User talk:SyncSeth

Hello! SyncSeth, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite Rosie! Without an invite, I wouldn't have known the Teahouse, much less bothered posting a question. SyncSeth (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SyncSeth. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

In the Jessica Sanchez article, it has come to my attention that some users particularly User:Creativity97 and User:Aspects have different styles. For example, Creativity97 and many editors would edit it back to "Top 10 round". After a few days, User:Aspects would edit it back to "Top Ten round" citing WP:Ordinal. Frankly, either style works for me. As a newbie, I hope to be a competent contributor of content and less as an editor. I am interested on settling on a standard and prevent these repeated edits back and forth. SyncSeth (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SyncSeth, and thanks for stopping by my talk page. Glad you've decided to create an account and jump in there with writing and editing content. We can use more folks like you! Here's my answer to your question: neither is really right or wrong; and WP:Ordinal may or may not apply to this situation; and it really doesn't matter. When I've encountered this sort of issue, I've not participated in "edit warring", and I've simply started working on another article figuring that in 3 months, 6 months, or 6 years from now, maybe we'll develop a style guideline for American Idol round naming. That said, it you want to take the bull by the horns, and suggest a standard, I'd recommend starting the dialogue either at the American Idol talk page, or, maybe better at a WikiProject level, such as WP:IDOL. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care, it was just automatic for me to change it to "Top 10." If 10 in words is the way it's supposed to be, than keep it that way. It doesn't bother me. Creativity97(Talk) 23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have only changed the numbers into words in one edit, [1]. That edit was more about changing the sentences with "3 judges", "5 million views in 3 days", "4 unanimous standing ovations" and "1 for group performance" than it was for changing "top 11 round" and "top 10 round" because I could see a consensus supporting the latter, but I have been called out for not being consistent in spelling out the numbers, so I changed as many as I could see because I did not want to pick and choose which I thought were appropriate. If a consensus is formed that "top 11 round" and "top 10 round", I will leave these alone. Aspects (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your responses. Explaining your views gave me insight on how different editors approach the issue. Instead of acting individually and setting his/her own standards, the community comes into a consensus. And I think that's what a community is all about. SyncSeth (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SyncSeth, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Jessica Sanchez. I am pretty sure that an experienced Wikipedian like you is well familiar with Verifiability but even the best among us needs to be reminded from time to time. This is something we all strive for in Wikipedia. Your additions[2] without any cited source/s or reference/s will be deleted by aggressive editors, and most of the time even without warning. Also, we can't rely on Wikipedia for citation, as per Circular. Please rectify as soon as possible. I also sent 2 similar notices to other editors who added content without citation. - coming from a fellow A.I. fan - SyncSeth (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for editing Wikipedia! It's great that you were bold and edited a page. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your edits to American Idol articles. However, I can't help but notice that you do not provide an Edit Summary. There is a small text entry field labeled Edit summary located under the main edit box and above the Save page button. Please briefly describe the changes you have made. Please refer to Edit summary guidelines. By following these guidelines, you set a good example for all newcomers, that includes me :). Thanks again for your contributions. - SyncSeth (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 190.98.50.178 (talk) and thank you for editing Wikipedia! It's great that you were bold and edited a page. I initiated this conversation to discuss the Citing sources guidelines as mentioned briefly in my Edit Summary. I have noticed you reverted my edits in [3], [4], and [5] without citing any reason. With the hope that you would understand one [6] of my edits, this time I provided the link guideline in Edit Summary citing WP:REF#Footnotes, yet you reverted it within a few minutes, again citing no reason. The Footnotes (or Notes) allow the use of repeated citations using same footnote as reference, instead of creating several footnotes saying the same exact thing, and to avoid clutter. I hope this discussion and the specific links provided would help clarify the issue and prevent any edit war. If you have any question, feel free to create a User Account and discuss your edits at the Teahouse community, or simply respond to this message by clicking New Section. Together we can help build Wikipedia. - SyncSeth (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your contribution to American Idol related pages. I've seen that you changed "Bottom 3" to "Bottom 2" either once or repeatedly. The American Idol show uses the "Bottom 3" term for the finals up to Top 6 round. At the Top 5 round, the show ceases to use "Bottom 3" and uses "Bottom 2" term instead. From Top 4 onward, it ceases to use the "Bottom" convention and would just reveal the "Eliminated" contestant. This is not a warning. Just wanted to give you a heads up and bring you up to speed on the American Idol terminology and accepted consensus among American Idol editors. Cheers! - SyncSeth (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Orig Post[7] somehow got removed from Gareth Griffith-Jones' talk page).

I don't agree 100% with this revert deserving a "uw-vandalism1" on Binayhu's Talk Page. Here's my thoughts. Binayhu might just be correct for reverting it since there are many politicians (the current Philippine President, VP, Senators) and Filipino celebrities who have been equally fervent, if not more, in their support. It is kind of fishy that 159.0.145.107 singled out the support coming from the Philippine VP, who happens to be eyeing the Presidency in the next elections. Other editors undid the same additions by dynamic IP 159.0.*.* I hope you would reconsider that "uw-vandalism1" on Binayhu. In the meantime, I welcomed both editors in their talk pages. - SyncSeth (talk) 7:08 pm, 14 May 2012, last Monday (5 days ago) (UTC−7)

== New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones ==

* Regarding User:Binayhu's edit and my reply to both you and he, this morning.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

=== May 15, 2012 ===

Hello SyncSeth!

• I posted this on talk page on May 15, 2012, and would like to thank you for drawing it to my attention.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jessica Sanchez, did not have an Edit summary, and therefore I removed it. Please feel free to reinstate your editing, if you would like to, together with a completed summary in the edit summary box.

