User talk:Synchronism/Archive 1

Federalism : capitalization of Communities

Hi,

First let me apologize for deleting the referenced sentence you re-added. I didn't see why it was relevant at that place in the article. You re-added it at a more logic position.

Secondly, I saw you removed the capitalization from the Communities in Belgium. You should know that the Belgian Communities are official bodies, at the same level as the American States. The names Flemish Community, French Community and German-speaking Community are their official names, so they should be capitalized. (Please refer also to the corresponding Wikipedia articles, that also have the capitalization.

--Luxem (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Sorry about that, I usually err towards non-caps when I'm unsure. Thanks Luxem-Synchronism (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Daft Punk

I'm sorry if my edits confused you, so I'll clarity: D.A.F.T. is a collection of music videos. Interstella 5555 is a feature film conceived by Daft Punk using their album Discovery as its soundtrack. Electroma is a feature film by directed by Daft Punk that does NOT feature any Daft Punk music. The only unifying factor of all three is that they were released in the home video format. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. just64helpin (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

'Home video' is misleading (not to mention deprecating). I don't really see what was wrong with 'filmography'.Synchronism (talk)

How is "home video" misleading? It's just a tidy way of saying "VHS/DVD/Blu-ray/etc releases".just64helpin (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

'Home video' is anachronistic and it implies that the works are less-than-serious art.Synchronism (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That reads like POV to me. "Home video" is video released for the home. I don't see where the "less-than-serious" bit comes in. just64helpin (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Electroma does NOT fall into the category of "music videos". Electroma does NOT contain music videos. I repeat: Electroma does NOT contain music videos. Please contact me before making such an egregious error. just64helpin (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to separate Electroma, which I have seen, which does contain music. Sorry I'm not so quick at the keys, is 'other works' acceptable? I'm sorry for misidentifying your intentions sirSynchronism (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A film that contains incidental music is not automatically a music video. Otherwise every film with a score would be considered a "music video". I think it would be good to use the older "VHS/DVD" title used much earlier in the article history. "Other works" is vague and can refer to anything - comic books, more albums, what have you. just64helpin (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything to the article right now. Nor will I continue this discussion. Note that Intastella5555 aired on the cartoon network episodically, and that these two are collaborative works, like Wikipedia. Really you are correct. And still: I don't really understand how 'filmography' was ever misleading, except in the sense that it didn't acknowledge the collaborative efforts of the various directors, which 'home video' also fails to do. They are all indeed films. Note home video is unreferenced and that wikipedia is not a dictionary. (Some of my favorite porn is home video) Synchronism (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Federalism

I will change only one thing: the word "new" in 'the new aspect' because it is an old aspect. I would write 'This aspect' without saying if it is new or old. I did'n't edit in order to say a quick separation is impossible. I focused only on the fact that we have both a Federalism with two and with three components (important components). But it is right also to say that the existence of Brussels is an obstacle on the way of a quick separation (but not the only obstacle). On the other hand, Belgium will become more and more a Confederation. I hope Luxem will agree with that all. There are twe views. For a Fleming it is self-evident that we are in a Federalism with two (important) components, and it is not wrong 5i understand that). But for a Walloon it is also self-evident that we are also in a Federalism with three components and for the people of Brussels (In my Walloon point of view, it is impossible to accept a Federalism with only two beacause if it is the case Wallonia doesn't exist. But on the other hand this is the reality...). So the two things are true: two and three and that is in the structure of the State since the beginning of the firrst reformation in 1970. You have a very adapted name (Synchronism), I hope you succeed to make it! Sincerely and friendly:thank you José Fontaine (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Belgian federalism is a very notable but tricky topic. It probably deserves its own article, but much of that content is spread out across several other pages. It's cool that you and Luxem are able to counterpoint each other so amicably, I truly hope I didn't impede. So by all means clip the word "new"! Best wishes to you too, thanks -Synchronism (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

San Diego Freeway

Why did you undo the change? This page is superflow, and discussion say to keep SD Frwy merge with I-405. You seen discussion, my changes was valid, I didn't do anything wrong. Can you just discuss on the talkpage, please? Do this page have special infos?--Freewayguy 22:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please talk over at Talk:Interstate 405 (California). Gateman agree ith the emrge--Freewayguy 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

please DO NOT undo it AGAIN, until you give me an answer, besides saying it's a vandal when it's NOT a vandal. You didn't see past discussion page.--Freewayguy 22:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it because there were only your two comments and the reversions of your edits by two other people. In other words, there was no consensus. It was poorly done and unnecessary. There can be an I-405 page and a San Diego Freeway page. They are just two overlapping topics, there are many overlapping topics on this encyclopedia. There are pages I think are silly, but I don't eliminate the whole page based on two comments, furthermore I'm not really skilled enough to merge an article effectively. If you feel I-5 in California (also overlapping) is too short, then expand it- don't erase good encyclopedic work. If you want to merge two pages you need to first tag it with a 'merge suggested template.

Note: Do not respond to this, any further discussion of the topic should be presented on the talk page. It isn't personal, so don't make it so. If it's about the article then discuss it there.Synchronism (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing reference for "water strategy" at Albuquerque, New Mexico

Hello! In this edit to Albuquerque, New Mexico you added a reference to a reference named "water strategy", but there's no reference named that so it comes up unresolved. Could you supply the reference? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Uncia!

I was trying out a different format of citing like the you one used on Government#Santa Fe, New Mexico. An earlier citation in the section in question does refer to the WRMS spoken of. I noticed the error straightaway, but I didn't really know how to fix it, so I left it in the hopes that someone else would and that I could perhaps quietly learn how to use that type of formatting. The most I can do is rewrite the reference in full for that citation (how boring). Thanks for noticing though, I will fix it. But how exactly does one utilize the quick citation format I was attempting? Synchronism (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed, it was a typo in the ref name "water trategy". Thanks again. If you have any other ideas for improving that or any other sections I've worked on, I'm all ears. Sincerely, -Synchronism (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity....

