Szyslak

Archives
September 2004 – June 2005 July 2005 – December 2005 January 2006 –June 2006 July 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – June 2007

My signature

But I like orange!  Tcrow777  talk 06:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your using a higher screen resolution, because on my screen the boxes are small.  Tcrow777  talk 18:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Three lines:  Tcrow777  talk

I will think-over changing my signature. It will take time for me to come up with a new one.  Tcrow777  talk 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think  Tcrow777  talk 00:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this?  Tcrow777 (talk)  02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheerness‎ FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness‎ article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 17:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Blpdispute

Template:Blpdispute has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

First Edit

Happy Early First Edit Day, Szyslak, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:52, 09 August 2007 (UTC)

Typo

Sorry - yes I'm aware what rvv stands for - I must've let my finger drag - as I intended to write "rv". My mistake--danielfolsom 21:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Again

Sorry for accidentally reverting you on the articleissues temp - I was going back through the diffs to see what edits happened while I was gone - and I must have clicked edit this page when I saw the edit I was trying to remove - which caused me to edit an old version. Ironic, because I was actually really glad that someone had gone through and change all those "This article"s to "It"s. Again, sorry.--danielfolsom 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

ambox formatting

Hm. I wasn't aware that talk page templates were immune— and most were already converted. Are you certain? — Coren ^(talk) 19:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. Misunderstanding on my part, then... although the Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup page looked much better before your reverts.  :-) Shouldn't boldness prevail, though, and see if the change sticks? I'd expect editors would not be surprised (or object more than for article space) to seeing templates on the talk page visually match those on the article space. — Coren ^(talk) 19:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it would clash— I was unaware of the previous talk space template standardization effort, though. Personally, I'd want to revisit it now that ambox is deploying... but that's indeed not the way to do it. — Coren ^(talk) 19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I saw your comments on WT:AMB and thought you might be interested in WP:DOT. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that User:Madman generated a list of unused templates for me is it available here, here, here, here, and here. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Unreliable

Hi. I saw on the above's talk page that you redirected the template to {{refimprove}} (which I think is great, because I too agree that it's misleading). However, it's still listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources , which is how I found it. I'm not a particularly proficient Wikipedia editor, so I wonder whether it should remain listed there, or if it should be deleted, both, or what. Just looking to a more experienced editor for guidance. Thanks for your time dfg 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Badedit speedy delete

That template was an experiment but I tagged it for speedy since I really don't see a way to improve it and three other editor agree it should be deleted. VoL†ro/\/Force 23:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject: University of California

Hey Szyslak,

Sorry I took off suddenly last time while we were talking about this. (Too much stress, on and off-line, as it were.) I hope everything is going well with you. Anyway, I posted the UC Wikiproject proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities‎, and Talk:University of California. The project page is still currently your sub-page, I hope this will be fine until we seem to generate interest and participants. Best, Amerique^dialectics 03:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I went bold and moved the project page to Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California, so as to not need to create too many redirects in the future. Hope all is well. Best, Amerique^dialectics 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. I was lazy also. (But mainly annoyed with Wikipedia at the time; I was getting too caught up in it.) Anyway, no huge rush on this, I don't think. Best, Amerique^dialectics 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Walt Disney Platinum Editions

I just read the article again and there is no specific discussion of those covers. The article mentions the packaging, but you don't need the image for that, it doesn't really show it anyway. One cover might perhaps be practical, but when they are all in a discography list these images fail WP:NFCC. Garion96 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the rationale's were good. The images just didn't fullfil the other criteria of WP:NFCC. Garion96 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm image use rights

How come you can't have a full-sized image of something copyrighted on your userpage, but you can have a smaller version in a userbox, such as the Beatles' Abbey Road cover, the Netscape Logo, or a picture of a Playstation 3?--AMFilmsInc ^{(and, action!)} 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay that's cool thanks for the information. --AMFilmsInc ^{(and, action!)} 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bush Talk Reverts

Sorry, nonsense, find me a regulation that supports you. Even if you were right, sometimes such wide-ranging discussions need summarization, and there is no limit on talk pages, if no one want's to answer it they don't have to. Focus your energies. grendelsmother 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Public Ivy category

Good catch: category deleted and (joint effort here) category removed. If you see it again, let me know and I'll add some salt. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, AWB usually crashes on me, so you were lucky it worked tonight. Fingers crossed... Cheers, Bencherlite^Talk 23:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WLA

The sender of this Userbox wants you to join WikiProject Los Angeles.

(♠Taifarious1♠) 02:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

D'oh

Thanks for fixing the icon.[1] EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, Szyslak!

 Idontknow610  (WANNA TALK??)

ArbCom vote

For what it's worth, that "cooldown block" was a single foolish mistake I made shortly after getting the tools. I haven't performed any since then. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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,

Amerique^dialectics 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? Amerique^dialectics 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. Amerique^dialectics 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Unprotection... I'd be cool with that. If ST shows up we could just protect again. Amerique^dialectics 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You were right! It was Raul that delisted it. I only had the subpage watchlisted. Hmm. Amerique^dialectics

Found this on the FAC talk page, by way of explanation: [2]. 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. Amerique^dialectics 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. Amerique^dialectics 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool with protection. But now, I'm burned out on the UCR article. Taking a vacation. Amerique^dialectics 21:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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: [3]. 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)

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)

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)

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. Amerique^dialectics 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. Amerique^dialectics 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. Amerique^dialectics 20:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Replied ....

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