User talk:Szyslak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Spencer's Gifts

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Spencer's Gifts, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UCR FAC

Hello Szyslak,

Hey, I'll be traveling today and tomorrow, and beyond that won't have much time this week to edit the article. As far as I can tell, all it should need further are passive voice adjustments and other random MOS fixes.

Best regards,

Ameriquedialectics 23:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, a bot was set to archive after only two opposes (or no "support") in five days. I don't know if Raul was aware of it being de-listed or not. Anyway, I don't see a need to rush to resubmit it, but in the meantime I intend to go over the WP:MOS with a fine-toothed comb, checking section by section for discrepancies.
What do you say leaving it off FAC for a week or so, continuing to work on it, and then resubmitting an iron-clad flawless version with the best feature writing since Hemingway, as it were? Ameriquedialectics 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, great. Like I said I'm busy this week, but should be able to contribute more substantially by the weekend. Ameriquedialectics 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:Unprotection... I'd be cool with that. If ST shows up we could just protect again. Ameriquedialectics 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You were right! It was Raul that delisted it. I only had the subpage watchlisted. Hmm. Ameriquedialectics
Found this on the FAC talk page, by way of explanation: [1]. Still, kind of messed up that the guy couldn't have just said that. Great work on the UC talk template/categories, by the way. This is a far vaster project than I thought. Ameriquedialectics 16:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't look like requesting unprotection was a good move. However, I'll not request protection again unless the vandalism gets out of hand. In the meantime, I recommend going to WP:Requests for Rollback. Ameriquedialectics 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool with protection. But now, I'm burned out on the UCR article. Taking a vacation. Ameriquedialectics 21:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Hi, Szyslak. You've probably noticed by now that you have a shiny new rollback tool. It's supposed to be nothing special, almost like, say, installing twinkle, but the tool is much, much faster. If you have any questions or you need any help, feel free to contact me at my talkpage. --Maxim(talk) 02:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amusing

User:SummerThunder, User:Mmbabies ... is there a full moon out tonight? I ran across a short-lived edit to the UCSC article that you might find amusing: [2]. It lasted for about two minutes. I presume it took the IPvandal quite a bit longer to craft it. It's almost a shame. =) --Dynaflow babble 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What makes something notable.

What makes something notable? Angstyraccoon (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. It doesn't look like it applies does it? Sorry about the mistake. I actually received an e-mail from the author afterwards, seems he'd hit the right moment to look himself up, and he expressed his reluctance to be on Wikipedia, because he's so new and doesn't want to get slandered. Probably good it got taken down then. Sorry to bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angstyraccoon (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay so I have a question, I came upon a article that isn't notable or significant. Why hasn't it been deleted? The article title is: Cigarro & Cerveja. Angstyraccoon (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated, as were your efforts to clarify some issues that arose. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UCSC athletics

Hey Szyslak, I don't care much for athletics myself, but I'm curious, what do you think was the motivation for the students at SC to vote against funding intercollegiate athletics? Although I understand they voted for a $5 fee increase for athletics last year, they defeated two earlier referendums that would have put UCSC athletics funding closer to parity with other DIII institutions, while students at UCR (in 1998) and UCSD (more recently last year) voted for dramatic fee increases for their respective programs.

I can see UCR students in 98 voting to fund DI athletics, because basically there was (and is, unfortunately, even with DI) nothing much going on in Riverside, and SD I'm kind of surprised isn't at the DI level already but I can see them voting for it as a deliberate move to create school spirit at (and as the UCSD article reflects) a notoriously apathetic institution. As UCSC is not politically apathetic would you say they voted against funding athletics as an outgrowth of their general anti-growth or "anti-UC" sentiments or was the vote more reflective of a simple disinterest or apathy towards athletics?