After seeing your edit get undone, I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in on the massive discussion about it here. Cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Let's see. -Synchronism (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Freeway

well it seems that Freeway is but one word of many that can be used to describe full limited access highways. Per the first sentence of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by hmains (talk • contribs)

Please explain on the freeway article's talk page as it is the proper place to discuss this. Others will want to know that this change is being contermplated. And please use maintenance templates.Synchronism (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Biosciences page

Hey Synchronism, Gimme some time. I've not worked on a Wiki page for a few years. I know the rules and am doing this while doing my regular work. Am not a IT guy. Am lending a helping hand. Please don't cripple my effort within minutes of trying. Vcrist (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Vcrist

I'm sorry, but it wasn't just me, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Biosciences, please read it. You could create a sandbox to work on a new Pacific Biosciences page with SMRT Sequencings page as a template to avoid this in the future.Synchronism (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(k)no(w)here

I notice that you tagged the page (k)no(w)here for speedy deletion with the reason "WP:CSD#A9". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because A9 is for articles on albums for which an article on the artist does not exist, which was not the case here. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:AFD process. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I thought it was like most of the other A- criteria. Thank you too. Synchronism (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I AfD-d it and explained my reasoning.Synchronism (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. Of course, if the artist is non-notable (which I have not looked at) and warrants an AfD then I would think one would do that first (or bundle them together) because if the artist goes first, then A9 applies to the albums anyway.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading up on WP:BAND first.Synchronism (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Quickness

Sorry I wasn't too hasty to respond on this article. The Internet was down at my house. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That can suck, I'm glad that the article was expanded (even if minor) and now can stay. Synchronism (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

In this comment did you overlook that William T. Coleman Jr. was a former Secretary of Transportation? Did you overlook that Edward G. Beister Jr. served ten years in Congress and was a former State Attorney General?

I'd appreciate it if you explained what you meant by:

"It also lacks contextually important biographical data..."

Do you know the story of "False Geber"? I first read about him when my brother loaned me his copy of Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science. Geber was tenth Century Arab alchemist and polymath, whose works were widely copied back when every copy had to be manually transcribed. Scholars of Medieval texts determined that later writers published new works under his name, because his fame would make it more likely that the works of these anonymous men would be copied. Through detailed analysis they determined that one of these anonymous men had made important new developments of his own. We know almost nothing about this second man. Scholars think he might have lived in Muslim Spain -- but they don't know for sure. They only have an approximate date of when he lived. They don't know his real name, his real job, or what religion he was.

Biographical information should be included -- if verifiable references to it can be found. But, I am frankly at a loss to understand how not including dates of birth and death, educational institutions attended, etc, should be grounds for deletion -- when that information has not been published. Even if it has been published, if it is missing from the article then surely that simply means it should be included -- not that the article should be deleted.

The nominator called the Court of Military Commission Review "marginally notable". AGF. I am sure that the nominator didn't mean to taint the {{afd}} with his or her personal bias. But, I think that is the effect. In my experience other contributors similar comments reveal strong biases -- they reveal that the challengers have chosen to accept, without question, the official Bush administration line that everything at Guantanamo is mundane, normal, routine, legal. Having accepted these very controversial claims they think it is obvious that hardly any Guantanamo topic is notable.

I don't know if the nominator would be an exception, who can offer a meaningful explanation as to why these highly controversial topics are "marginally notable". I would have asked for an explanation earlier, but frankly I find pointing all this out very draining. {{Afd}}s exhaust me, becasue lapses from civility are so common, and it is so rare anyone ever changes their mind, or is willing to acknowledge someone they disagreed with made a good point.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan,

Zeroly, I disagreed with the nominator's sentiments about the court's notability, and I do feel that I was being unbiased. I wanted to provide a reasoned opinion, but I guess it had some holes. I will refactor my entry to neutral, if possible-- I dont' really know how though.

Firstly, I guess I did (unintentionally- I'm kinda new to AfD, but not to reading:( ) overlook those two judges' qualifications, and they should probably be kept on their own pages. You did however work to improve and expand those articles since that time, which is cool, I was looking more at 'physical' size, assuming the nominator's good faith also I was. It wouldn't hurt US Court of Military Commission Review to add some information about the circumstances of the judgeships and prior duties.

As for truly short biographies, I think you know what I meant by contextually relevant data. As examples: although idiosyncratic, it is highly relevant to say someone's nationality (if applicable). 'Contextually relevant' also includes other basic things, like birthdays, that shouldn't necessarily require a reference unless it's controversial, or in the case of a BLP, not be incuded by the subject's request. A birth certificate is published but its status as a secondary source is questionable, and it might not always be required if it's uncontroversial. Or am I again overlooking? Small articles can be easily expanded by stating the 'obvious' while eliminating unnanswered questions. That said, there's nothing to prevent Amy Bechtold's page from being re-created if deleted. To me it's a question of efficiency and housekeeping. If such limited information (for Col. Bechtold specifically) can be contained in one place for a time, why not? Then again...

I don't see much analogy between False Geber and this AfD; perhaps that efficiency shouldn't take precedence over transparency? But perhaps that wasn't your intention. I have not heard of it until now, but I do find it interesting.

Lastly, thanks for bringing all this to my attention. It definitely deserved a second look on my (and thus others') part. Synchronism (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I should have replied sooner. I started to, but I decided I was being way too long winded. Don't worry, I wasn't offended. I appreciate you engaging in a dialogue. Maybe we will cross paths again.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. Cheers! Synchronism (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

False Geber legitimized—and made practices of alchemy mundane for a longer period of time, by crediting his ideas to 'credible sources' or higher authorities. Obscure but clever, Geo Swan.Synchronism (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

School

School is the place wherroke ur assthey be the teachers can torture you until —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.252.79 (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

‽—Synchronism (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Chapmanville Regional High School

You tagged Chapmanville Regional High School for speedy deletion. The consensus at AfD is that high schools are generally automatically notable, even without references. Please consider removing the speedy tag. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done and noted. What if it is blatant advertising?Synchronism (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove the advertising and keep the bare bones of the article. Turn it into a stub if necessary. Add {{Infobox School}} if possible. The same advice applies if the article is copied from the school's website. Usually something can be salvaged.

-- Eastmain (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Thanks for helping me. Synchronism (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Machias

You nominated the Grand Duchy of Machias for deletion. I am new to writing wikipedia but recognized your want for citation. As for a hoax, I have photo evidence but do not know how to add it to wikipedia. If you could offer help and guidance it would be most welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrandDuke (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Okay: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, (see WP:NOT) even if it is supported by evidence in the form of international law. There are exceptions to this rule, based on notability and verifiability, (please see Aerican Empire). If this micronation has been directly acknowledged by the press, academia or other reliable unrelated parties/entities (i.e. not the Grand Duke of Machias) and you cite those in the article and let people know about those references at the articles entry at AfD, then yeah, it may be able to stay.

I sure hope that helps, Synchronism (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Prince Okam

You changed the {{db-person}} tag on the Prince Okam page to a {{prod}} tag instead. Can you explain why? Just curious. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi WikiDan61, WP:CSD#A7 applies on the basis of notability alone. Prince Okam, a real person from part of the world where internet literacy and access are limited, seemed somewhat notable but other problems, that couldn't be covered by A7 were present.

