Syjytg (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Syjytg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Peanut4 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Syjytg. Always good to see a new user around and helping out, especially one working on the articles such as the FA Cup page which I think are often regarded as "too fiddly" to be touched by many WikiProject Football users. Per your issue with Peanut4, though, I felt duty-bound to let you know that I'm sure Peanut has not actually got a problem with your editing of the articles, but instead questions what you are editing in. I'm not sure how long you've been using Wikipedia but there are some general ideas on how to present information on matches, though as with most of Wikipedia none of it has been codified and so it generally comes down to consensus decision or majority rule. Specifically the problem seems to be with your use of AET and TBD/TBC - there are two different matters here. In the case of TBD/TBC it's generally taken that we shouldn't add information which could be seen as obvious to the reader. With football results it's generally seen as quite obvious that a game with no information hasn't been played, and if there is any doubt then the date of the round of matches is usually listed somewhere, so it's generally seen as something which shouldn't be added. The AET issue is a little more contentious as there are two strong schools of thought - those who think we should add every piece of information about a game and those who think we should omit information which is likely to be useless to readers. I'd say on the AET issue that you probably have a fair amount of support from the inclusionist camp, and that your viewpoint is not wrong but just part of a debate. The problem about Wikipedia, unfortunately, is that with so many regular users the founders and the admins have agreed on a standard rule for Wikipedia where consensus decisions should try to be reached on the bigger issues but in the case of small ones they encourage free-thinking and want us to act as we feel is right. See WP:BOLD. This does have the side-effect of little edit conflicts such as this one, where users take it upon themselves to do what is right even if it directly opposes what another user sees as right. I would suggest that as regards this point you would be best speaking to Peanut privately to reach a settlement. Wikipedians are generally friendly, affable folk but who are sometimes maligned for making an unpopular edit and then castigated for it. I suspect that Peanut would seem far more friendly if you were to discuss the issue with him. Alternatively you could try to resolve it on the FA Cup talk page, though I'd warn you that for pages with a small editor base that you may not get many replies. Whatever you choose, please don't be disheartened, and please do keep being BOLD in your edits. Falastur2 ^Talk 14:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I am new to wikipedia. I only joined when the fourth round of matches was played. I wanted to talk to him privately but I dont know how to. Is there any way on Wikipedia where I can message him privately? I was finding it but I cannot find it, so I had to use the history. Syjytg (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no there really isn't a private Wikipedia communication system. Some users have email enabled, which means you can email them from their userpages (you'll see a link when you visit their page). Otherwise all communication is done via talkpages. Cheers. //roux   15:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was to "privately" send him a message to his userspace, the same way that I sent you the above message. It's not truly private, as it can be read by anyone, but only if they for some reason go to his userspace to read it...and that doesn't happen much. I'm presuming since you messaged me that you can find his profile too? (I apologise if that sounds patronising but I can't be sure of how accustomed you are to Wiki). You can always find a user's profile quickly also by using the search bar on the top left and typing "User:" before their name. Without the speech marks, of course, but yeah. Then just go to the talk page via the top-tabs, click "new section" as per usual and you're away. Falastur2 ^Talk 15:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To defend myself, I removed TBC / TBD because because it is a current event (as per my edit summary) and had previously removed the draw per WP:NEWS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news service. As for AET, I didn't make any changes there it was another user.

