![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
When closing AfDs, please make sure you go through all the steps, including removing the AfD template from the article page, and adding an {{ oldafdfull}} template to its talk page. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You specifically said that quote, I told you I would post it, and you said you were fine with that. If you want to pull games like this, we will not discuss Wikipedia at all. KV( Talk) 06:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
While I sympathise with your position on this matter, this article is properly referenced by reliable sources e.g. Socialist Party USA website and is thus neither OR nor unverifiable. Mstuczynski ( talk) 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure why I am responding, but the article claims he is the Socialist Party USA V.P. candidate and their website confirms it. I do not know why that is not a reliable source. Mstuczynski ( talk) 10:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Cabbalists don't use the word "occult." You and I know it applies but the cabal, that is, Kabbalah: Talk serves to keep dark words off their page. The New Testament is relevant here. The Pharisees are written to have said to the dissident Rabbi, "Why are you speaking of these things and you are not yet 50?"
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SynergeticMaggot! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb talk 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this as keep! PamD ( talk) 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Now isn't that much more fitting? KV( Talk) 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just letting you know that when you close an AfD, it's considered good etiquette to let others know that it's a non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I knew that would get your attention. Now, I updated my userpage as you suggested, but I did it all the much better :P KV( Talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi SynergeticMaggot! Thank-you for your
support in my RfA (91/1/1).
|
Yeah, I think we got all those TV personality AfDs closed. Thanks for the help! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, um can you please delete that Wiki now? I called it that and then I tried to move it as Mick Doohan's Motocoaster, but I couldn't, so it is a stub and an unnecessary waste on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentimesone ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! Lexicon (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's because the discussion hasn't been open for 24 hours yet. Regardless, this is clearly a snowball case here, and I shall close it, even if it does mean ignoring all rules -- I would imagine that an admin (translation: someone who I am not) would have done the same thing within a couple hours anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 04:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope that you are still here and on IRC. I am currently a ghost when my connection died. I can't get back in until my ghost dies. Could you get me ghosted please? - LA @ 00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I wouldn't have much to say. I'll just support (when he accepts, that is). Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Dunno where my brain went. Lexicon (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of A More Perfect Union. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Colonel Warden ( talk) 08:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! |
| |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not only new userboxes on the page, but 2 new ones made. Thought you'd want to check it out. KV( Talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
|
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (2nd nomination). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RoninBK T C 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Join #wikipedia-spam-t on irc.freenode.net and look for nixeagle. Or you can click this link http://webchat.devnode.org/ and change your nick to your name, and click join. I'll probably be in there as nixeagle as well :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you!
Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
You have Image:Super Saiyan Gokudbz.JPG on your userpage. This is not a free image; therefore, it cannot be anywhere but an article that has a specific rationale written for it. Please remove it from your userpage. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Collectonian ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the spammer/vandal who AfD the WRP article page. Much appreciated. Kamadiro ( talk) 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, I boldly reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Walter. I felt there was only a weak justification under WP:SK for closure and that HisSpaceResearch had demonstrated good faith in bringing these concerns forward, and we should just allow for some more discussion for consensus. I see why you thought it should be closed, but I don't think that was the right choice under the circumstances, and the possibility of a DRV and another AFD just seemed like a potential outcome, which nobody needs. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll make a better comment now on. Cheers.-- RyRy5 talk 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you used the wrong closing tag. :) Corvus cornix talk 18:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's my first barnstar ever. It's nice to know that someone notices :) Happy editing! Kingturtle ( talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but all I did was accidentally revert someone thinking they were vandalizing. J.delanoy gabs adds 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You sure are handing out them barnstars! :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Havent previously met you before but, hey this is cyberspace where people hand out barnstars to people they've never met before! Thanks so much! It's my second barnstar ever. I will keep it forever on my awards page! Thanks! -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. It is the first one I have ever received. DDStretch (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar! What a great idea you had to give them out... And one really has to hand it to Kurt, though... I'm glad he got a few "Good Humor" Barnstars for that stunt; he deserved them. κaτaʟaveno T C 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
wow, it's only my second barnstar in my 2 and a half years on wiki. I was beginning to seriously wonder what I was doing wrong, lol! So thank you very much indeed. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. It was indeed a lot of (harmless) fun. Yngvarr (c) 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly object to your closing the MfD after 23 minutes of discussion. I support keeping the page, yes, but it is ludicrous to suggest that any consensus can be reached in 23 minutes. Your decision very much feels like steamrolling minority opinions. Cheers. - Chardish ( talk) 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For an outrageously cool MFD closing, closing a deletion discussion on a policy as per that policy. (And doing so correctly) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 10:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for that. I only regret that I forgot to make a non-serious reference to "giving someone the tools (a jerry can of petrol and a box of matches) to clean up Wikipedia, deletionist style!". Oh well, there is always next year =) Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
:-)
Xavexgoem ( talk) 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Philip H. Farber for deletion. You previously contributed to an earlier AfD on this article and it was suggested that I notify you of the current AfD. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the use of WP:SNOW to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (4th nomination) in the first ninety minutes is an abuse of this guideline. The issues go well beyond notability (or lack thereof). There are serious questions about whether the article in question is WP:NPOV and these questions are being raised not here but in the mainstream media. The WP:NPOV issue wasn't even addressed in the recent AfD, due to your haste in closing this, and any previous AfD's on this article are leftovers from 2006. A lot has happened since 2006, to the point where this isn't just another WP:BLP like thousands of others but a very problematic article which really does need to be discussed instead of locked and closed. -- carlb ( talk) 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would you change the format of the references? It made absolutely no difference and is frowned upon in the community. KV( Talk) 11:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:DPR#NAC, I have reopened this deletion discussion which you have closed. Please note that close calls (like this one, which has a small majority of delete opinions) should be left to an administrator. Stifle ( talk) 09:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>. Synergetic Maggot asked me to look at these AfDs and his closures on my talkpage. After looking at both AfDs, I agree, that according to our current guidelines and essays and established practices, that these two AfDs should have been left to an admin to close. Stifle did the correct thing in reopening the debates, neither of which was a clear, noncontentious, obvious keep. SM has made numerous NACs, the vast majority of them are solid and noncontroversial keeps. These two are exceptions to what, in my experience, are generally very good closures. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey SM, keep me posted on this. I missed the discussion at
WP:AN until after it was closed. I would like to mention that 1) Yes, you do have to deal with it when an admin re-opens a discussion you close and taking the matter to AN is a little excessive, but 2) NAC is just an essay and the DELPRO language on this is pretty lean - which is a good thing.