I once CSD nominated the article of the granddaughter of a hereditary peer of England, it got mereged to her grandmother's page. Every person with a title can't be notable or important, I just wanted to give this one some more time. Does that answer? —Synchronism (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shells Yonge

An article that you have been involved in editing, Shells Yonge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shells Yonge. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Active Lancer

I added some references to Active Lancer. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Active Lancer. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eastmain, I added a comment, but I could still be convinced otherwise.--Synchronism (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Never welcomed

I was never welcomed to Wikipedia, it's so sad. If only...

—Synchronism (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Synchronism (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Synchronism/Gadsby: Champion of Youth (book) User:Synchronism/SLBC

Failure

You win my best edit summary of the day award with this. :) --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks dude! :)Synchronism (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Speedy deletion of Drones(halo3)

Section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion does not apply does not apply to Drones(halo3) because it is not about a person or group it is about a thing in a video game C.JD 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptod (talk • contribs)

I did A7 because it is essentially about a feature of a company's product. I guess that doesn't work though. I will redirect, and merge content if necessary.Synchronism (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice kneejerk.[1] By not removing the speedy I take it you agree with its placement. What are trying to accomplish?Synchronism (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Yes, i will provide an edit summary. I am still very new to Wikipedia, but i will try, and do my best to improved, and support the Philippine article. Its a pleasure. :) $antander 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's good to hear, sometimes it's hard to understand what somebody is doing just looking at the changes. I'm also kinda new. But if I can help in anyway just let me know. :)Synchronism (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

சேரமான் பெருமாள்

In regard to this article, {{db-notenglish}} does not apply, because there is no corresponding article on a foreign language Wikipedia; ta:சேரமான் பெருமாள் does not appear to exist. Just being in a foreign language is not a speedy deletion criterion unless the article exists on another Wikimedia project. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It already exists on this Wikipedia (Cheraman Perumal (Islamic convert), the Swedish Wikipedia[2], and the Tamil? one [3]. I never said simply being in a foreign language qualifies for speedy. It meet all the requirements for WP:CSD#A2. I behaved cautiously. I have no idea what your point is. It seems like you didn't read the full entry.Synchronism (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to help me if I am in error then please explain A2 better to me. Specifically ,how this doesn't apply and what would apply.Synchronism (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, I should note that I can't read one word of Tamil, and I gave up on attempting to read the title phonetically after one character. Regarding criterion A2, my understanding of WP:CSD#A2 is that the same or substantially similar content, or at least an article in the same language on the same topic, must appear on another Wikipedia. (The typical way I test for that is to change the URL of the page which starts "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..." by substituting the code of the language the page is written in for "en".) The Swedish article would not match a Tamil article, and ml:ചേരമാന്‍_പെരുമാള്‍ is actually in Malayalam, not Tamil. So neither of those would count as having the article exist on another Wikimedia project. The English article, Cheraman Perumal (Islamic convert), would not count either, because the English Wikipedia is not "another" Wikimedia project. Anyway, at the time, I didn't even know that சேரமான் பெருமாள் was about Cheraman Perumal (Islamic convert). I actually thought it was about a mosque, not a person, because there was an English-language link near the end titled "India's President makes a visit to the mosque". I should note that User:Sundar has since put the article on the Tamil Wikipedia, where it should have been created, at ta:சேரமான் பெருமாள். But that had not been done yet at the time I removed the speedy tag from சேரமான் பெருமாள். So, all told, I think this was just a minor dispute over the best way to interpret WP:CSD#A2. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Met

Yeah but you ignored that I had somewhat positively identified the article as a Tamil version when you came here to tell me what I already knew about the generalities of A2. You did so without salutation or apparent knowledge of my history with the article. I was, of course, aware of Sundar's work sometime ago. Although you don't characterize the dispute the way I would, it's more of a poorly phrased complaint towards your (first) above entry on my talk page, I'm cool.

But thanks for taking the interest to set the record straight. A2 is only for exact copies of other languages's WP articles. Which makes sense. Would this now qualify as general housekeeping? Or should we revert to PROD?Synchronism (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm obviously not Tamil speaker. But I do love orthography. Perhaps we should have a tiny cup of tea?Synchronism (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting your edit erroneously. Are you ending our dialogue?Synchronism (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not ending the dialogue in the sense of trying to stop communicating with you, but I am trying to get done with this matter because I think we have gotten through most of the issues. It's true you had identified the article as being in Tamil at the time you tagged it as A2, but at the time the article didn't exist in the Tamil language on any other Wikimedia project. I didn't know what you knew about A2, but in the past I have dealt with other editors who did misunderstand A2, so I didn't see anything unusual about advising an editor that {{db-foreign}} did not apply in a particular situation. (See here and here, for example.) I don't think that an article needs to be an exact copy to qualify for A2. For example, suppose somebody wrote a one-sentence article in Russian titled Владимир Владимирович Путин and posted it here on the English Wikipedia. Upon investigation, we would realize that the article was about Vladimir Putin, and that we have a better article about Putin here on the English Wikipedia, and that the Russian Wikipedia also has a better article about him at ru:Путин, Владимир Владимирович. I would say that would qualify as an A2 speedy deletion, since it would be a foreign language article that would already exist (in the sense of covering the exact same subject) on another Wikimedia project. If you are asking whether சேரமான் பெருமாள் should be deleted as general housekeeping or through PROD, I would say that now it can be deleted under A2, because now it does exist on the Tamil Wikipedia. If you meant something else, I'm not sure what it would be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I see the discussion at WP:PNT. I find our inability to get rid of this article, which is not even in a Latin script much less in English, somewhat frustrating, particularly given that the text has already been moved to the right language's encyclopedia and we have ascertained that the English Wikipedia already has an article about the topic. So I am going to try to get away from சேரமான் பெருமாள் for a while if you don't mind. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I do not mind at all. My sentiments exactly. Best wishes Met, I'm sure we'll meet again. Cheers, Synchronism (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rodney King

I'm sorry, I don't really understand how the previous edit of Rodney King was any less reliably sourced then the current version, as it uses the same sources and, in my opinion, more neutrally reflects what actually happened. In my opinion, it makes it seem like he got pulled over for speeding and the police officers started beating him, which is obviously not the case. However, I do not know how to make this more neutral, so, in accordance with consensus, I will refrain from further editing of that article, save for obvious vandalism. Thanks.

