User talk:Synergy/Archive 3

Closing AfDs

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)

damned straight KV(Talk) 04:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil and refrain from making pointless comments. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Vandalism

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)

• Thats completely fine. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stewart Alexander (politician)

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)

Merge Occult with Kabbalah

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?"

Please respond should you feel the flying stage coming on. 60's song, "Everybody knows the bird is the word."Johnshoemaker (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

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)

Alastair Dunnett AfD

Thanks for closing this as keep! PamD (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox Change

Now isn't that much more fitting?KV(Talk) 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the userbox I changed of yours, the one that regarded me.KV(Talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing AfD discussions

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)

Also, it's not a good idea to close an AfD as a snowball keep only 26 minutes after it has opened, with only one user registering an opinion, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance Theater Workshop. Note, from WP:SK: "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of 'keep' can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a 'speedy keep' instead." Deor (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I'm well aware of this, but thanks. This is an ongoing conversation. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Vandalism

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)

King Vegita (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Thank-you

I can has mop?

Hi SynergeticMaggot! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock closures

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)

'Mick Doohan's Motocoaster at Dreamworld'

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)

He is not an administrator to be able to delete anything. However, you could turn it into a redirect, and the article appears to have local notability.KV(Talk) 13:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, help us find some sources. KV(Talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Wow, thanks! Lexicon (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

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 am a IRC ghost

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)

TPH

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)

I took the mid-ground between co-nom and support. See here. Sorry. :D Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks. Dunno where my brain went. Lexicon (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A More Perfect Union

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)

In view of the request DRV I have reopened the AfD. No harm done. Thanks for your understanding, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, not a problem. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep up the great work, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

	Thanks!
So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»» Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New Userboxes

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)

Hey thanks

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

ASIMO I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group) (2nd nomination)

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)

Whether admin or not, people shouldn't close reviews regarding their own closures, so I have closed it instead, not least to avoid further discussions. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the deletion process guideline it reads "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided", and this is principle is generally understood to apply to closures and ev3n so far as to dicurage closing a DRV if one participated in the reviewed AfD. Not sure why this is mentioned now in the Non-admin section, though, as it applies to admins as well. Chheers--Tikiwont (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Still around?

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)

my RFA

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)

Image

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)

Thanks! seresin ( ¡? ) 07:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing

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)

Wind Repertory Project AfD

Thanks for catching the spammer/vandal who AfD the WRP article page. Much appreciated. Kamadiro (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Walter

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)

Reply

Ok, I'll make a better comment now on. Cheers.--RyRy5 talk 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See this. I will provide better reasonings for the AIV.--RyRy5 talk 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (4th nomination)

I think you used the wrong closing tag.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 18:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that was really odd. I've never seen that before. And thanks! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

hey thanks!

That's my first barnstar ever. It's nice to know that someone notices :) Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

re: barnstar

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)

Thanks soo much

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)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. It is the first one I have ever received.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. You're certainly in the minority lately, as I seem to be on a crusade to destroy fun (in the popular opinion at least). east.718 at 17:53, April 2, 2008

Thank you!

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)

barnstar

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)

Hey, thanks for the star :-) Yesterday indeed had several amusing moments to cheer us up. Greetings. --Tone 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. It was indeed a lot of (harmless) fun. Yngvarr (c) 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Thanks from me too! :) SQL^{Query me!} 03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing the MfD on WP:IAR

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)

That's fine, then - I'm fine with bad-faith noms being closed early. However, those are details that might have been worth mentioning in the closing decision. Happy editing! - Chardish (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you really close a deletion discussion on a policy as per that policy? KV(Talk) 00:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure did. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

<Grin> I only just found out. That was outrageously cool. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent use of ignore all rules, it was clearly a bad faith nomination given the users contributions. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:05, 27 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)

Barnstar

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).

thank you!!