WT:DELPRO and it's archives have a bunch on this and I'm usually involved. I wasn't much involved at AfD as a non-admin but I was fairly aggressive in making closes at MfD and TfD, and I am a firm believer that non-admins are just as capable of determining consensus as admins. If you're looking for my thoughts on unambiguous, take a look at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (2nd nomination). I don't believe there is consensus as to what is an ambiguous case or a close call, we don't count votes so numbers can't make something a close call. I'd note that one of your closes has been reclosed as a keep again. The other is still open. I'd recommend that you: 1) keep up the good work, including closing discussions; 2) don't sweat it when your closes are undone by admins, they have that right under established policy; 3) involve yourself in discussion at
WT:DELPRO and
WT:NAC regarding this issue; 4) {{
Ping}} me if you see a discussion on this topic that I'm not involved in (it's not canvassing b/c I asked you to do this - you now know that I'm particularly interested in the topic). Again, keep up the good work and
CHILL. Cheers.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)
02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Remember when you, 999, and Hanuman Das followed me around to undo most of my work and put everything on AfD at once? [ [1]]. Just thought you should know. KV( Talk) 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/ e 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That's happened to me too, believe me. I do think that this portal, though, has some of the same problems as the other, given that it's name indicates it deals only with the Hermetica, and there aren't that many articles dealing with that subject either. The two best choices to my mind would be Portal:Hermeticism, which would give it a clear scope of at least 100 articles, or, maybe, Portal:Gnosticism. I understand that some people dislike considering Hermetism/Hermeticism and Gnosticism to be similar, but that is a much broader subject area, and a group or project dealing with the topic would be much more likely to get enough members to keep itself and the portal going. If you're asking it to be deleted, though, just say so and I can speedy delete it on that basis. John Carter ( talk) 13:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I see your tagging a lot of pages in your userspace for deletion. May I inquire? I hope its just house cleaning and what not as your a very valuable user to the project. MBisanz talk 09:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
just a quick remark regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wreck (book series), where I was the nominator. It seems that a "keep" result is in line with consensus; and you might possibly apply the snowball clause, although that would seem somewhat strange on the 4th day of the 5 day period. However you closed the AfD as "Speedy keep". Note that per the WP:CSK guideline, "Speedy keep" is only applicable in very specific situations; namely, apart from some cases that obviously do not apply here, if the nomination was "vandalism or disruption". I do not assume that you consider my nomination disruptive; however you might want to choose your closure rationale more carefully. Also, as a side note, it's considered good practice to mark a non-admin closure as such. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A non-admin close of the US state terrorism AfD? While I personally think you did a good job of evaluating and closing the AfD, I'm afraid that it's in a grey area ( WP:DPR#NAC and WP:NAC neither mandate nor forbid non-admin closure in this exact situation). Best of luck to you, whatever happens. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: this, you are mistaken, the AfD is still semi-protected and will be until 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC). Whether it is worthwhile to have have the protection notice is another matter. CIreland ( talk) 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I see from the above messages that this is not the first time you have speedily closed an AfD without regard for the criteria for a speedy keep. I just read up on the whole speedy keep thing, and here's what it says, in part : "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion." (emphasis added) While there were changes to the article during the period of less than three hours it was at AfD, you did not allow sufficent time for interestred parties to check the added references, and three hours is simply not enough time to form consensus as specified by WP:SPEEDYKEEP. If you are closing based on WP:SNOW, or WP:IAR, you should make that clear. And, once again, you failed to mark a non-admin closure as such. I would ask that if you are going to close AfD debates, that you please make yourself more familiar with the standards for doing so, and please mark your closures as non-admin. Thanks Beeblbrox ( talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
SM IMHO your actions in again closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonviolent communication are outside acceptable etiquette as such I have asked for opinions other editors at WP:AN/I#User:SynergeticMaggot. Please join the discussion there. Gnan garra 09:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to bow to consensus in this instance, since that is what Wikipedia is all about, and I hereby withdraw the AfD for the article in question. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you in any other matter in the future. All the best, Qworty ( talk) 06:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For going above and beyond the call of duty to keep good material on-wiki and improve the project. Celarnor Talk to me 07:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
They are today (27 April 2008) at 15:00 UTC. Here is the skype link & here's the IRC link. Xavexgoem ( talk) 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on those AfD's, I did not know about adding the subst:ab template at the end. But thanks to you I do, and I will be sure to add that in all future closes. Oddly the new admin school does not deal with closing of AfD's, and these were the first few I've closed. Thanks again for your help!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message! Yeah unfortunately real life has really caught up with me. I write for fun these days. =P - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
For the purpose of discussion with that person, please return to me on my talkpage as to the administrator who granted you rollback rights and the date that you gained those rights. Thank you. -- VS talk 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have preferred discussing this situation with the administrator that granted you rollback rights but since you will not easily provide the name of that person (it was a simple and polite request) I have at this time removed your rights based on this exchange of edits and in particular this comment. That series of edits gives me cause to be concerned over your use and understanding of this tool. Can I suggest that you look very carefully at all of the issues surrounding use of rollback - and also that you consider more carefully your responses to its use - particularly that you do not state that it is your consideration that you can use it any way I wish actually. I will be happy to return to you with those rights once you can establish a greater understanding. Best wishes until then. -- VS talk 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
SynergeticMaggot...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
OK, SM, trying to wrap my brain around this. Tell me where I'm amiss. My biggest gap in the sequence is between April 22, where you inadvertently "rolled back" an edit by Enigmaman instead of "undo-ing", and April 29th, when it was subsequently removed. What happened in between there? I'm seeing one wrong edit (wrong use of rollback), a discourse with Enigmaman to clear the air (and some unfortunate turns of phrase mixed in that wouldn't have existed if you and E-man were actually sitting and having a beer - damn you keyboards). I'm seeing that basically die down to nothing only to resurface with VirtualSteve querying about "who gave you rollback rights", 7 days later, and another round of confusing posts littered over at least 3 talk pages. What happened in between there? Is this all really over one button click? I'm hoping that VS is still reading this as well, because I'm honestly at a loss as to what's going on. I'm glad to be a third opinion in this, but this really just seems like a whole lotta something over a whole lotta nothing. What am I mising? Build me a timeline, SM? Build me a timeline VS? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
SynergeticMaggot...Several people have expressed an interest in my next probable nomination for adminship. Messaging people when it happens would look a lot like canvassing, so I would prefer not doing that. If you are interested in it, you could add this to your watchlist. If it is created, you will know, maybe even before I do depending on how often you check your watchlist. If you wish to gush prior to it being officially up, have fun, but only when it happens please. I am in no particular rush. Have a very nice day! :) - LA @ 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Billie Lee Turner, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.clarku.edu/departments/geography/facultybio.cfm?id=338&progid=15&. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Around half an hour ago you kindly put a message on Treelo's page asking for an explanation of reversions of my edits. however, nothing has come out of that. Now it seems that another IP user - 138.38.142.242 - has perhaps also experienced similar problems. If so, could Treelo be temporarily blocked (just, say, for 15 minutes) so that he/she will stop and look at what he/she is doing? -- 85.158.139.99 ( talk) 13:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Boy, that's a big red line to cross. I'd give him a bit longer, or another complaint, before rolling back. I'll note that rollingback edits as vandalism when they are not overt and obvious vandalism is a big no-no, as well. Let me see if I can grab his attention. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just as soon as I clicked save...I saw that the RfA was closed. Guess it overlapped while I was typing my response. I wasn't sure if I should have removed it. Thanks SM. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Bad form. My undo was justified by common practice. Check my talk, as you should have before your action. Regards. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why I regret you didn't support, I must input that I believe that my expertise in the articles I have edited/worked on would be able to get the adminship, I don’t believe just because you have 11 thousand posts, makes you qualified to become a admin. Remember, You don’t know what a user can achieve till you give them a chance Dell970 ( talk) 01:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert, but the bug struck on my page. It happened to me once, as well. Oh well. Enigma message 02:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Fattyjwoods
Push my button has given you a cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, just to make sure you’re not too hungry, I gave you a cookie! I would’ve given you milk – but the cow just died and I tried to milk the bull but it kicked me in the face. *sob*. Anyway, enjoy the cookie!! Fattyjwoods Push my button 05:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I didn't realise the policy on confusing usernames had changed, and actually blocked someone when I shouldn't have. Oops!. GB T/ C 10:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
are 11 May 2008 at 15:00 UTC, or something like that. Click the link in the header to be taken to the (link that holds) the mystery realms of IRC and Skype. Xavexgoem ( talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, SynergeticMaggot.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I especially wanted to thank you for your taking the time to opine in the post-closure 'crat chat talk page. I believe that the crat's decision is proper, based on the current guidelines, and natural conservatism that governs RfBs, although that does not ease the personal, and all too human, disappointment I now feel. Regardles, if you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi ( talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops my bad! [2]
I though that was the date not the final tally. Good spot! -Icewedge ( talk) 02:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear SynergeticMaggot,
Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page ( here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.
weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi SynergeticMaggot, I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight ( talk) 04:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker ( talk) 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback. I may close it not only per WP:SNOW, but also per editcountitis. In the real world, it is considered better to listen often than to talk often. If only Wikipedia were similar. At least I know now what my weaknesses are and I can work on them. Thank you so much for your kind words. -- Qaddosh| talk| contribs 20:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, article saved. But it still needs some work, particularly wikification. It probably can be trimmed down a bit, too. Let me know if I can help. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 05:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
RfA: Many thanks | |
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, it's not "knit pick", it's nitpick. •Jim62sch• dissera! 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Revoke it. I'll be back in a few months with more edits under my belt :D. Thanks a lot for the notification, and I agree with everyone. I will continue contributing, and contribute more to the Wikipedia namespace in the future. Thanks, and feel free to remove the RFA. Cheers! -- TIM KLOSKE| TALK 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the user never accepted and it wasn't transcluded, does it even count as a proper RFA? If not then yes let it be but if it does i suggest you add it here Your choice. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 ( talk 2 me) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thought a bit about your RfA. I'm not sure you thought your answers through as well as you might have done. You say you plan to patrol AN/3 ... do you actually think you will do this? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wish you all the best for your RFA -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! ....Hope this will bring the smile back on your face --
TinuCherian
(Wanna Talk?) -
04:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks so much for your support in my RfA, which closed successfully this morning. Look forward to seeing you at our forum ;) TravellingCari the Busy Bee 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I misjudged your remark about personal conflict with another editor. I really made that post because I wanted to comment on taking time to be sure about vandalism before starting the whole revert/rollback/warn/AIV process. On RC patrol I've frequently pressed the Undo button only for another editor to beat me to it. I stopped doing RC patrol when I realised that my instinctive reaction was to try to decide faster which edits were vandalism - no Google search, no review of contribs or page history - and I decided that was just going to lead to more newbies being driven off, or (worse) being branded as vandals and deciding to play the role they're given.
In the grand scheme of things, that post wasn't going to affect that RfA one way or the other. Sorry if this all sounds like a lecture; when it comes down to it I just wanted to help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there SynMag, I just want to post a note here that I saw your recent RfA, and that I'm very sorry that I wasn't able to contribute to it before you withdrew. I'm also sorry it didn't go as you had hoped, and I hope that you are not too discouraged by it. I need to be honest with you here, I was actually acting as a "silent neutral" because I was rather torn. You know that I feel your contribs are stellar, and you know that I've been a strong supporter and defender of you - on my talk, on your talk, on ANI, and other venues. You are invaluable. You get this place, and I'm glad you're here. I purposefully stayed away from your Rfa though for a couple of reasons. 1/I knew it wouldn't pass (whether it should've passed or not is irrelevant, I just knew it wouldn't regardless of my input), and 2/I was really disappointed with a particular comment you made on the RfA when one of the opposers (or maybe it was a neutral editor) said they were disappointed in your answer to Q3. Now, don't get me wrong, I hardly ever read the Q & A, and I think that a user's contributions are a much stronger indicator than their "performance" at RfA. But anyway, I was disappointed with your retort that said, basically, Oh, I thought it meant "content" conflicts, not just "conflicts". In my opinion, when you attempted to distinguish "conflict" in a purely semantical way, I was turned off. I purposely avoided your RfA. It felt almost like Wiki-lawyering to me. I know you meant what you said, that's not in question because you always mean what you say, but at the same time, I felt that you were trying to play a "technicality" of language to your favor. After that comment, I'm sure you noticed that several editors jumped into oppose/neutral. I don't know if that was related to your comment or not, but I just wanted to let you know that I was turned off by it. Administrators cannot pick stuff apart that way. They have to be firm, they have to be decisive, and they have to quickly apologize for errors in thought/judgment/action/editing/blocking/protecting/etc/etc/etc/etc, for the benefit of Wikipedia. You've been here for cyber-eons longer than me, I'm certainly not trying to lecture you and I'm certainly hoping you don't read this as condescending in any way. Not my intention at all. I just wanted to let you know that I think you are a fantastic, dedicated Wikipedian, a solid editor, with your head and heart in the right place. Your Rfa #2 though was lacking in too many areas. Sorry I wasn't able to support. Have some dinner with me, my friend. I'll buy the beer! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
User:SynergeticMaggot/Activities restored. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
for your support on my RFA. I appreciate all the votes of confidence and hope I don't mess up too quickly! I will do my best.-- Slp1 ( talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
SynMag, I've read your oppose on EVula's recent request for 'cratship, and frankly I believe you have it wrong. You are welcome to your opinions, I refuse to challenge any opposers on RfAs/RfBs (this is a recent decision of mine based on the stress I've caused myself by "responding" to opposers, and the fallout when I do), because it feels too much like "showmanship". All I ask of you is to continue to watch the page where you are opposing, and continue to weight your opinion against the positive contribs that this particular user has offered/freely given to Wikipedia. Cheers friend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 11:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The redirect's actually been there since February 2007. ;) · AndonicO Engage. 09:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of people want this open, there is ongoing discussion, and there are comments after the close that I need to respond to. Would you consider unclosing it? Gimmetrow 08:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, temporary mind slip. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
|
Hi Synmaggot,
The reason I went straight to MfD was that the vandalism was congruent with the name: it seemed that the user had created an account specifically to post about a friendship, and not to edit WP. On reflection, I suppose assuming good faith would lead one to block first and delete later if necessary.