For the record, I don't have anything against you, I'm simply making constructive edits. Some of them happen to have been yours, most not. If you notice, I barely touched the majority of your work. Peanut4 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut4, I think you removed most of my 6th Round draw(about 80 to 90%). Syjytg (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I stated above in my own summary, I removed the draw because of WP:NEWS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service. Peanut4 (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, can you please explain your reasons why the total attendances for each round of the FA Cup are notable on the article's talk page? Personally, I can't see the benefit that they give, and none of the other FA Cup articles have such info. Tbh, I think it's totally irrelevant, but if you'd care to explain, maybe we can get a consensus within the community one way or the other. – PeeJay 12:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there is conflict wars over trivial matters. For example whether a certain word needs to be capatalized a not which result in your block. As for the attendance, I personally want to know the total attendance and I am sure there are viewers(may or may not be majority) that want to know. So for those that want to know, they do not have to do the hard work of punching the calculator which I have done yesterday which took me between 30 minutes to 1 hour. On why I want the total attendance, so that I can show the viewers that there is a pattern as the round progresses(i.e. the attendance tend to increase as the round progresses as more top-tier teams are in the latter rounds.) I know the number of ties are different, so basically I am talking about the average attendance, but the number is not whole and sometimes recurring thats why total attendace is easier to present. As whether other articles have this info is not important as this is a new season. A new season could have changes. You might think this is not important. Yes, this is a trivial matter, but since I did the hard work by punching the calculator yesterday, I hope you wouldn't let my effort go to waste and keep it there. If you and the others don't want it, it can be excluded next season onwards, but for this season, I hope you can let it stay. As for the time of the draw, it tells the viewer immediately. Some of the viewers must be just freelance(i.e. not really following football but just happened to read) and they might not know the time of the match. So even if it is said that the draw will follow team A vs team B, the viewers might not know the time and might have to check the time somewhere else. Furthermore, even I, a staunch Man Utd supporter like you that follow football very closely forget the time of some matches and I have to check the match schedule sometimes to see the time again. So, the time is placed to save people like me from the hassle. Syjytg (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the total attendances for each round. – PeeJay 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the time, it will become irrelevant what time the draw is started. Wikipedia is not a news service per WP:NEWS. If people want to find out what time the draw is they can find out elsewhere. If the actual time of the draw is relevant in the future then it is now (as can be the case with actual matches). But I see no relevance in knowing next month what time the draw for the Sixth Round was. Peanut4 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, I wanted to save people from saving the hussle from finding out from elsewhere. Syjytg (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the "cite"-button in the bar over the editing window. Move the cursor to the point where the reference should be displayed, then click "cite". Pick one style (for example web or news), then fill in as many fields as possible and hit "Add citation" on the bottom of the form when done. Hth, Soccer-holic (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: As for the ESPN scoring, the match reports use a link structure similar to [1]. All you have to do is to replace the last two chain links (item and matchId) with the correct values. These usually show up if you right-click the "Result" button of the respective match and say "Open in new tab/window". The correct link is then shown in the address bar of the new tab/window. --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Be careful not to violate WP:3RR on the article - better to open a discussion on its talk page. Cheers, Beve (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply used the cut-and-paste function. Fairly easy :) – PeeJay 10:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definitely. I forgot to re-add that after the edit conflict. – PeeJay 10:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have Richard0612 has removed your RfA from the main RfA page for the moment. It is not complete, as certain parts that should have been edited (like your username at the top, for example) were not done correctly. However - I would highly encourage you to read up on the RfA process before resubmitting, as you have less than a month of activity and under 200 contributions, which are far below what is normally successful as an admin candidate. You would receive many, many opposes quickly on the basis of "not enough experience". You are free to make your own choice, of course; I'm only making a suggestion. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:List of failed RfAs (Chronological), especially the ones listed with "SNOW" and "NOTNOW" for an idea of what the community looks for in an admin candidate. I know it might seem harsh to point at failed attempts, but I'm trying to show you the responses you'll likely get.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!  Frank  |  talk  13:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you'd like me to delete the page entirely, since nobody has made any entries to it except for you, I can do that, and then you can try again later when you've had more experience. Just let me know here or on my talk page.  Frank  |  talk  13:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made my reasons quite clear on the RfA page, but here it goes again: I don't think you have enough experience in the Wikipedia: namespace, or on Wikipedia as a whole. You've only been here since the end of January, and most of your (minimal) edits have come in the past four days. I think I can safely say – and this is not intended as an insult, though you will no doubt take it as one – that you would not make a good admin at this present time. In the future, I would like to think that you will become an admin, but not in the near future. – PeeJay 14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PeeJay and I really suggest you withdraw it yourself very soon, otherwise it will be closed in short time anyway. We appreciate your willingness to help Wikipedia as an admin but your nomination is too premature and very unlikely to succeed. Regards SoWhy 14:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Syjytg, I'm sorry to inform you that I've closed your request for adminship early because it was unlikely to succeed. For users to be granted admin status, they have to show that they are trusted members of the community. Individual editors each have their own standards for adminship candidates, but here are a few tips that may help you pass the next time round:

• Wait a bit longer before your next request. Many Wikipedians think that the length of time that users should be active on the project to get a firm grasp of all the policies and guidelines is roughly 3 months.
• Try to make some more edits. Administrators need to show they have a thorough understanding of policy, so it would be a good idea for you to contribute in wikipedia space, article space and talk space to show you can communicate with others.

You may wish to take a look at the admin coaching program, which would allow you to have your own coach who could personally direct you along the right path, or consider an editor review, allowing other users to comment on your edits and give you ways to improve. The guide to requests for adminship provides further considerations to make before applying again. Let me thank you for your contributions so far, and if you follow the above advice, there is no reason why you can not have a successful RfA in the future. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:SNOW; as the request was highly unlikely to succeed, the closure is appropriate. Regards, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm an admin. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my NOTNOW closure per your request. Good luck, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just see here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA would have failed. Juliancolton is an admin, and non admins are allowed to close anyway.--Patton^t/c 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm a Bureaucrat on Wikipedia. Put in simple terms, one of most important tasks is to handle Requests for Adminship, including "promoting" successful candidates.

I gently and carefully suggest that the best thing you can do is to withdraw your RfA yourself as soon as possible. You will gain little from continuing the nomination, other than sharp criticism from some of our less patient editors. If you're looking for feedback on your editing, the place to do it is at Editor Review, not RfA. --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you only have 227 edits on Wikipedia; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert the closure on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Syjytg. I have read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTNOW and I wish for the RfA to run for the full time. Syjytg (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not reopen the RfA like that. EVula is a bureaucrat. At the very minimum, you should have waited for a response from him before reverting. Enigma^msg 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTNOW says I have the right to run the full term. Syjytg (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNOW is neither a policy or a guideline. I also don't see anything on the page that explicitly says users have this right.
As I noted on my talk page, I'd consider reopening the RfA if you can explain why you feel it is necessary to run the full term. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rejected the unprotection. Discuss with EVula; administrators cannot overrule bureaucrats' closure of RfAs. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just wanted to correct a spelling error, did not meant to be rude. Syjytg (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just keep that in mind for future reference. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making edits like this in future. You know it has been closed, there is no reason to readd it. I'm willing to AGF and whatnot, but this is stretching it a good bit. — neuro^(talk) 09:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is AGF? Syjytg (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, one of the fundamentals of the en-wikipedia. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you misunderstood. I made that edit when the RfA was open. Syjytg (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. It was closed at 17:49, 16 February 2009 by bureaucrat EVula - you didn't reopen it, you merely made it look like you did. At no point have you reopened it. — neuro^(talk) 09:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't. You merely removed the closure tags and placed it back on the main RfA page. You did not reopen it. — neuro^(talk) 10:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice... It's not always wise to place personal information, especially real name combined with date of birth (and place you live) in a freely accessible place on the internet.

If you'd like, any admin would be happy to delete your userpage (editing it is insufficient, as the old versions remain in the history). All you need to do is place {{db-user}} at the top of it and a short while later, it'll be blanked for you. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done by Lectonar. Thank you very much. Syjytg (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People usually don't respond well to people who are desperate to become administrators. They are viewed as power hungry and don't stand a chance of passing RfA. I know you're already looking over our past nominations, and I suggest you start acting according to what you see there. The general critera most people look for in admins is soemthing like this:

• Around 9 months of civil editing
• Several thousand edits
• A broad knowledge of policies and guidelines.
• Contributions to all areas of Wikipedia.