Probably both, I think. Ameriquedialectics 18:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe the student track club can use the dog run for their track meets, ha ha ha! Incidentally, I've read a lot of stuff on how MRC Greenwood was the primary beneficiary in the perks scandal that lead to Dynes and Denton's respective "downfalls," so to speak, but it seems too drawn-out a story to write up in it's entirety on the SC page. (Denton, because of Greenwood and Dynes, probably thought getting her significant other hired at an exorbitant salary was sop at the UC.) Perhaps a "History of the UC" article could cover the whole sordid mess eventually. A friend of mine who graduated from SC the year Denton died said "she had a bad year," didn't show up for the commencement ceremony, and basically committed suicide the day before her medical leave was to expire, poor thing. I also understand she didn't feel safe on campus due to the parking obstacle that went through her window and the "diversity skit" that she was a captive audience for; a mob of students blocked her car and performed this 5-minute skit in front of her as she was trying to get out of her driveway. A lot could be written on just her chancellorship, brief as it was, alas. Ameriquedialectics 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dog run, yeah, I'm surprised the university had the audacity to ask the students to fund a rec center after that. Ameriquedialectics 20:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Animated (1985 film)

Hi. I see you found the The Animated (1985 film) article. I probably should point out that the IP edit that added the hoax tag was actually me in a unwitting logged out capacity (and fiddling with a connection via mobile phone); actually I saw a change to Live-action/animated film on my watchlist in one browser window and cut and pasted the link into another browser which didn't automatically log me in....; anyhoo :O), long story short, the IP edit that added the hoax tag was me and I was only getting a chance to sort it all out when I saw you had already got there.

Actually the reason the Live-action/animated film article is on my watchlist is that I had fun and games trying to sort out another bizarre set of edits, which I'll have to come back to later in the day. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 10:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replied ....

on my talk page. Cheers Khukri 09:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] He's back...

Just before you caught ST's latest IP, I had a hell of a time getting him blocked, as my AIV report was "declined" at first, on the grounds that it wasn't "obviously" ST, and because the report was "supposed" to be at WP:SSP. Oh, and there were no admins watching AIV for almost an hour. szyslak 12:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. And it was even after ST altered your AIV report. I've found that, because not everybody is familiar with him, it helps to be a little bit more descriptive in AIV reports on him. Mine went to the front of the line. --Dynaflow babble 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you! Socal gal at heart (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrate! UCR FA!

Celebrate!
Celebrate!

Hey hey! I almost can't believe it. Honestly, if that article hadn't been such a POV wreck in the first place I don't think I would have bothered with Wikipedia to the extent that I have. I'm glad you were there to see it through... I don't think anyone else from that period other than ElKevbo still edits WP. Let's hope the shining FA star, not unlike the UC "Fiat Lux" star in the seal, wards all angry and bitter UCR grads away from that article, and lets everyone know that, yes, UCR is the least of the UCs. Ameriquedialectics 02:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Wikipedia:perennial proposals

You do realize that the two cites you added to the section on prohibiting anonymous users do not support the policy, especially when it comes to sprotecting all articles? The first cite only shows that 31% of edits are made by anons, but doesn't show whether they are good or bad. The second cite is to a non WP:V blog made by somebody who privately analyzed "several" WP articles, and expects us all to draw conclusions from this! What? In fact, we have no idea what requiring registration and even autoconfirmation would do to the average IP, because it's never been looked at. Either retrospectively on an article sprotect/desprotect basis, or prospectively and randomly by assigning articles to one class or the other. The argument that IP-vandalism would be undetered by requiring 10 seconds to register, applies equally well to the argument that this would not deter people bent on adding good content, who have the same 10 seconds. When it comes to the issue of sprotection of all articles, the very policy admits of a belief that vandals are deterred by the > 4-day wait between attempts and bans for that account, more than are new nameusers who wish to add good content, and must wait the same time, but only once (since they presumably won't be blocked). Basically, since most vandlisms are made by anon-IPs, and we have no evidence whether sprotection deters good-users more than it deters vandals, we really don't know the answer. This policy has no substance to "rebutt". It exists in a vacuum, at the whim of the Foundation and Jimbo (neither of whom have to do the nitty gritty work of dealing with vandalism in the trenches). SBHarris 01:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI re ANI notice

At WP:ANI#Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima towards you and others. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)