Thanks for the advice. -- Slashme ( talk) 11:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was certainly bizarre - I've EC'd on a close, but I've never seen a double-close. No problem, either way. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[3]. The perils of going by both Dan and Daniel. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I'd gone to bed before I saw your message. I'm happy to work on the article some. Will try to do so this morning between meetings and what not, but I find it hard to source from home. Wikicite doesn't work on my Mac :( TravellingCari the Busy Bee 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium Talk 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have re-opened this debate. Two and a half hours was insufficient. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent and copied over from my talk page:) My opinion, as an editor (not as an admin) is that there is indeed a serious problem here. It may or may not be that the answer to that problem is to delete Sharkface's award center; I recognize that it's well-intentioned. But there needs to be further discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent:) Look, I'm not "rattled." I am puzzled by your question. I'm not sure what you expect of admins. As admin, I would not have deleted the page; as admin, I have not deleted the page. That's clearly inappropriate. There needs to be discussion first. Laser brain has (re)opened this discussion--the fact that this is the third MfD is simply a sign that the unease that this page causes is ongoing. And as an admin, again, I would not have closed the MfD after two and a half hours. Hence, as an admin, I re-opened the debate. And look: giggy (an Australian who, if my sense of time zones is anywhere on track, should by rights be asleep) has now had the opportunity to comment. Let's not even mention those who are on EST. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Your attempt to close an MfD that you clearly have an opinion on after very little debate is completely inappropriate. Speedy close per WP:SNOW? Interminable process wonkery intrudes on serious debate about a serious issue. I did not go looking for this page; its disruptive effects reach all over WP. You should at least leave something open for 24 hours out of respect for people in different time zones before assuming that all critical thinkers have already shown up and commented. Appalling. -- Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
After reading your user page notice about your XfD habits and observing several of your closures (including, obviously, the most recent one), I request that you no longer close XfDs unless they have completely run their course and are obvious "keeps". I urge you to review Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, which lays out guidelines for you. Of particular interest should be the following:
The last bit is important, and the subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center after you closed it "per snow" should make it clear that you should not be "speedy" closing anything at all.
Hopefully the matter will be concluded with your agreement. -- Laser brain (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If I might interject here a bit, I think SynMag "gets" that his actions weren't well received. Continuing this in two rather large threads is nothing short of flaming at this point. He gets it. Can't this energy all be refocused at this point? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
SM, I think the message is just ... please don't do that again :-) Laser had obviously put a lot of effort into writing up the MfD, and it was closed while some of us were sleeping. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see this. Yours sincerely, Agnistus ( talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I was away for a while and no I notice that you're taking care of a lot of the administrative work at MfD. What happened to the bot we implemented back in April or May?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not serious in any way shape or form - no worries. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Dude, I mostly just ganked the present code and expanded it. Tell me what you want and I'll tweak it, or completely redo it. Colors, designs, links, etc. LaraLove| Talk 05:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Ive put notices on all the articles and article talk pages, asking everyone to come to the Liberal elite article. Should there be a banner on top of the LE article telling people of the talk page discussion"s". I cant use the 8 or so different banners? — Realist2 ( Who's Bad?) 05:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The consensus in the AFD for this article was not to redirect it, it was to merge and redirect it. There is a big difference between a vote to redirect, and a vote to merge and redirect, especially in a case such as this one, where the article you redirected to, David Low (cartoonist), literally does not mention the cartoon at all (except, somewhat ironically, under "See also" where it links back to this title that is now a redirect). Someone following a link for the cartoon's article would be redirected to a page that tells them absolutely nothing about the cartoon. (Note that by the time you see this, the David Low article may indeed say something about the cartoon because I am now going to merge it in as was supposed to be done before.) Propaniac ( talk) 18:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I find your quote from Essjay in poor taste. Do you realize that Ryan Jordan possibly brought more harm to the project than all the vandals combined? 65.175.184.7 ( talk) 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I didn't get the usual "edit conflict" warning message. -- Jenny 21:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, SynergeticMaggot, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am the Bluegoblin7 from IRC. Bluegoblin70 ( talk) 08:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
...overlaps the time. Goodness knows why, just thought I'd say.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Aw man, I liked the old signature! -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that there is actually any more to say.
In bringing a topic to ANI, you must accept that you invite scrutiny of the actions you have alreay taken, you can't say "I only want you to look at this one issue", so it was appropriate to comment at ANI. You invited me to comment of your review, and the only comment that I had was that at the time you were claiming that the over-enthusiastic WP:SNOW closures were a thing of the past, you were still pushing it to the limit. I believe that you will make a good admin, but I also beleive that you need to apply a self-imposed restriction on your use of WP:SNOW to ensure that you don't make mistakes. Mayalld ( talk) 12:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between WP:Speedy keep, and WP:SNOW. The first is a guideline, and as far as I can see does not apply to this MfD. The latter is a specific application of WP:IAR, and probably was appropriate in this case. Taemyr ( talk) 14:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Look. When I close an XfD before the time is up, I mark it as speedy keep because the result is keep and its done fast. Now I know it looks like this is a rationale for closing, but its not. Its a reference to how fast it was closed. This is a force of habit and I'm apologize for this error. From now on, I'll say speedy close instead. And speedy keep does apply to MfD, as it applies to any XfD. In this particular case, it was left open for 2 days before I closed, and caught a quick and clear consensus. I hope this wraps up any concerns, and I welcome you back to my talk page for further comments. — Maggot Syn 18:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Worst. Sig. Evar. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 20:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Maggie! I am looking at an article which is rated as stub, even though it has quite a lot of content. I guess it was a stub at one point but someone came and filled it out. So how do I get it listed as not being a stub anymore? I am talking about the SVIT article ( talk). Now dont be extra helpful and do it yourself, I want to do this one myself :). Danke. Lucifer ( talk) 16:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Hermetism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hermetism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Hermetism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, you declined a users request for unblocking. However, you are not an administrator, and I am not aware of any policy that allows non-admins to decline an unblock request. (the unblock declined template states that an admin has declined the request). Unless I am mistaken about policy here, I feel that you ought to revert yourself here. Mayalld ( talk) 22:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a recurrent theme. I do not know why you act like that towards me. I again stress that I have NO PERSONAL PROBLEM with you. I do not know why you have an apparent grudge. I urge you to try to get past whatever your problem is. I assure you have no problem with you. I guess you can keep doing it though, I will still continue to treat you with respect. Beam 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand Jenny's comment. Even if WR isn't a troll site, he is saying that the TROLLS from that site (troll site or not) are pieces of shit. Trolls ARE pieces of shit. And Tony's actions don't exactly excuse your lack of faith. Beam 01:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That's all swell and good, but your lack of faith (this time) is insinuating I haven't read WP:CIVILITY and other policies. I have actually told you that I am familiar with policies. From WP:SNOW, to deletion policies, to NPOV to CIVIL, to IAR to WP:DNFA I'm quite well versed. And for you to publicly question me having read the CIVIL policy is insulting and if it's not meant to be insulting it's a lack of good faith. So I gave you the benefit of the doubt. If you're telling me it's not a lack of faith, well, that's too bad. Beam 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, I'm well aware of the process. Perhaps you should try reading what I wrote. -- Step hen 07:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
When closing AfDs, please make sure you go through all the steps, including removing the AfD template from the article page, and adding an {{ oldafdfull}} template to its talk page. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You specifically said that quote, I told you I would post it, and you said you were fine with that. If you want to pull games like this, we will not discuss Wikipedia at all. KV( Talk) 06:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
While I sympathise with your position on this matter, this article is properly referenced by reliable sources e.g. Socialist Party USA website and is thus neither OR nor unverifiable. Mstuczynski ( talk) 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure why I am responding, but the article claims he is the Socialist Party USA V.P. candidate and their website confirms it. I do not know why that is not a reliable source. Mstuczynski ( talk) 10:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Cabbalists don't use the word "occult." You and I know it applies but the cabal, that is, Kabbalah: Talk serves to keep dark words off their page. The New Testament is relevant here. The Pharisees are written to have said to the dissident Rabbi, "Why are you speaking of these things and you are not yet 50?"