This isn't fixed, you could be a super stellar editor and not meet these criteria and still pass, or a nasty editor and fail even though you meet them. The first step to becoming our next superstar user is to lose your ego. People with egos don't last very long around here. Commentators weren't being nasty at your RfA, they were providing constructive critism ;-). You should learn from it. I very much doubt you will pass RfA for the foorseeable future, however I have a challenge: Make a fool out of me. Prove to the world that you can be the best editor Wikipedia has ever seen. Get promoted to admin in 4 months. I would love for that to happen. This is well within your reach.--Patton^t/c 15:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, it does happen. Syjytg (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a very good idea by User:Patton123 to transfer here rather than discussing at another user's page. My purpose of writing at User:Roux was to tell him that I symphatize with him and to let go of my upsetness. All further discusson should be done here. Syjytg (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Syjytg. :) I'm Shapiros10. As it looks like you've had a bit of a rough start, would you like to be adopted? Adoption is a program where a more experienced user helps a newer user out and answers their questions. What do you say? :) Sam ^Blab 15:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. As it can help me become a better administrator next time if I do become one, I would like to be adopted. Furthermore I only know the basic stuff. There are a lot of commands that I don't know. Especially writing tables where there are a lot of commands. I have written tables before, and thats only because I copied and pasted the commands from tables of similar structure. In other words, I just changed the content.Syjytg (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your adoption subpage. Feel free to ask any questions! :D Sam ^Blab 16:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Sam has listed me as being knowledgeable with markup on your adoption subpage. Feel free to contact me at any time. :) — neuro^(talk) 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should use the talk page. — neuro^(talk) 11:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've inspired me to update my essay: User:Dweller/Tips for aspiring future admins (at long last), so I thought the least I could do was to drop a link to it here. --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what do you mean by more unasked for advice? I do not understand. Syjytg (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Dweller wants you to read his essay. Sam ^Blab 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You were responsive to my advice about your userpage. I thought you might find that essay (even if incomplete) useful. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it already. Thanks. Syjytg (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya lor Yeap, you can find us in these pages:

• SGpedians' notice board
• Singapore portal
• List of Singapore-related topics

Do leave your name at the notice board, and skeali if you have any questions hor, feel free to ask me on my talk page or post it on the notice board eh. Thanks again for your contribution in wikipedia ah! ;) - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start a vote on whether certain content should be included in a certain article(ie I dont want to engage in an edit war), how do I do it?(I mean what command to use?) Syjytg (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just start a discussion on the article's talk page. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion. However, I would like to start a vote so I can get in numerical terms whether my view is of the majority. Syjytg (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are evil --Closedmouth (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this warning, I understand your enthusiasm but it is not an appropriate warning. Keep in mind that it is an anonymous editor (IP address) and the previous warnings - especially since the most recent was in October - may have been for edits that someone else did. Warning someone with an "only warning" template like that is really not appropriate. If you have any questions, please let me know.  Frank  |  talk  16:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the severity level. Syjytg (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you're understanding. You sent a warning to an anonymous user on an IP address. There's no way to know that the person who vandalized the article is the one who receives the warning, but you added "Apparently, you have been warned many times and you never learn your lesson." As annoying as vandalism can be, it is not necessary to turn personal with the warnings. It makes it appear as if you are not assuming good faith, and there are even some who would say that you have made a personal attack. We should be commenting on the content, not the contributor. There's no way to be sure (and many reasons not to believe) that the user you are "warning" is the same one that edited in October 2008. For that reason, a new user may have sat down and vandalized (no issue there - it was vandalism) and received a pretty severe threat and an accusation that they were warned "many times" when in fact it might be their first visit to Wikipedia. This borders on WP:BITE, which is another guideline we try to follow around here.  Frank  |  talk  17:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the warning. I think that is more in line with the vandalism edits in question.  Frank  |  talk  20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to use the status indicator. Create your monobook with the text importScript('User:TheDJ/qui.js'); or ask an admin to do it for you. It's much easier than manually typing it in by hand at the top of your talk page each time. After adding it to your monobook, you would then add to the top of your talk as outlined at the page. [[ Enigma^msg 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SYJ, VASCO from Portugal here,

Thanks for your message, my friend. I immediately investigated your question, and must say i am almost 100% sure it's not BRUNINHO. This account you mentioned has made some contributions but in almost three years, and in various football topics.