-- Dromioofephesus (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't get pulled over for being on parole. There has to be probable cause to stop a motorist, and in this case it was speeding. That he was on parole is incidental. It might fit into the article but it was not why he was pulled over. And by the way, most sources say Rodney King never attacked. Did you even see the video?Synchronism (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the video, but I don't believe it is sufficient evidence in and of itself that something didn't happen. It should be noted that there are other forms of resistance other than aggravated physical. At least in Florida, I am aware that, according to FDLE guidelines, verbal resistance is enough justification for law enforcement to lay hands on or use restraints on a suspect. If it increases to passive physical resistance (i.e., failing to do what an officer instructs one to do), take downs, transporters, and pain compliance are justified. When it becomes active (i.e., there is some kind of action the suspect does, such as fleeing, putting one's hands in his or her pocket, or refusing to allow an officer to do a transporter) counter moves and use of intermediate weapons are fully justified. However, even the video shows more than this. In the video at about 00:00:26:00, it is obvious that he is still trying to get up. In this situation, that would qualify as aggressive physical resistance, which would justify incapacitation. This is all without considering anything that happened prior. In my personal opinion, speeding while fleeing from law enforcement should justify deadly force, since speeding kills a lot more people than guns do. But that is obviously not the consensus. I also do believe that having a history of forcible felony (considering that, at least in Florida, someone who is in the process of committing a forcible felony can be justifiably killed) and the aggravated fleeing or eluding and criminal reckless driving/ reckless endangerment had some role in the officer's decision to continue to pursue him. Legally, I think that in some states, if one violates his or her parole by committing a criminal offense (even if it pertains to traffic) and the suspect resists law enforcement, that can be considered as if they were attempting to escape from prison, which I believe grants corrections officers and law enforcement officers the justification for deadly force, as long as either (1) the crime for which they were convicted was a forcible felony or (2) if the officer does not know the classification of felony. I also believe the sources that I have heard/seen/read that indicate that King remained standing even after the officers surrounded him. However, I do not have any reliable sources, so I am going to step out, and I recommend you discuss this further on the talk page. -- Dromioofephesus (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Most verbal attacks are protected by the First Amendment. Even so, a verbal attack just isn't the same as a physical attack. I saw no aggression coming from King in the video, only feeble resistance that doesn't require such force to contain. The onus is on the police, as protectors of the people's safety, to use their powers responsibly—and they didn't in this case. Rodney King is no saint, but he definitely didn't deserve to be beaten by those who have taken oaths to serve and protect others. But that's just my personal opinion...

I'm not going to refute or confirm anything else about what you've said regarding the details of the inident beyond the video, and I wouldn't want to disscuss it further here, but I'd encourage you, if you feel strongly about this, to take it to the talk page. Consensus can change you know,

Cheers, Synchronism (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm curious what your objections are with the Rodney King edits I made:

1) The video tape that KTLA initially aired was edited. It has led to a fairly common misonception that King was initially complying or lying prostrate when the beating occured. He wasn't. There are good sources for this: namely, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingvideo.html and Lou Cannon's book. I don't speculate as to why the tape was edited. Regardless, it has led to the widespread misconception that King was an innocent random African-American motorist, who got singled out by rogue cops. He wasn't.

2) It's not one lone author--Lou Cannon--who asserts King resisted arrest. Rather, it is widely accepted view among people familiar with the facts of the case. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy: "Officers Powell, Wind, Briseno and Solano tried to force King down, but King resisted and became combative, so the officers retreated." This is also stated in other fairly reputable sources like US News and World Report

3) There is a reason why I included information as to why Judge Kamins was removed from the case. Namely, because a California appellate court unanimously ruled that Judge Kamins would be partial towards the prosecution. I cited the New York Times, which quoted directly from the court's ruling.

4) I removed Tom Bradely's quote: "the jury's verdict will not blind us to what we saw on that videotape. The men who beat Rodney King do not deserve to wear the uniform of the L.A.P.D." Mayer Bradley wasn't part of the jury. He did not hear the evidence in it's totality. As if that wasn't enough, the four officers were tried again at a federal level. The second time two officers were acquited. The Mayor paints the case as being an unambigous case of police brutality. Meanwhile, two juries' verdicts painted a much more ambigious picture. Why are the mayor's comments even relevant here?

5) In California, DA's don't charge people with felonies. Grand juries do that.

Anyway, I have used five sources: Newsweek, a law professor's webpage for the video (which was a source before I even made an single edit), an opinion by Justice Kennedy, an opinion by an California appellate court, and Lou Cannon's book. Also, I include in my edits the number of times the officers struck King: above 50. I also pointed out that Powell repeatedly struck King, even when he was down.

I'm not seeing the non-nuetral point of view here.

StarbuxRedux (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong talk page. Others would want to know about your reasoning. I'm not some sort of authority on King, but I can see that the purpose of the recent changes are for the definite purpose of expanding upon how "this is Rodney king's fault" (which was already apparent) and it does so in such depth that it qualifies for revision in accordance with WP:UNDUE, especially given that this is the biography of a living person. Please read the two hyperlinked policies.

This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and my talk page is not where decisions and consensus are made. Please take your problems to the article's talk page so that others can see your reasoning. If you want to engage me in a dialogue about this, then the article's talk page is the proper place, I will respond more fully there.

—Synchronism (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Cheraman Perumal

Hi Sync. The article சேரமான் பெருமாள் is about Cheraman Perumal (Islamic convert). The author was perhaps unaware that a separate Tamil Wiki existed. I've copied the former to the Tamil Wikipedia and explained it to the the author at their talk page as well as over email. They've started editing it in Tamil Wikipedia. This article can be deleted here. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :). I was so confused. Kudos for situating the new user at the Tamil Wikipedia.Synchronism (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of use. Being a Tamil Wiki evangelist myself, that's sort of "in my interest". :-) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:$antander

Thank you for your reversal of removal of text by User:$antander. You'll see from a survey of his/her recent edits that s/he has been similarly removing text from numerous Philippines-related articles across Wikipedia, never with an explanation or use of "Discussion." Combined with the prolificacy of the edits, it's become quite disruptive. Badagnani (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome,

I am watching this user. I don't really know what makes them tick ($antander said something about removing politics from articles), but for the most part their actions are harmless, however, I have seen misleading edit summaries and unexplained content removals repeatedly.

Hope that helps, Synchronism (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And again, [4]. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that $antander and another editor have been involved in a revert war at History of the Phillipines in which $antander has been falsely accused of vandalism, when there appears to evidently be a content dispute. A good distinguisher between vandalism and unconstructive edits is malice; I don't think that $antander has malicious intentions. The most disruptive behavior $antander engaged in ( which is in my opinion the lack of edit summaries) has ceased, $antander now uses edit summaries, detailed ones, and I don't have much of a problem with the edits made. I'll take a closer look thoough, Synchronism (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa Fe Institute

Hello. I apologize for not putting the reason for the edit with the Santa Fe Institute article. The name "Brian Goodwin" is on the list of scientists twice. I'll re-edit.Oo7akbnd (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't notice that, all I saw was a small content removal. I suspected that this was probably not vandalism, but rather someone-in-the-know updating the article, but to be safe I reverted it like I do to almost every unexplained content removal I see, vandalism or otherwise.