The reverted edit can be found here.

Good editing! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, thank you, SyncSeth. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref. this section

=== Thank you! ===

I didn't had a chance to read your reply right away since it's no longer on your talk page. But I think I have an idea when you updated the message on this user's talk page. I look forward to learning with you and working with you as well. - SyncSeth (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I was I little hasty removing this section (!) Thank you for your kind remarks. We will keep in touch.

Cheers, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POSTSCRIPT: I notice that Binayhu has not edited since May 16th. Do you want to offer him/her some encouragement? -- Gareth.

You are doing well. All the best from the UK. Where are you? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! Prefer pizza but I can live with strawberries. I go where the wind takes me. - SyncSeth (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] I was about to write, "A man of mystery...", but then realised that I may be wrong. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Just kidding, I like strawberries! The conspiracist in me prefers my whereabouts be undisclosed. Cheers! - SyncSeth (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ha ha ... Don't blame you. I, like you, make my own pizza ... including the dough ... do you? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• SyncSeth's post on Sunray's talk page. Edit summary: (→‎May 2012: new section). Revision as of 2012-05-20 T09:06:01 UTC

== May 2012 ==

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Elise Testone, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. The edit in question is here. I was glad that you removed the unsourced middle name additions by 70.156.103.244 at the Infobox and Lead Section, but was kind of puzzled that you added the First and unsourced Middle Name at the Early life section. - SyncSeth (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sunray 1st & 2nd posts on SyncSeth's talk page as seen below. Edit Summary: (don't template the regulars). Revision as of 2012-05-21 T01:27:47 UTC

==Hey!==

You are new here, and perhaps haven't heard, but we normally don't template the regulars. The purpose of templates is to alert new users to WP policies. However, "most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies." The policy that applies here is not the one on reliable sources but rather the conventions about the lead. The MoS specifies to repeat the article name in the first sentence of the lead. Therefore one does not write "Elise Nicole Testone..." when the article is titled "Elise Testone." On the other hand, if that is her full name it is entirely permissible to write that into her "Early history." I checked and while she is most commonly referred to in the media as "Elise Testone", there is documentation that her full name is "Elise Nicole Testone."

If you would like to discuss this further on my talk page, or yours, that will be fine. However, please DO NOT put a template message on my page. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• SyncSeth's response to Sunray's 1st & 2nd posts

Your posts got me unsettled and so halted my Wikipedia contributions since yesterday and began composing my response . It was late at night, so just posted this today. Just like what I wrote I was "glad that you removed the unsourced middle name additions by 70.156.103.244 at the Infobox and Lead Section". However, I am kind of puzzled that you added an unsourced Middle Name at the Early life section, prompting me to use the Template:Uw-biog1 on 70.156.103.244 first, and on your talk page second. Shortly after, I removed the middle name and left first name Elise intact.

°Sunray removes SyncSeth's post (1st remove). Edit Summary: (removed gratuitous remark)

°SyncSeth reverts edit by Sunray (1st revert). Edit Summary: (Reverted 1 edit by Sunray (talk): Rv per Talk Page Guidelines, see WP:TPO. (TW))

°Sunray removes SyncSeth's post again (2nd remove). Edit Summary: (don't template the regulars)

You removed my post on your talk page and dismissed it as "gratuitous remark". I find that insulting since I believe it has merits. It reminded me of Factseducado, who removed his own posts on your talk page but were reverted back by administrator Snowolf and was shortly blocked indefinitely by oversight 'Elen of the Roads'. And so I reverted it with that in mind, and following the Talk Page Guideline citing WP:TPO, where it states, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Yet you removed it again, this time stating "don't template the regulars."

°Factseducado removes his own posts with this edit1 edit2 on Sunray's talk page

°Snowolf (administrator) reverts 2 edits by Factseducado. Edit Summary: (Reverted to revision 493464763 by SyncSeth: user went on a removal spree of his own comments from people's talk pages and other discussion pages.)

°Elen of the Roads (checkuser, oversight, administrator) blocks Factseducado indefinitely

You said, "there is documentation that her full name is "Elise Nicole Testone."" At the time of your edit, there was none. As one of the main contributors who added content and cleaned the Elise Testone article, unfortunately there is not a single web/news article I could find to support Nicole. Not until 70.156.103.244 found later a recent Elise Testone tweet and added it as a reference with this edit. The Uw-biog1 really does serve a purpose. I later welcomed and complimented 70.156.103.244 for that recent contribution, like I normally do to good edits. - SyncSeth (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Over 4 hours later, Sunray updates his/her post on SyncSeth's talk page as seen below. Edit Summary: m(correction). Revision as of 2012-05-21 T05:46:58 UTC

==Hey!==

You are new here, and perhaps haven't heard, but we normally don't template the regulars. The purpose of templates is to alert new users to WP policies. However, "most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies."

If you would like to discuss this further on my talk page, or yours, that will be fine. However, please DO NOT put a template message on my page. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• SyncSeth's response to Sunray's updated post

Thank you for mentioning WP:DTR for I was unaware of it until now. I'll keep that in mind from this point onward. Before this, I always operated under the assumption that everyone, that includes most especially me, is not beyond reproach. I won't be posting any warning message on your talk page, regardless of your actions. Compared to you being a reviewer and rollbacker, I am but a newbie and newbies are held to a different standard.

- SyncSeth (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SyncSeth. You have new messages at OrenBochman's talk page.
Message added 09:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

BO; talk 09:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]