BRUNINHO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruninho), and his first account, BRUNO P.DORI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruno_P._Dori), edited almost every day, and also wrote no edit summaries, but only wrote in INFOBOXES and "worked" on players connected with FC Barcelona in past or present, which you can very well see by the list of contributions i provided. No man, i don't think it's him.

Hope i was of help, take care,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Survivor Task Force. I hope you have a great time. Thanks. From Tagi to Bottom, MySurvivorPartay (Wobbuffet!. Dats right) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create an article? Syjytg (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to start reading this guide. It will walk you through the process. //roux   05:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SYJYTG, VASCO here,

not quite sure about your request, even tough i am registered i am pretty much still an "amateur", but here are some clues (with example):

For instance, if you enter this article, Javier Calleja, you will see at the bottom of the page, the squad template of Málaga CF. There, you click, for instance, on #21 CHELI, which is non-existent. When you do that, this page appears: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Gonz%C3%A1lez_Ortiz&action=edit&redlink=1), from there you can start filling that with the INFOBOX and story and you have a new article. For more complicated things, i do not know, sorry.

Cheers, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Syjytg. Just wanted to let you know that I'd be sorry to see you stopping as a Wikipedia editor if that article gets deleted, which it, I'm afraid, most certainly will. However, please read the Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? article. Of course, you'll feel bad that an article you put a lot of work into got deleted, but please try and understand that, fundamentally, Wikipedia is a joint effort; your decision to join Wikipedia means that you are free to make good faith edits, but also that everybody else is free to change everything you create according to WP:GFDL and to delete articles deemed inappropriate or redundant per WP:DP. I hope you'll reconsider your decision to leave. Though of course, if you disagree with the fact that this is how Wikipedia works, then perhaps Wikipedia-editing isn't for you after all. Best of wishes. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 09:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely quit if it gets deleted. Syjytg (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't understand why, but that is your decision to make, of course. The page you created contains nothing that isn't already in the existing article - or, if it does, why don't you just merge that information into the existing article? And please understand that the existing article won't get deleted because a) it follows standard naming conventions, b) it has a lot more information than your new article, c) it already is an established page that is of high visibility. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to copy a comment I put on the article's AfD page. Please understand that I do this because I think it would be a terrible waste if you decide to quit Wikipedia when (not if, I'm afraid) the article gets deleted:

• • • Syjytg, you keep saying that you want the article to stay, but unless you are able to give valid reasons for why it is an important contribution to Wikipedia, and not plainly redundant to the existing article, it all just comes across as WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a valid argument for keeping an article. If the problem is that this is a page you've created for your own pleasure, with content that is primarily interesting to you, may I suggest that you simply copy it (without categories, though) to your own userspace, in a subpage along the lines of User:Syjytg/Manchester United's 2008-09 season progress. Note that you'll have to copy it rather than move it, though.