I love edit summaries!(I'd call that one "duplicate entry")—Synchronism (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}}Hello, Will an administrator please delete Fred (YouTube)so you or I can move Fred (youtube), the page with the revision history to its proper title? This is the result of pagemove vandalism.

 Done by discospinster. In the future, if you need an admin, use {{adminhelp}} to request an admin, since a lot of us who answer the regular helpme requests are not admins. Cheers, --Terrillja _talk 01:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Discospinster, :)Synchronism (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Fred youtube

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fred youtube, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fred youtube is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fred youtube, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page User talk:Lang mei123. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox or show preview button. Thank you. Synchronism (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Townson (producer)

Can you please leave me to finish off what I was doing? The page on Robert Tounson, a 17th century bishop also spelled Townson (see article) contained the biography of Robert Townson (producer), which is utterly inappropriate. I therefore forked it off into a separate article. Please read ALL the articles involved before interfering. I have already had to remove a bot-geenerated tag, which may be what stired you up. I explain to the bot, why his tag wrong and was then removing his tag, when I found you messing around. Please be more careful. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I made one easily reversible edit because of what the bot said. I would hardly say that calls for a request to be left alone by me. I was correctly informed by the bot, I just didn't know that you were working on a complex of articles, and that the searchbot's message would soon be irrelevant. It removed the bot's message. I will certainly be more careful to look for multi-article editing in the future as I'm sure you will assume my good-faith in the future. I find it incivil of you to characterize my actions as "messing around". Synchronism (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bots do not always get things right. Now some one seems to have deleted the page. I do not understand. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You could always recreate it! Start by making the page on your user page or in a sandbox. I'll help create one for you if you'd like. Read some other articles about similar people to get an idea about how to reference the subject, if he is notable enough. There is a general policy on wikipedia concerning WP:NOTABILITY. I hope that helps,

Cheers, Synchronism (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Loma linda

The "Controversies" or "Scandal" section is inappropriate in the Loma Linda University entry. It was entered by a user (Johnathankincaid) who was disgruntled about the university. It only adds a negative light to the school. None of the other universities have such a section. Please reconsider the vandalism by that user, and please block that user from making changes to Loma Linda University. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namja (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Namja

I understand that the content might not be appropriate, but there are specific rationales for the removal of such content, such as WP:UNDUE. It's not generally described as vandalism, even if done in bad faith.Synchronism (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed your speedy delete tag

Hi. I changed your speedy 'nonsense' tag on Superlata into a 'no context'. Felt it was a bit closer to the truth. Happy editing,    SIS  22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. You're probably right. See ya around, Synchronism (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Streamlined handling for socks of PoliticianTexas

Thanks for helping track down sockpuppets of PoliticianTexas! Because he has been community-banned from Wikipedia, there's a streamlined procedure for getting his sockpuppets blocked. You don't have to open a case at WP:SSP, just present the evidence at WP:ANI. See an example here. If WP:ANI doesn't work, you may have to file a report at WP:SSP. Also note that WP:SSP reports are filed by puppeteer (not puppet), so any suspected PolTx socks would be filed as "PoliticianTexas (nth)". See for example Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (3rd).

I think you are correct in flagging AndrewGirron (talk · contribs), although the evidence is not really strong yet. You may have to collect some more evidence (or give more specifics for the evidence you have, such as diffs).

DoriSmith and I have been pursuing PolTx for a while, and Dayewalker has started recently. Dori maintains a log at User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas that has a lot of history and may be helpful. Thanks again. --Uncia (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, :) I brought it to ANI. We'll see,Synchronism (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Renamed the SSP to WP:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (4th), per others' advice on naming. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for helping me. I do appreciate it.Synchronism (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Man, you're quick at reverting. I kept trying to catch one of those anon's spurious redirs on Hermione Granger so I could revert it, and you kept beating me to the punch. :-) Are you an admin, a bot, or just really on top of things? Cheers, Hermione1980 03:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have the rollback privilege, so it's easy to revert this kind of vandalism, especially with the special tools I use. Sorry, about that. Did you get any in? It looked like a Grawp/Hagger/ED (systemic abuse) attack. Cheers, Synchronism (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure did, on Hogwarts. My day is complete now! I was just wondering. See you around, Hermione1980 03:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Synchronism (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution

The content was sourced. Removed by IP and I restored it. Has been in article for months with those citations. Please check history and dont revert again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzinriyadh (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC) sorry for any misco

I see you've taken care of it quite easily, sorry for any misconception, remember to use a specific edit summary where necessary.

I'll revert again as I see fit. Please be more civil should you come to my talk page again,

Synchronism (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for this: [5]

Keep up the good work. Willking1979 (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You're welcome, anytime,Synchronism (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Revision

Hello, I am posting this message because you said I "revised" my recent experiment. I should tell you that this never happened, the only time I ever revised an edit was when I called the chairman of some Jew committee a faggot, I'll have you know I never change my edits back, so please don't paste such incorrect facts on my page.

Fuck offSynchronism (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Re: your revert on the artical Rebecca Peters Hi, you changed my edit noting "For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English." You reverted my edit to Australian English and Rebecca Peters is an Australian person so why not use Australian English as per your own criteria? The words in quotation marks were not changed even though it contained foreign spelling, as they should remain as quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.184.142 (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you I didn't know how to do that...

Hiya, That's totally fine , switch it back if already haven't, just be sure to use an edit summary so people know, just write WP:ENGVAR. Sorry to disturb you, Synchronism (talk)

Just type 4 tildes to sign your entries, Synchronism (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Canada rocky mountains

Ah yes, that's a better target, thanks. 05:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem Fvw, I think we were both redirecting at the same time, see yaSynchronism (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

HYC

Thanks and sorry for my error. I was attempting to make a sandbox section specific to my account but initially screwed it up. Im not sure about the actual creation of a Huguenot Yacht Club(HYC) article, but that is the subject/article that I was working on (which I wanted to test out in my sandbox area). I will attempt to recreate the page but this time will include all the relevant substance and content. Is there anything I need to be aware of when I re-make the article? Thanks --Ansehnlich (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The article in your sandbox looks fine. It just needs some references. I was going to provide a more detailed response, I was looking for more similar articles. Wait just a bit more please. I'm very sorry for the delay though. My lower two responses were off the cuff. Synchronism (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Regarding the message you left on my talk page about an edit I made to the Salvation Army, there appears to have been a mistake, as I had only attempted to remove a bit of what I regarded as unsourced information bordering on vandalism. I think that message may have been meant to go on the previous editor's talk page. If it wasn't a mistake, please tell me what went wrong and I will be careful not to do so in the future. Cheers, ruby.red.roses (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Synchronism (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: December 2008