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SynergeticMaggot! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb talk 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this as keep! PamD ( talk) 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Now isn't that much more fitting? KV( Talk) 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just letting you know that when you close an AfD, it's considered good etiquette to let others know that it's a non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I knew that would get your attention. Now, I updated my userpage as you suggested, but I did it all the much better :P KV( Talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi SynergeticMaggot! Thank-you for your
support in my RfA (91/1/1).
|
Yeah, I think we got all those TV personality AfDs closed. Thanks for the help! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, um can you please delete that Wiki now? I called it that and then I tried to move it as Mick Doohan's Motocoaster, but I couldn't, so it is a stub and an unnecessary waste on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentimesone ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! Lexicon (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's because the discussion hasn't been open for 24 hours yet. Regardless, this is clearly a snowball case here, and I shall close it, even if it does mean ignoring all rules -- I would imagine that an admin (translation: someone who I am not) would have done the same thing within a couple hours anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 04:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope that you are still here and on IRC. I am currently a ghost when my connection died. I can't get back in until my ghost dies. Could you get me ghosted please? - LA @ 00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I wouldn't have much to say. I'll just support (when he accepts, that is). Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Dunno where my brain went. Lexicon (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of A More Perfect Union. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Colonel Warden ( talk) 08:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! |
| |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not only new userboxes on the page, but 2 new ones made. Thought you'd want to check it out. KV( Talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
|
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (2nd nomination). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RoninBK T C 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Join #wikipedia-spam-t on irc.freenode.net and look for nixeagle. Or you can click this link http://webchat.devnode.org/ and change your nick to your name, and click join. I'll probably be in there as nixeagle as well :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you!
Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
You have Image:Super Saiyan Gokudbz.JPG on your userpage. This is not a free image; therefore, it cannot be anywhere but an article that has a specific rationale written for it. Please remove it from your userpage. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Collectonian ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the spammer/vandal who AfD the WRP article page. Much appreciated. Kamadiro ( talk) 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, I boldly reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Walter. I felt there was only a weak justification under WP:SK for closure and that HisSpaceResearch had demonstrated good faith in bringing these concerns forward, and we should just allow for some more discussion for consensus. I see why you thought it should be closed, but I don't think that was the right choice under the circumstances, and the possibility of a DRV and another AFD just seemed like a potential outcome, which nobody needs. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll make a better comment now on. Cheers.-- RyRy5 talk 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you used the wrong closing tag. :) Corvus cornix talk 18:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's my first barnstar ever. It's nice to know that someone notices :) Happy editing! Kingturtle ( talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but all I did was accidentally revert someone thinking they were vandalizing. J.delanoy gabs adds 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You sure are handing out them barnstars! :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Havent previously met you before but, hey this is cyberspace where people hand out barnstars to people they've never met before! Thanks so much! It's my second barnstar ever. I will keep it forever on my awards page! Thanks! -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. It is the first one I have ever received. DDStretch (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar! What a great idea you had to give them out... And one really has to hand it to Kurt, though... I'm glad he got a few "Good Humor" Barnstars for that stunt; he deserved them. κaτaʟaveno T C 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
wow, it's only my second barnstar in my 2 and a half years on wiki. I was beginning to seriously wonder what I was doing wrong, lol! So thank you very much indeed. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. It was indeed a lot of (harmless) fun. Yngvarr (c) 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly object to your closing the MfD after 23 minutes of discussion. I support keeping the page, yes, but it is ludicrous to suggest that any consensus can be reached in 23 minutes. Your decision very much feels like steamrolling minority opinions. Cheers. - Chardish ( talk) 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For an outrageously cool MFD closing, closing a deletion discussion on a policy as per that policy. (And doing so correctly) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 10:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for that. I only regret that I forgot to make a non-serious reference to "giving someone the tools (a jerry can of petrol and a box of matches) to clean up Wikipedia, deletionist style!". Oh well, there is always next year =) Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
:-)
Xavexgoem ( talk) 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Philip H. Farber for deletion. You previously contributed to an earlier AfD on this article and it was suggested that I notify you of the current AfD. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the use of WP:SNOW to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (4th nomination) in the first ninety minutes is an abuse of this guideline. The issues go well beyond notability (or lack thereof). There are serious questions about whether the article in question is WP:NPOV and these questions are being raised not here but in the mainstream media. The WP:NPOV issue wasn't even addressed in the recent AfD, due to your haste in closing this, and any previous AfD's on this article are leftovers from 2006. A lot has happened since 2006, to the point where this isn't just another WP:BLP like thousands of others but a very problematic article which really does need to be discussed instead of locked and closed. -- carlb ( talk) 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would you change the format of the references? It made absolutely no difference and is frowned upon in the community. KV( Talk) 11:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:DPR#NAC, I have reopened this deletion discussion which you have closed. Please note that close calls (like this one, which has a small majority of delete opinions) should be left to an administrator. Stifle ( talk) 09:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>. Synergetic Maggot asked me to look at these AfDs and his closures on my talkpage. After looking at both AfDs, I agree, that according to our current guidelines and essays and established practices, that these two AfDs should have been left to an admin to close. Stifle did the correct thing in reopening the debates, neither of which was a clear, noncontentious, obvious keep. SM has made numerous NACs, the vast majority of them are solid and noncontroversial keeps. These two are exceptions to what, in my experience, are generally very good closures. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey SM, keep me posted on this. I missed the discussion at
WP:AN until after it was closed. I would like to mention that 1) Yes, you do have to deal with it when an admin re-opens a discussion you close and taking the matter to AN is a little excessive, but 2) NAC is just an essay and the DELPRO language on this is pretty lean - which is a good thing.