Like I said, please reconsider, or at least state your opinion clearly and with reasons on the AfD. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to paste your comment here next time. I have already read. I am on that page every second that I am logged on so I already read your comment. I am 100% sure I will quit. Syjytg (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to look over other deletion discussions as a way to get an idea of how things work around here. This is the same advice that several people gave you when you applied for adminship shortly after arriving here. Take a look around - there are literally millions of editors overall, and certainly thousands who are highly active. You can get an idea of how things work by observing what others are doing; this will help in understanding why the article is 100% certain to be deleted when the discussion is closed.  Frank  |  talk  11:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, noticed your comment on Julian's page. Nobody has supported that user yet - they are all moral supports, which means that they are opposing, but don't want to scare the user off from trying again (ie there are no/little concerns, but they need to see more from the user before they can support). — neuro^(talk) 13:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although you have similar edit counts, Pyfan already exhibits a trait desired in administrators—being able to handle difficult situations. He/she commented early on that if there were no supports, he would have withdrawn. Unfortunately, you were rather persistent in wishing to keep your RfA open, against the advice of numerous editors, administrators, and bureaucrats. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I,m Layerth and also I am a huge Manchester United fan. So I want to say to you, please correct tables and the results since a match was over. You,re correcting previously it. Cheers...Layerth (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand. What do you mean by I am correcting previously it? Syjytg (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, please do not edit before a match is over.Layerth (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just do freely it. I'm not understanding to you. Why do you think difficult? Cheers.Layerth (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your page? I'm warning to you, please give it up now. When you correct the table and results, I dislike it, everyone dislike it, and I am irritated. Layerth (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) — neuro^(talk) 09:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than advise another editor of a mistaken edit, why not just fix it yourself? That's what we're all about here.  Frank  |  talk  14:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I do not know how to edit to make it gramatically correct. Syjytg (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. Did you look at the correction to get an idea of how it was improved by someone else? (That might be helpful in the future.)  Frank  |  talk  16:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reverting my edits, maybe you should check the source I provided and you will see that Lisandro has in fact played 656 minutes and 40 seconds. – PeeJay 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying from the same place as you. I definitely wont copy wrongly. Syjytg (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no offence, but you have been copying wrongly, as the source definitely says that Lisandro has played 656'40". – PeeJay 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history, it is just 2 words top scorers, there is no discrepencies in the time. Syjytg (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Group A: 39635 + 25382 + 20320 + 26920 + 26213 + 41002 + 19380 + 35038 + 32486 + 19292 + 41060 + 38926 = 365654
• Group B: 58378 + 34690 + 19259 + 32965 + 27247 + 54089 + 17140 + 35968 + 34955 + 18461 + 59872 + 35000 = 428024
• Group C: 34820 + 58354 + 22638 + 25300 + 23120 + 37500 + 24282 + 49479 + 14000 + 31765 + 30248 + 22763 = 374269
• Group D: 29000 + 44841 + 41097 + 39898 + 48769 + 29000 + 42010 + 48777 + 0 + 40024 + 33500 + 49663 = 446579
• Group E: 74944 + 58754 + 10346 + 21515 + 15959 + 74655 + 10355 + 58903 + 22529 + 10096 + 74382 + 58014 = 490452
• Group F: 13379 + 43000 + 25383 + 64000 + 66000 + 15239 + 37034 + 37243 + 64000 + 23736 + 14862 + 38349 = 442225
• Group G: 38709 + 16800 + 59623 + 35112 + 42619 + 32209 + 60003 + 16300 + 38120 + 59374 + 37602 + 14000 = 450471
• Group H: 20853 + 55099 + 21075 + 31400 + 19500 + 25813 + 28793 + 71560 + 20155 + 30500 + 5753 + 46265 = 376766
• First knockout round: 47000 + 39258 + 60003 + 80018 + 21810 + 71579 + 35163 + 38079 = 392910
• Total: 365654 + 428024 + 374269 + 446579 + 490452 + 442225 + 450471 + 376766 + 392910 = 3767350