Hello. I was just wondering if you meant to post this on my talk page in response to this. Cheers. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 04:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. Sorry,Synchronism (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem...I know Huggle is...fast. Cheers. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 04:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was warning the IP and reverting a warning to you I had done inadvertently. I'm still getting used to huggle, which I adore. I am making an effort to use it more accurately. Hopefully it won't happen again. Thanks for taking it lightly. And sorry, – Synchronism (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Move of Interstate Highways in PR

Interstate Highways is capitalized. I have reverted the move. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There might be more to revert then. Synchronism (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Interstate highway is not a proper noun, that would be Interstate Highway System or the impossibly longer one [NSIDHS], and that the the capitalization of "Interstate" is to make reference to the proper noun being described and to differentiate it from the adjective interstate. I'm more interested in consistency in the articles than being correct.Synchronism (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Interstate Highway is a proper noun. I-16, for example, is an Interstate Highway but not an interstate highway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Touché. Well I might consider running (or perhaps you should) AWB because I see a lot of variations. Sorry to disturb you with the page moves. There are now some handy redirects though. Merry Christmas, – Synchronism (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Synchronism

I don't know how was this template on English WP.José Fontaine (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, see ya around Synchronism (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

THANKS!

Hey! Thanks for the reply. Sorry for deleting my earlier question - I just didnt want to be a bother if you were busy or anything. I will be adding references once I have them in order and am also trying to get additional historical information to add. Thanks for your helpful comments and suggestions. I appreciate it!--Ansehnlich (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome...

That IP troll was very scary. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:86.156.121.237

I am aware of Wikipedia's rules on varieties of English.

The article in question was concerning a book by British author Terry Pratchett, originally published in Britain, so I felt the use of British English was appropriate. That is why I made those changes.

86.156.121.237 (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to explain this to me here. The rules are to use a standard variant by consensus or common sense, and to use an WP:edit summary to explain any changes, even such minor ones. Havelock Vetinari is not obviously British at first glance, so you can just change that again and provide future editors the context of your changes with the use of an edit summary.Synchronism (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the useful links.

86.156.121.237 (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chris Pirillo reverter

Please watch some of Chris Pirillo's videos. You will soon find reason to hate him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.11.97 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Budgiekiller

Hey Synchronism, thanks for your note. I left that user name behind quite a while ago but it's interesting to see that Grawp has found that one to use. Not to worry. Doesn't bother me, he appears to have been swiftly indef blocked which is perfectly correct! Cheers for letting me know, Happy Christmas! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Synchronism (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

White Flags Of Winter Chimneys

Another user may have already corrected my errors. however, i did make some additional edits as well as adding the cover art for the album. we are the copyright and content owners of the work and are just trying to add factual information on wiki. sorry first stab at it was too much like an advert. hopefully adding relevant information on making record has corrected this. --Renatak (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what page you are referring to.Synchronism (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interstate highway capitalization

I'm not sure an AWB run should be used for this purpose. "Interstate highway" and "Interstate Highway" refer to highways in the Interstate System, while "interstate highway" refers to any highway which is interstate. So I-27 would be an Interstate highway but not an interstate highway. Stupid distinction, I know, but believe it or not we've had edit wars over it... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm mindful of the distinction between i.h. and I.H., but I don't see how I.h. is different. Where I found I.h. I typically changed it if it was a) hyperlinked, thereby indicating Interstate Highway as the intended term, or b) making obvious reference to Interstate Highways. If I found an unhyperlinked i.h. I was likely to let it stay as it's generally a true description. I skipped twice the number of pages that I changed.Synchronism (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wild Mercury Sound

Please can I request a copy of " The Wild Mercury Sound " page which was nominated for deletion. Regards Cotty21 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not an administrator so I cannot view, copy or undelete deleted pages, but if you place {{adminhelp}} of your talk page and provide an account e-mail one can.Synchronism (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding leadership theory

I found the content's notability questionable myself, that is why I included that the sentence saying that it was only cited 3 times. Did not wanted to do an OR and say that the theory was new or that the authors failed in making it prominent, so I decided to depict it by facts rather than opinions.

I don't think it is notable enough to stay in the leadership main article, but the authors and the book do meet the notability criteria. As a relatively new editor here, what should I do then? Just delete it? It sounds too arbitrary to me, so I decided to save someone's else work in respect to their effort. Editor br (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm inclined to simply let the speedy deletion process proceed. There's a good chance it may not be deleted, in which case I might consider taking it to article's for deletion for discussion. As with the speedy process it can often result in swift improvement to the structure of the encyclopedia by prompting discussion and subsequent placement or deletion of content, If the page is deleted the work of the forking will more than likely remain in the article's history, making record, albeit opaque, of the content in question.

Best wishes in future editting, Synchronism (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Lang post/Joshua Lang (screwing with information)

I am working of this persons profile, please be patient. thanks Greystone36 (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I put an inuse template on the article I may renominate it later.Synchronism (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you screwing from the hard work I posted about this person? Seriously???? _worked for the governor Schwarrzenneger hmmm! -married to the first African born playmate -NBC TV he was on just some of Notable things, please. Seriously thats rude!!!! Greystone36 (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors without the admin flag (me) don't delete the articles, admin do. I nominated your article. Now um bye, ... Synchronism (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Lang :)

The article "Ida Ljungqvist" also has many different names mentioned non related to her or towards her the facts are the facts as stated. Its in regards to this persons personal and family life as well as public ALL pertaining to him like others. Greystone36 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Rosewall

To Synchronism,

My name is Anson (user account: Ansonrosew). I would like to better understand why you feel that 'Glenn Rosewall' should not have a wikipedia article associated with his role as CEO of BBY Group, one of Australia's uprising and largest investment firms. Glenn and BBY are both well regarded in the Australian and International financial sector, and as the company has grown in market share in terms of Australia's financial transactions, It would seem to make sense that Glenn should be duly noted as the leader of BBY.

BBY's largest partner Jefferies & Company has a wikipedia page for their CEO Richard B. Handler, is it so unfair that Glenn shouldn’t?

If you dont mind, I would like to request that you spend a few minutes researching Glenn in the Australian Media, CNBC and Bloomberg as well as BBY Ltd., so you can see for yourself that he has an important role in the financial sector in Australia.