WT:DELPRO and it's archives have a bunch on this and I'm usually involved. I wasn't much involved at AfD as a non-admin but I was fairly aggressive in making closes at MfD and TfD, and I am a firm believer that non-admins are just as capable of determining consensus as admins. If you're looking for my thoughts on unambiguous, take a look at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (2nd nomination). I don't believe there is consensus as to what is an ambiguous case or a close call, we don't count votes so numbers can't make something a close call. I'd note that one of your closes has been reclosed as a keep again. The other is still open. I'd recommend that you: 1) keep up the good work, including closing discussions; 2) don't sweat it when your closes are undone by admins, they have that right under established policy; 3) involve yourself in discussion at
WT:DELPRO and
WT:NAC regarding this issue; 4) {{
Ping}} me if you see a discussion on this topic that I'm not involved in (it's not canvassing b/c I asked you to do this - you now know that I'm particularly interested in the topic). Again, keep up the good work and
CHILL. Cheers.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)
02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Remember when you, 999, and Hanuman Das followed me around to undo most of my work and put everything on AfD at once? [ [1]]. Just thought you should know. KV( Talk) 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/ e 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That's happened to me too, believe me. I do think that this portal, though, has some of the same problems as the other, given that it's name indicates it deals only with the Hermetica, and there aren't that many articles dealing with that subject either. The two best choices to my mind would be Portal:Hermeticism, which would give it a clear scope of at least 100 articles, or, maybe, Portal:Gnosticism. I understand that some people dislike considering Hermetism/Hermeticism and Gnosticism to be similar, but that is a much broader subject area, and a group or project dealing with the topic would be much more likely to get enough members to keep itself and the portal going. If you're asking it to be deleted, though, just say so and I can speedy delete it on that basis. John Carter ( talk) 13:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I see your tagging a lot of pages in your userspace for deletion. May I inquire? I hope its just house cleaning and what not as your a very valuable user to the project. MBisanz talk 09:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
just a quick remark regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wreck (book series), where I was the nominator. It seems that a "keep" result is in line with consensus; and you might possibly apply the snowball clause, although that would seem somewhat strange on the 4th day of the 5 day period. However you closed the AfD as "Speedy keep". Note that per the WP:CSK guideline, "Speedy keep" is only applicable in very specific situations; namely, apart from some cases that obviously do not apply here, if the nomination was "vandalism or disruption". I do not assume that you consider my nomination disruptive; however you might want to choose your closure rationale more carefully. Also, as a side note, it's considered good practice to mark a non-admin closure as such. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A non-admin close of the US state terrorism AfD? While I personally think you did a good job of evaluating and closing the AfD, I'm afraid that it's in a grey area ( WP:DPR#NAC and WP:NAC neither mandate nor forbid non-admin closure in this exact situation). Best of luck to you, whatever happens. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: this, you are mistaken, the AfD is still semi-protected and will be until 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC). Whether it is worthwhile to have have the protection notice is another matter. CIreland ( talk) 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I see from the above messages that this is not the first time you have speedily closed an AfD without regard for the criteria for a speedy keep. I just read up on the whole speedy keep thing, and here's what it says, in part : "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion." (emphasis added) While there were changes to the article during the period of less than three hours it was at AfD, you did not allow sufficent time for interestred parties to check the added references, and three hours is simply not enough time to form consensus as specified by WP:SPEEDYKEEP. If you are closing based on WP:SNOW, or WP:IAR, you should make that clear. And, once again, you failed to mark a non-admin closure as such. I would ask that if you are going to close AfD debates, that you please make yourself more familiar with the standards for doing so, and please mark your closures as non-admin. Thanks Beeblbrox ( talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
SM IMHO your actions in again closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonviolent communication are outside acceptable etiquette as such I have asked for opinions other editors at WP:AN/I#User:SynergeticMaggot. Please join the discussion there. Gnan garra 09:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to bow to consensus in this instance, since that is what Wikipedia is all about, and I hereby withdraw the AfD for the article in question. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you in any other matter in the future. All the best, Qworty ( talk) 06:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For going above and beyond the call of duty to keep good material on-wiki and improve the project. Celarnor Talk to me 07:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
They are today (27 April 2008) at 15:00 UTC. Here is the skype link & here's the IRC link. Xavexgoem ( talk) 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on those AfD's, I did not know about adding the subst:ab template at the end. But thanks to you I do, and I will be sure to add that in all future closes. Oddly the new admin school does not deal with closing of AfD's, and these were the first few I've closed. Thanks again for your help!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message! Yeah unfortunately real life has really caught up with me. I write for fun these days. =P - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
For the purpose of discussion with that person, please return to me on my talkpage as to the administrator who granted you rollback rights and the date that you gained those rights. Thank you. -- VS talk 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have preferred discussing this situation with the administrator that granted you rollback rights but since you will not easily provide the name of that person (it was a simple and polite request) I have at this time removed your rights based on this exchange of edits and in particular this comment. That series of edits gives me cause to be concerned over your use and understanding of this tool. Can I suggest that you look very carefully at all of the issues surrounding use of rollback - and also that you consider more carefully your responses to its use - particularly that you do not state that it is your consideration that you can use it any way I wish actually. I will be happy to return to you with those rights once you can establish a greater understanding. Best wishes until then. -- VS talk 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
SynergeticMaggot...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
OK, SM, trying to wrap my brain around this. Tell me where I'm amiss. My biggest gap in the sequence is between April 22, where you inadvertently "rolled back" an edit by Enigmaman instead of "undo-ing", and April 29th, when it was subsequently removed. What happened in between there? I'm seeing one wrong edit (wrong use of rollback), a discourse with Enigmaman to clear the air (and some unfortunate turns of phrase mixed in that wouldn't have existed if you and E-man were actually sitting and having a beer - damn you keyboards). I'm seeing that basically die down to nothing only to resurface with VirtualSteve querying about "who gave you rollback rights", 7 days later, and another round of confusing posts littered over at least 3 talk pages. What happened in between there? Is this all really over one button click? I'm hoping that VS is still reading this as well, because I'm honestly at a loss as to what's going on. I'm glad to be a third opinion in this, but this really just seems like a whole lotta something over a whole lotta nothing. What am I mising? Build me a timeline, SM? Build me a timeline VS? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
SynergeticMaggot...Several people have expressed an interest in my next probable nomination for adminship. Messaging people when it happens would look a lot like canvassing, so I would prefer not doing that. If you are interested in it, you could add this to your watchlist. If it is created, you will know, maybe even before I do depending on how often you check your watchlist. If you wish to gush prior to it being officially up, have fun, but only when it happens please. I am in no particular rush. Have a very nice day! :) - LA @ 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Billie Lee Turner, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.clarku.edu/departments/geography/facultybio.cfm?id=338&progid=15&. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Around half an hour ago you kindly put a message on Treelo's page asking for an explanation of reversions of my edits. however, nothing has come out of that. Now it seems that another IP user - 138.38.142.242 - has perhaps also experienced similar problems. If so, could Treelo be temporarily blocked (just, say, for 15 minutes) so that he/she will stop and look at what he/she is doing? -- 85.158.139.99 ( talk) 13:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Boy, that's a big red line to cross. I'd give him a bit longer, or another complaint, before rolling back. I'll note that rollingback edits as vandalism when they are not overt and obvious vandalism is a big no-no, as well. Let me see if I can grab his attention. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just as soon as I clicked save...I saw that the RfA was closed. Guess it overlapped while I was typing my response. I wasn't sure if I should have removed it. Thanks SM. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Bad form. My undo was justified by common practice. Check my talk, as you should have before your action. Regards. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why I regret you didn't support, I must input that I believe that my expertise in the articles I have edited/worked on would be able to get the adminship, I don’t believe just because you have 11 thousand posts, makes you qualified to become a admin. Remember, You don’t know what a user can achieve till you give them a chance Dell970 ( talk) 01:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert, but the bug struck on my page. It happened to me once, as well. Oh well. Enigma message 02:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Fattyjwoods
Push my button has given you a cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, just to make sure you’re not too hungry, I gave you a cookie! I would’ve given you milk – but the cow just died and I tried to milk the bull but it kicked me in the face. *sob*. Anyway, enjoy the cookie!! Fattyjwoods Push my button 05:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I didn't realise the policy on confusing usernames had changed, and actually blocked someone when I shouldn't have. Oops!. GB T/ C 10:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
are 11 May 2008 at 15:00 UTC, or something like that. Click the link in the header to be taken to the (link that holds) the mystery realms of IRC and Skype. Xavexgoem ( talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, SynergeticMaggot.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I especially wanted to thank you for your taking the time to opine in the post-closure 'crat chat talk page. I believe that the crat's decision is proper, based on the current guidelines, and natural conservatism that governs RfBs, although that does not ease the personal, and all too human, disappointment I now feel. Regardles, if you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi ( talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops my bad! [2]
I though that was the date not the final tally. Good spot! -Icewedge ( talk) 02:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear SynergeticMaggot,
Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page ( here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.
weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi SynergeticMaggot, I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 22:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight ( talk) 04:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker ( talk) 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback. I may close it not only per WP:SNOW, but also per editcountitis. In the real world, it is considered better to listen often than to talk often. If only Wikipedia were similar. At least I know now what my weaknesses are and I can work on them. Thank you so much for your kind words. -- Qaddosh| talk| contribs 20:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, article saved. But it still needs some work, particularly wikification. It probably can be trimmed down a bit, too. Let me know if I can help. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 05:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
RfA: Many thanks | |
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, it's not "knit pick", it's nitpick. •Jim62sch• dissera! 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Revoke it. I'll be back in a few months with more edits under my belt :D. Thanks a lot for the notification, and I agree with everyone. I will continue contributing, and contribute more to the Wikipedia namespace in the future. Thanks, and feel free to remove the RFA. Cheers! -- TIM KLOSKE| TALK 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the user never accepted and it wasn't transcluded, does it even count as a proper RFA? If not then yes let it be but if it does i suggest you add it here Your choice. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 ( talk 2 me) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thought a bit about your RfA. I'm not sure you thought your answers through as well as you might have done. You say you plan to patrol AN/3 ... do you actually think you will do this? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wish you all the best for your RFA -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! ....Hope this will bring the smile back on your face --
TinuCherian
(Wanna Talk?) -
04:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks so much for your support in my RfA, which closed successfully this morning. Look forward to seeing you at our forum ;) TravellingCari the Busy Bee 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I misjudged your remark about personal conflict with another editor. I really made that post because I wanted to comment on taking time to be sure about vandalism before starting the whole revert/rollback/warn/AIV process. On RC patrol I've frequently pressed the Undo button only for another editor to beat me to it. I stopped doing RC patrol when I realised that my instinctive reaction was to try to decide faster which edits were vandalism - no Google search, no review of contribs or page history - and I decided that was just going to lead to more newbies being driven off, or (worse) being branded as vandals and deciding to play the role they're given.
In the grand scheme of things, that post wasn't going to affect that RfA one way or the other. Sorry if this all sounds like a lecture; when it comes down to it I just wanted to help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there SynMag, I just want to post a note here that I saw your recent RfA, and that I'm very sorry that I wasn't able to contribute to it before you withdrew. I'm also sorry it didn't go as you had hoped, and I hope that you are not too discouraged by it. I need to be honest with you here, I was actually acting as a "silent neutral" because I was rather torn. You know that I feel your contribs are stellar, and you know that I've been a strong supporter and defender of you - on my talk, on your talk, on ANI, and other venues. You are invaluable. You get this place, and I'm glad you're here. I purposefully stayed away from your Rfa though for a couple of reasons. 1/I knew it wouldn't pass (whether it should've passed or not is irrelevant, I just knew it wouldn't regardless of my input), and 2/I was really disappointed with a particular comment you made on the RfA when one of the opposers (or maybe it was a neutral editor) said they were disappointed in your answer to Q3. Now, don't get me wrong, I hardly ever read the Q & A, and I think that a user's contributions are a much stronger indicator than their "performance" at RfA. But anyway, I was disappointed with your retort that said, basically, Oh, I thought it meant "content" conflicts, not just "conflicts". In my opinion, when you attempted to distinguish "conflict" in a purely semantical way, I was turned off. I purposely avoided your RfA. It felt almost like Wiki-lawyering to me. I know you meant what you said, that's not in question because you always mean what you say, but at the same time, I felt that you were trying to play a "technicality" of language to your favor. After that comment, I'm sure you noticed that several editors jumped into oppose/neutral. I don't know if that was related to your comment or not, but I just wanted to let you know that I was turned off by it. Administrators cannot pick stuff apart that way. They have to be firm, they have to be decisive, and they have to quickly apologize for errors in thought/judgment/action/editing/blocking/protecting/etc/etc/etc/etc, for the benefit of Wikipedia. You've been here for cyber-eons longer than me, I'm certainly not trying to lecture you and I'm certainly hoping you don't read this as condescending in any way. Not my intention at all. I just wanted to let you know that I think you are a fantastic, dedicated Wikipedian, a solid editor, with your head and heart in the right place. Your Rfa #2 though was lacking in too many areas. Sorry I wasn't able to support. Have some dinner with me, my friend. I'll buy the beer! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
User:SynergeticMaggot/Activities restored. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
for your support on my RFA. I appreciate all the votes of confidence and hope I don't mess up too quickly! I will do my best.-- Slp1 ( talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
SynMag, I've read your oppose on EVula's recent request for 'cratship, and frankly I believe you have it wrong. You are welcome to your opinions, I refuse to challenge any opposers on RfAs/RfBs (this is a recent decision of mine based on the stress I've caused myself by "responding" to opposers, and the fallout when I do), because it feels too much like "showmanship". All I ask of you is to continue to watch the page where you are opposing, and continue to weight your opinion against the positive contribs that this particular user has offered/freely given to Wikipedia. Cheers friend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 11:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The redirect's actually been there since February 2007. ;) · AndonicO Engage. 09:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of people want this open, there is ongoing discussion, and there are comments after the close that I need to respond to. Would you consider unclosing it? Gimmetrow 08:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, temporary mind slip. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
|
Hi Synmaggot,
The reason I went straight to MfD was that the vandalism was congruent with the name: it seemed that the user had created an account specifically to post about a friendship, and not to edit WP. On reflection, I suppose assuming good faith would lead one to block first and delete later if necessary.