Do you agree? – PeeJay 11:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't forget to write the attendance for the group D match. The match was played behind closed doors, so the attendance was zero. The attendance from yesterday's Sporting v Bayern game is sourced from Sky Sports. – PeeJay 12:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if the attendance is correct, what's the problem? – PeeJay 12:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not always the case, but I know where you're coming from. It's quite infuriating to be quoted three or four different attendances by normally reliable sources, especially when all four are different to the official attendance. – PeeJay 08:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the total number of matches from the first round (the round before the group stage). – PeeJay 09:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also just did the adding up myself, and I got 501. – PeeJay 09:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The info you were trying to edit was on a separate template. In order to edit it, you need to click on the "e" where it says "v•d•e". – PeeJay 12:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then when editing attendance numbers, or anything else for that matter please include a reason in your edit summary so I know your reason why you decided to change the numbers. I'm sorry it looked like everyday vandalism to me. Yunggunn2k3 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, when you make edits just put a short message in the edit summary like "corrected yellow card minute" so other editors know what's going on. Yunggunn2k3 (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've always loved when people pull out the Free Speech! card without understanding its limitations. To brag about being educated at the same time is rather comical. Cheers! Resolute 15:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can barely understand what he's saying. Basically, what he's saying is that the block on his last IP was improper because he was not actually comparing another editor to the Nazi Party (despite all evidence to the contrary) and that my removing trolling from his old IP's talk page was censorship. He also lambasted me for sleeping at 4 AM, and 5 AM, saying that I was conspiring to get other administrators on his case. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, I have no idea about the Premier League table templates. – PeeJay 02:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the message. It seems our wish came true! – PeeJay 23:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in Singapore? I lived just off Thomson Road, near Novena MRT. – PeeJay 10:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, of course it makes sense. He was appointed as Portsmouth's manager in October 2008, and then sacked in February 2009. Simple. – PeeJay 14:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at FA Cup 2008–09. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Syjytg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not need to be blocked because I am just removing unnecessary information. The semi-finals and finals need not be included because the teams are not known yet and thus redundant. User:PeeJay2K3 will agree with me that these information are redundant. I would also like to ask how long is the short period.

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for your block -- violating the three-revert rule. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

While I agree with the content of your reverts, the way you have gone about this is not appropriate. 3RR applies to everyone (as I have found out myself on multiple occasions), so if someone is making controversial edits, start a conversation on the article's talk page, achieve a consensus, and then refer back to that consensus next time someone tries to make a similar controversial edit. – PeeJay 15:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you reverting the same way as me as well? In what way are your actions different from mine? (Hopefully you will read here as I cannot write on your talk page.) Syjytg (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my actions were similar, and I now realise that I was setting a bad example for you to follow. Fortunately, it doesn't matter in this case as we were reverting the edits of sockpuppets, but let's both be more careful in the future. – PeeJay 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should let the admins deal with sockpuppets in the future instead of reverting them, lest we get into trouble. Cheers. Syjytg (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I do not think I have broken the 3RR rule because I am reverting vandalisms(incessant adding of unnecessary information is considered to be vandalism.) Furthermore, I am reverting the edits of a sockpuppet thus I am not breaking the rule. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darvit Chandhurai}}