In reference to the Sockpuppet allegation, I apologize for not logging on occasion when editing the article on my home and work IP address, but please note that TTRevor () is a genuine colleague of mine and she supported the Glenn Rosewall wikipedia article. Therefore I feel that the allegations against my account are unwarranted.

Kindest Regards, Anson Rosewall ansonr@bigpond.net.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansonrosew (talk • contribs) 08:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I nominated your article for deletion. You protested. Your WP:meatpuppet, as you've admitted, protested also. The next part of the legitimate process involves an administrator's decline or assent or an unaffiliated party's decline for deletion. I cannot delete your article, I am not an administrator. Synchronism (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your query regarding the deleted article

Hello to you; I found it at ka:wiki under თარგი:უმაღლესი ლიგა ვიკიპედიიდან. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I don't think they're the same.Synchronism (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

; anyway, if you are able to read it, you could give us a little hint ;). The way I see it, the article was about a geographical feature (the infobox at the ka-wiki leaves that impression), so I daresay it was the same.Anyway, it's no problem to restore the article if the need arises. Lectonar (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

They were different titles. I don't read Georgian. From what I saw they didn't look similar. The Ka:wiki article is simply an infobox.[6] This had text.Synchronism (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the AfT process may have resulted in more transparency if they are indeed the same. I'm not really hurt, I just wanted to know what the article was about.Synchronism (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you transwiki the text to the ka:wiki?Synchronism (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Was the deletion review really necessary now?; as I told you above, it's no problem to restore the article. And you could give others a wee bit more time to react.... Regards. Lectonar (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we put it back at WP:PNT and leave it there for a while to see what happens (and you're right, at ka-wiki it is a template, now I daresay about soccer(-football) clubs). Would you just put it back at WP:PNT. Someone else will close the DRV. Lectonar (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely enthused about this interaction either for a number of reasons, but I am sorry to start a deletion review. I'm also not the quickest at the keys either. To tell you the truth, for some reason much of my earnest activity at AfT gets a cold reception, so I tread carefully there now. I have been lambasted for suggesting CSDA2 there, even when I verified the article already existed elsewhere. Synchronism (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with A2 deletion; either it is used when it should not be used, or, if it is used wrongly, a big number of admins delete the article(s) anyway. Also, on a lighter note, I'm one of the more friendly admins you may find here, but not really that active. But WP:PNT is one of my "babies", and if I drop by, I tend to work there (and sometimes I think I'm the only admin involved there). Lectonar (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No harm done; you're welcome. Lectonar (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, A2 is weird. Thanks for the tips, I'm trying to be a better editor, and my interest in linguistics often leads me to PNT. I look forward to seeing you around WP. :)Synchronism (talk)

Transactional and transformational leadership

Dear Synchronism, I would be happier if next time you research a little bit more on the notability of the articles you're proposing to delete before tagging them. Both theories are widely known among the leadership scholars, and a google or google scholar search would sufice. Also, it helps if you check the history page. There was some indication that some sort of bibliography existed before in transformational leadership, as the "years" were cited after the authors. In a couple of clicks, you could have discovered the bibliography that was deleted by some editor in the past. Happy edits, Editor br (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A google hit count is not the same as a corpus token count. Anyway, ghits and corpus tokens don't equate notability. I clearly have different opinions on this subject than you, so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't conflate those differences with any complaints you have about my editting activity. You responded to my proposed deletions sufficiently and then some. And for the record: I do look at page histories.Synchronism (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

The recent explorer's club "job 74" has confirmed that there was only 4 torpedo hits on Prince of wales, and two, possibly 4 hits on Repulse. The pdf file confirming this can be found here: http://www.explorers.org/expeditions/reports/Expedition%20Job_74_web_version.pdf

I was attempting to edit the article to reflect this information, but it was reverted.

70.71.251.142 (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What article are you referng to?Synchronism (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see. Much better.Synchronism (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Open City Institute

I am sorry I deleted the tags, I didn't know they were deletion tags. Thanks for the heads up. It will not happen again. I have read the help editing files so now I think I know how to edit correctly the dcuments. Once again, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triantafilo (talk • contribs) 10:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's great news, sorry for the belated response.You're welcome.Synchronism (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Phosphopantothenoylcysteine synthetase

Hi Synchronism, sorry the Dhawgl was a prank, I tried to delete it later but could find no way to do that then.

This article is meant to be a stub but there is some complexity in creating stubs and articles which is really not very user friendly. I am a business analyst and would be happy to donate some time to define a spec to allow more user friendly editing, how about a form based editor for the first article attempts, your article writers are probably mostly subject-matter experts, not enuff time for learning and this will bias your knowledgebase. All the best, it would be great if you could convert it to a stub, it looks like an important enzyme. also it would be great to create a database of bio pathways/reactions publicly accessible and a notation so papers could have a small section at the bottom indicating the pathway knowledge in that notation which would allow auto incorporation into Wikipeda bio pathways. Also, futurepedia would be cool, so unpublished ideas and hypotheses could be released earlier to encourage faster synergistic idea synthesis and development, wikipedia is all about established knowledge, not future knowledge in development. Articles could be scored by readers and authors down-ranked if rubbish, regards.[Unsigned]

I classified the article as a stub. There are a lot of wikis out there and probably room for more. CheersSynchronism (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Synchronism (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Budgie (TV series)

Are you a lawyer by any chance? Having tidied up some appallingly written text in the article Budgie (TV series) it seems you have reverted it back on some minor technicality. If you aren't a lawyer I suggest you contact the Department of Justice as they are looking for people just like you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.68.13 (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You removed referenced text from the article without explanation. I'll happily restore your reversions partially, but do not remove substantial text without explanation.Synchronism (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Parapsychology is a pseudoscience and you guys are promoting it as science.

Cluebot reverted my edits removing unreliable sourcing on that article. Now, when I try to point out it is a pseudoscience, you revert my edits again. All you are are a bunch of frauds who want to promote ignorance and superstition. Why else would you revert edits which call a pseudoscience for what it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptic24 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)< !-- Template:Unsigned -->

Having not ever read the article I wouldn't know if it's promoting anything. I reverted your edits because you removed the bulk of the articles text and replaced it with a comment that would have been more useful on the article's talk page. As far as the 'bots action's are concerned, I support it. The references obviously don't by themselves make anything true, but it least we know where it's coming from. You could always just undo the bot's edits...Synchronism (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks, Synchronism (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs E2 Series Shinkansen Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument Point Lobos State Reserve Albuquerque Journal Small arms Frederiksted, U.S. Virgin Islands A165 road Charlotte Amalie, United States Virgin Islands Train stop My Husband Betty Telephone plug Prohibitory traffic sign Automobile Magazine ElettroTreno Buck Island Reef National Monument Jackboot Mutiny Sokol (train) Railroad engineer Respiratory disease

Cleanup Midget submarine Harmony British Rail Class 220 Merge Sandia Mountains Invariant speed Thin-film optics Add Sources Color name JetTrain Incident Command System Wikify Railgrinder Transportation in the United States William Bent Expand Thunderstorm Consolidated city-county Julieta Venegas

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

USRD-CRWP WikiCup Status

This is just to let you know that you have been eliminated from the USRD-CRWP WikiCup. However, Scott5114 is planning another contest to open within the next few weeks. Also, there is always next year :) Good luck. --Rschen7754 ([[User

talk:Rschen7754|T]] C) 08:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Aww shucks, thanks dude. :)—Synchronism (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another contest from USRD!