Thanks for the advice. -- Slashme ( talk) 11:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was certainly bizarre - I've EC'd on a close, but I've never seen a double-close. No problem, either way. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[3]. The perils of going by both Dan and Daniel. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I'd gone to bed before I saw your message. I'm happy to work on the article some. Will try to do so this morning between meetings and what not, but I find it hard to source from home. Wikicite doesn't work on my Mac :( TravellingCari the Busy Bee 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium Talk 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have re-opened this debate. Two and a half hours was insufficient. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent and copied over from my talk page:) My opinion, as an editor (not as an admin) is that there is indeed a serious problem here. It may or may not be that the answer to that problem is to delete Sharkface's award center; I recognize that it's well-intentioned. But there needs to be further discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent:) Look, I'm not "rattled." I am puzzled by your question. I'm not sure what you expect of admins. As admin, I would not have deleted the page; as admin, I have not deleted the page. That's clearly inappropriate. There needs to be discussion first. Laser brain has (re)opened this discussion--the fact that this is the third MfD is simply a sign that the unease that this page causes is ongoing. And as an admin, again, I would not have closed the MfD after two and a half hours. Hence, as an admin, I re-opened the debate. And look: giggy (an Australian who, if my sense of time zones is anywhere on track, should by rights be asleep) has now had the opportunity to comment. Let's not even mention those who are on EST. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Your attempt to close an MfD that you clearly have an opinion on after very little debate is completely inappropriate. Speedy close per WP:SNOW? Interminable process wonkery intrudes on serious debate about a serious issue. I did not go looking for this page; its disruptive effects reach all over WP. You should at least leave something open for 24 hours out of respect for people in different time zones before assuming that all critical thinkers have already shown up and commented. Appalling. -- Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
After reading your user page notice about your XfD habits and observing several of your closures (including, obviously, the most recent one), I request that you no longer close XfDs unless they have completely run their course and are obvious "keeps". I urge you to review Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, which lays out guidelines for you. Of particular interest should be the following:
The last bit is important, and the subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center after you closed it "per snow" should make it clear that you should not be "speedy" closing anything at all.
Hopefully the matter will be concluded with your agreement. -- Laser brain (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If I might interject here a bit, I think SynMag "gets" that his actions weren't well received. Continuing this in two rather large threads is nothing short of flaming at this point. He gets it. Can't this energy all be refocused at this point? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
SM, I think the message is just ... please don't do that again :-) Laser had obviously put a lot of effort into writing up the MfD, and it was closed while some of us were sleeping. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see this. Yours sincerely, Agnistus ( talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I was away for a while and no I notice that you're taking care of a lot of the administrative work at MfD. What happened to the bot we implemented back in April or May?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not serious in any way shape or form - no worries. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Dude, I mostly just ganked the present code and expanded it. Tell me what you want and I'll tweak it, or completely redo it. Colors, designs, links, etc. LaraLove| Talk 05:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Ive put notices on all the articles and article talk pages, asking everyone to come to the Liberal elite article. Should there be a banner on top of the LE article telling people of the talk page discussion"s". I cant use the 8 or so different banners? — Realist2 ( Who's Bad?) 05:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The consensus in the AFD for this article was not to redirect it, it was to merge and redirect it. There is a big difference between a vote to redirect, and a vote to merge and redirect, especially in a case such as this one, where the article you redirected to, David Low (cartoonist), literally does not mention the cartoon at all (except, somewhat ironically, under "See also" where it links back to this title that is now a redirect). Someone following a link for the cartoon's article would be redirected to a page that tells them absolutely nothing about the cartoon. (Note that by the time you see this, the David Low article may indeed say something about the cartoon because I am now going to merge it in as was supposed to be done before.) Propaniac ( talk) 18:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I find your quote from Essjay in poor taste. Do you realize that Ryan Jordan possibly brought more harm to the project than all the vandals combined? 65.175.184.7 ( talk) 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I didn't get the usual "edit conflict" warning message. -- Jenny 21:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, SynergeticMaggot, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am the Bluegoblin7 from IRC. Bluegoblin70 ( talk) 08:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
...overlaps the time. Goodness knows why, just thought I'd say.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Aw man, I liked the old signature! -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that there is actually any more to say.
In bringing a topic to ANI, you must accept that you invite scrutiny of the actions you have alreay taken, you can't say "I only want you to look at this one issue", so it was appropriate to comment at ANI. You invited me to comment of your review, and the only comment that I had was that at the time you were claiming that the over-enthusiastic WP:SNOW closures were a thing of the past, you were still pushing it to the limit. I believe that you will make a good admin, but I also beleive that you need to apply a self-imposed restriction on your use of WP:SNOW to ensure that you don't make mistakes. Mayalld ( talk) 12:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between WP:Speedy keep, and WP:SNOW. The first is a guideline, and as far as I can see does not apply to this MfD. The latter is a specific application of WP:IAR, and probably was appropriate in this case. Taemyr ( talk) 14:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Look. When I close an XfD before the time is up, I mark it as speedy keep because the result is keep and its done fast. Now I know it looks like this is a rationale for closing, but its not. Its a reference to how fast it was closed. This is a force of habit and I'm apologize for this error. From now on, I'll say speedy close instead. And speedy keep does apply to MfD, as it applies to any XfD. In this particular case, it was left open for 2 days before I closed, and caught a quick and clear consensus. I hope this wraps up any concerns, and I welcome you back to my talk page for further comments. — Maggot Syn 18:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Worst. Sig. Evar. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 20:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Maggie! I am looking at an article which is rated as stub, even though it has quite a lot of content. I guess it was a stub at one point but someone came and filled it out. So how do I get it listed as not being a stub anymore? I am talking about the SVIT article ( talk). Now dont be extra helpful and do it yourself, I want to do this one myself :). Danke. Lucifer ( talk) 16:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Hermetism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hermetism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Hermetism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, you declined a users request for unblocking. However, you are not an administrator, and I am not aware of any policy that allows non-admins to decline an unblock request. (the unblock declined template states that an admin has declined the request). Unless I am mistaken about policy here, I feel that you ought to revert yourself here. Mayalld ( talk) 22:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a recurrent theme. I do not know why you act like that towards me. I again stress that I have NO PERSONAL PROBLEM with you. I do not know why you have an apparent grudge. I urge you to try to get past whatever your problem is. I assure you have no problem with you. I guess you can keep doing it though, I will still continue to treat you with respect. Beam 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand Jenny's comment. Even if WR isn't a troll site, he is saying that the TROLLS from that site (troll site or not) are pieces of shit. Trolls ARE pieces of shit. And Tony's actions don't exactly excuse your lack of faith. Beam 01:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That's all swell and good, but your lack of faith (this time) is insinuating I haven't read WP:CIVILITY and other policies. I have actually told you that I am familiar with policies. From WP:SNOW, to deletion policies, to NPOV to CIVIL, to IAR to WP:DNFA I'm quite well versed. And for you to publicly question me having read the CIVIL policy is insulting and if it's not meant to be insulting it's a lack of good faith. So I gave you the benefit of the doubt. If you're telling me it's not a lack of faith, well, that's too bad. Beam 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, I'm well aware of the process. Perhaps you should try reading what I wrote. -- Step hen 07:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)