The user being reverted was socking, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Darvit_Chandhurai. As the blocking admin I'll support an unblock here if Syjytg shows an increased understanding of Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Syjytg (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise that you violated the 3 revert rule and that the edits you were reverting were NOT vandalism? Do you promise to abide by the 3 revert rule in future? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Syjytg (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Based on AGF and comments above. Request handled by: Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you. Syjytg (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your edits here were to an archive. Because the case has been closed you will need to create a new case using the same case name: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darvit Chandhurai. To do so follow the instructions here by placing the case name in the request box. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Manchester United be placed in UEFA Europa League 2009–10? Kingjeff (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they will definitely get a Champions League slot, not UEFA Cup. They definitely wont throw the title at this stage. In fact, there is no way they will finish below 4th! Alex Ferguson is not Keegan!!! Syjytg (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue is that there are a couple of editors that think that they should simply because they won the Carling Cup have not officially have a Champions League spot. I think it's crystal balling for either. Kingjeff (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it is a snowball that they will not get a champions league slot. Syjytg (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to change the format of this section, please create a discussion topic so everyone that edit's the page can voice their opinion on if the changes should be made. Thanks! --Yunggunn2k3 (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think we should add the locale of the match officials to the page, please create a discussion topic first. I think it may be a good idea but please don't do it for just one match. If you think it should be done, then add it to ALL matches, not just one. It looks unprofessional. --Yunggunn2k3 (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it for the other FA Cup matches later. Syjytg (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just indef'd User:Johny Foxy who reported you at WP:AN3. However, I strongly urge you not to edit war with anon's, it is completely pointless, as you've just demonstrated. Especially if you have ambitions admin-wards William M. Connolley (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your reply... "vandalism" means different things to different people. Continuous reversion just doesn't work well, you should report to WP:AIV or somesuch William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made approximately a dozen reverts on this article within an hour or so. Please take the opportunity to discuss on the talk page rather than consistenly remove the information added. Live scores are consistently added during big games, and the general consensus appears to have been not to worry about them, even if you think they are pretty unencyclopaedic. - fchd (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I added live scores, I was reverted. Syjytg (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's another two reverts in two minutes. You do not, I repeat not, have consensus to keep doing this. - fchd (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The color coding on the NBA Conference templates is already used to highlight teams on their own season pages. Since those are the only pages where those templates are used, that is really the only purpose for it. Color coding for teams who've "clinched" playoff berths or have been eliminated does not make any sense. Nor does that color coding even imply anything to the average reader. It really serves no purpose. Shamedog18 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go on any one of the teams' individual team season pages and look at the stadings on the bottom. Do you see now what that template is used for? Your color coding makes no sense. It doesn't even imply anything. The average reader who knows nothing about the NBA is not going to look at the green and red colors and think "Oh that team must have clinched a playoff berth." Shamedog18 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue, mate. Sorry. I would guess that most of the bars around Clarke Quay would show the matches though. – PeeJay 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting the counts wrong, see my summary. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your summary at all. Syjytg (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go to work,have daniel explain it to you. ALso, only arbs and clerks should be changing those. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11 active, + 4 recused/abstaining, + 1 inactive, gives the 16 arbitrators on WP:AC. 11 active and eligible to cast a vote, hence the majority is 6. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Or, for motions 2 and 3: 12 active, + 3 recused/abstaining, +1 inactive, equals the 16 arbitrators. The key reason for listing "12" somewhere is that it is the number which the majority is based off; for motions 2 and 3, the majority is 7. Daniel (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided a rationale at the WP:PERM/R page. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained myself. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, could you explain why you undid my changes to the beginning? You changed the past tense into the future tense about something that ALREADY HAPPENED on the 13th.

Also I'd like to know the point of having five decimal numbers in the statistics section. That serves no cause and makes absolutely no difference. Heck, while we're at it, why not use 10 or 20 decimals? Antti29 (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to the admins. Antti29 (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't provided a reason for the five decimals. Until you do, don't change it. Antti29 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert other user's edits without explanation. This is considered vandalism. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my edits on Housewives' Holiday. Your edits have violated Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Please read this page for more information. If you readd the episodic synopsis, I will consider them to be vandalism. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 22:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive or hard to read formatting, as you did in Housewives' Holiday, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop abusing the NBA statistics! I see you're terrorising other pages as well so don't be surprised if you find your account locked one of these days. Antti29 (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you provide reason for the five decimals you must stop. Antti29 (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I WILL report you if you don't stop the abuse. Antti29 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have been reported – again. Antti29 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing thoroughly. It is directly applicable to your editing since you joined Wikipedia. We endeavor to assume good faith at all times, and I have been doing so for quite a while here, as have other editors. However, just reading your talk page above shows a long pattern of WP:tendentious editing that is really moving in the direction of some community action being taken. If an RfC were to be filed today, it would include at the very least:

• Your stubborn refusal to close your way-too-early RfA
• Your badgering, assuming bad faith, and threats to leave if an article you created was deleted
• Biting new users (discussion and diffs here)
• Your very careful avoidance of WP:3RR, followed shortly by reporting another user for it, all in the process of truly edit-warring, regardless of the spirit of the policy.

Now, keep in mind that these are just the items I am personally acquainted with; I have no doubt there are others which demonstrate a pattern of disruptive editing. It would be much more preferable if you could find a way to contribute without controversy and disruption.  Frank  |  talk  16:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]