Hello there! Now that round 1 of the USRD Cup is over, we're starting another USRD participation contest. The USRD Road Trip will involve expanding articles to B-Class in cities throughout the United States. Signups are open and the game will begin on at 0 UTC on February 17. Hope to see you play!—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly busy away from the computer for the next couple of months so I don't think I'll be the strongest competitor. Sorry, Synchronism (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

From Novasource

Hi, thanks for your comment on my page. I have generally given up on Wikipedia editing, so I wish you good luck maintaining the sanity of the speed limit pages. Novasource (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to your return, even if brief. Thanks for stopping by.Synchronism (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. I wonder what this IP has against me and so many others? Ahh well, ours is not to wonder wy. Thanks again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey no problem. Some people's children... Happy editting :)Synchronism (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• And thanks for doing the same for me. this is the second time in a week that a new user has given me a hard time because I welcomed them. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! SBHarris 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Islam in India

Hey! Have you gone through my edits before reverting them? You haven't given any reason for the revert. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that was unintentional.Synchronism (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Createsubject

Careful, I think you accidentally gave Createsubject a warning. Or did you mean to? ~SunDragon34 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think so. Could you supply a diff?Synchronism (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops—my mistake. For some reason I thought I saw you. Never mind...Sorry about that. ~SunDragon34 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't block Cuddles734!

Please do not fucking block me. If you do so, then your school and block rights will be invegstigated with further information. Cuddles734 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't block you. Relax.Synchronism (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were bluffering and trying to scare me, then please stop it...Cuddles734 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Synchronism wasn't "bluffering." Cuddles is toast. Toddst1 (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) On a completely different note, the thread above this one is one of the funniest I've read in a long time. "bluffering", I'll have to remember that. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it is a most charming little thread. =) You're welcome.Synchronism (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, anytime, Synchronism (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Honda

Hey. I noticed that you blanked the Honda page. From looking at your talk page and history, I know it either had to be a mistake or a compromised account. Please don't think I'm here to warn or anything like that. Is it possible that someone got a hold of your account info? It happened twice in a short period of time (another time from an IP address) so it could have even been a mistaken revert. Just thought you might like to know. OlYeller^Talktome 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I was trying to revert the same thing you were at about the same time. Huggle shouldn't have allowed me to edit the page if the reversions were identical, but it was acting kind of silly last time I used it. It might have just been a slowed connection, but it kept on freezing up and I had more than one misfired reversion during that session. But I thought I caught them all, I guess I didn't. Thanks for letting me know, I will try to be more cautious. I don't think it's likely that my account will be compromised anytime soon, but perhaps I will try to secure it better.Synchronism (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

sock

I've made a report here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zip1010. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll keep an eye on it.Synchronism (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I have one for you. I've made a report here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robgugli.,--Michael (Talk) 17:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with this and I'm quite busy this week so I don't think I'll be able to investigate soon, but it looks like a comprimised account or socking. In anycase, Robgugli doesn't seem very helpful.Synchronism (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is considered good manners to tell the people you have accused about this.Synchronism (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Avenida General Paz

Please notice that National Route A001 must not be a redirect to Avenida General Paz, since this highway is only a part of that Route. Refer to es:Ruta Nacional A001 (Argentina) for more information. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I'm looking into this now. Thanks, Synchronism (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a question of notability, and it looks like Avenida General Paz has it on its own so I'll take care of that by reversing the move. Synchronism (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tortillas

Thanks for your work in cleaning up the mess left from the artice forking and page title moves of corn tortilla. Yay! Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm still looking anything else that could be merged. Cheers, Synchronism (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take more care

You claimed to be reverting a removal of content at Parker Hale M85 when you in fact removed more content yourself. 07:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I meant to only undo the unexplained removal that you made immediately afterwards[7].Synchronism (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

You might also look at the deleted sentence (the RfC above the OED section) which said that the historians disagree about the position of Fascism in the political spectrum (which had a dozen RS cites). In one form or another it had been part of the article for four years until the current move to use a single "right wing only" position started. Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Vladan Slijepčević

You should ask sr:User:dungodung why he removed the information and made it into a redirect. According to his user page he understands English. There is not hint in the edit summary.  Andreas  ^(T) 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I will do that, thanks you very much for your reply.Synchronism (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, I put the text on the respective talk page, I didn't simply delete it without any trace. Second, we have this practice of not incorporating non-wikified and questionable (in the sense of veracity, POVness, style etc; I guess only the latter could apply here) content to the already existing articles. That's why I put it on the talk page, so if someone wants to take care of the text (adapt the style, remove non-encyclopedic parts, wikify), they're free to do it and later incorporate that material to the article. Also, "Transwiki:" as a namespace doesn't exist and, to be quite frank, it looks ugly as a part of the title of a main namespace article. Oh, and you should certainly delete the article here - no sense in keeping non-English texts on English language Wikipedia, right? :) --Filip (§) 18:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you deleted anything, but thanks for moving the info to the talk page. The "transwiki" namespace is a temporary one meant to facilitate cross-wiki movement in compliance with the GDFL[GNU].[8] I thought it was awkward too, to have a debatable namespace written in latin characters.Synchronism (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but by popular request here's my broad opinion on the matter. Because so much time has passed (during which it looks like improvements have been made) I don't really know where to provide this input right now:

Many people, including myself, feel that fascism has strong connotations towards rightist or conservative political ideologies. When writing about the topic it would seem to be that this is a minor point, but still one which should be specifically addressed proportionately throughout the article. Even that may not be necessary ... but really perhaps not; between the lines readers can easily summarize many fascist ideas as right-wing because they often clash with traditionally liberal ideas like liberty,tolerance and egalitarianism. The fact that there are similarities between what the Fascists and Nazis did and what the Communists did highlights how misleading the polar labels 'left' and 'right' really are when there are so many ideas at play that comprise a political ideology. —Synchronism (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)