so my understanding may be wrong. I'm going to ask on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems to see if someone has another opinion as well. Syrthiss 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Temprot

You protected Template:Temprot four months ago with the message "completing the set of protected umm protection templates that I started yesterday", along with Template:Moveprotected. Is there any reason users shouldn't be allowed to edit these? The former has somewhere between 50 and 100 inclusions, all on talk pages, and the latter has just six inclusions total, so I don't think either are at high risk for damaging vandalism or anything. In particular, Template:Temprot looks completely out-of-place (it deserves a pastel box like all the other talk-page templates), but just as a matter of principle, you know. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected both. We'll see how it goes. You know it gets scary when we actually let users edit the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ;) Syrthiss 11:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blacklist

On the post I made here [12] I have the His Dark Materials on my watchlist and apparently there are still zombies still posting spam even after some of the links have been blacklisted. I'll keep watching the page and post any new spam links for you guys.

Right to vanish

Thanks for the note. I am in email contact with her. If people vanish and reappear, I presume their talk history should get reinstated? Tyrenius 03:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)