:-)

Xavexgoem (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from me also. Glad to have been involved. Rudget (review) 13:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I miss my crack signature, but thanks :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the star, hope to run into you more often as well. · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the Barnstar! Thanks also for adding to yesterday's April Fools' Fun! :) Acalamari Bellatrix! 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--and thanks even more for completely agreeing with my keep ¡vote! Darkspots (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. Hut 8.5 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the symphony of thanks, here is mine: thank you! Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gave me the chance to talk about the Euphonium Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. Much appreciated! EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for barnstar and fun on this page. See ya. :D Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 17:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination)

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)

Thanks for dropping by with an opinion. I still think he's borderline, particularly in terms of actual accomplishments and independent sources, more a big fish in the small pond of Magick/occultism than notable by WP standards. But I've been wrong before and undoubtedly will be again. Cheers, Pigman☿ 08:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (4th nomination)

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)

reflist 3

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)

Because it looks like crap. Its a list of page numbers. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Baksh

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)

This close was actually done on time. Its from the backlog. Id suggest you either revert it/undue it, or delete it. I'm fully aware of how to close these, thanks. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the section that said it was closed early, but it was a close call which per WP:DPR#NAC should be closed only by an admin. I've contributed to the discussion so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to close it. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you added a link to an essay. I don't see this as grounds for deletion. And the same goes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Age communities. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that close calls are supposed to be left to admins to close. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact its not really as frowned upon as you might think. To reopen just beacuse a non admin closed it from a backlog is poor rationale. State an actual concern or mistake and I'm likely to agree with you, lest this be just personal opinion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this should be taken to AN/ANI right about now. This has came up on there before and I found it both useful and in my favor. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, listed at WP:AN#Non-admin_closures_of_AFDs. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, of the two AFDs in question, Ali Baksh was leaning towards a delete, and New Age communities was a no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 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)

Just saw the AN post. Copying this there...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll still continue to exercise good judgment in these cases, which I feel I have. I'm willing to take the advice/criticism of others (but usually from admins only), but only when elaborate. Stifle's reasoning was based on: oh it shouldn't be done and this somehow is 100% always the case (got the implication, he never said this). But I'm fine with the choice I've made. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It really isnt' a judgment issue, SM, its a guideline issue. As far as I can tell, Stifle hasn't questioned your judgment, just your action based on your judgment. If you don't like the guideline for NAC as it is, work on getting it changed (stranger things have happened). You have proven that you have good judgment. Participate in the debates of close ones instead of closing the close ones, that's all. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I may do just that. Yet guidelines are more descriptive and less prescriptive, as I see it. I'll pop over there soon to stir up the pot (thoughts and idea's, not unconstructive banter). There and probably speedy keep, as I've had issues with that one as well. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:46, 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)

Wikistalking

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)

That was only because each article we went to to edit was in the same general topic. If we went to a particular article, it was for a good reason (to correct your mistakes, as you obviously were making a lot of them at the time). Most of the edits you were making were POV and OR. You sat on your hands when a straw poll (as well as one or two AfD's) called you to provide credible sources and references. I see now, after 2 years that you found your sources and I have no issue with those articles anymore. Kudos. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

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)

Portal

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)

Erm

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)

Glad you're not leaving us ;-) I think all the pages you requested are now gone - if you find you're now missing something vital, let me know! —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 09:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it (both of you). But the only thing I'm missing is sleep. :) SynergeticMaggot 09:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Star Wreck (book series) AfD

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)

That was bold of you :-)

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)

I have reverted the closure of the AfD. I want an actual admin to take a look at it instead as they are less likely to be part of the swarm of partisans that have come out of the woodowork as of late. Furthermore, if the result is no consensus, then it is marked as no consensus, NOT Keep. Jtrainor (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Jtrainer, you certainly manage to pack in a whole lot of assumptions of bad faith and borderline incivility in just a few short sentances! GundamsЯus (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. The AfD was kept anyway. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

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)

Well I'll be! No worries. My mistake. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonviolent communication AfD closure

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)

I have responded to your remarks on my talk page. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have you on my watchlist until you are satisfied, as I do with everyone. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note discussion at WP:AN/I

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. Gnangarra 09:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

SynergeticMaggot, please don't edit-war over AFD closures. Yes, the AFD could have been closed as a "speedy keep" (and I've reclosed it as such) but once reverted, you should have left it alone. Neıl ☎ 09:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Not so fast. I'm not involved in a revert war. I merely reclosed appropriately. It was agreed upon that the first close was inappropriate. I fail to see how this is incorrect. I'll join in on ANI if I feel it needs my input. But thanks for letting me know. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N/CA

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)

RfA thanks

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)

AfD for NVC

While I do think that the nomination of this article for deletion was wrongheaded, I also note that it does not meet the criteria for speedy keep. What is your thinking on this? Sunray (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is that directed to? And, the first close or the second? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mistakenly put it on the BB's talk page. I meant nominating closing the article with SK in the first place. See my comments here. Sunray (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. Nominating an AfD for speedy keep? And I've responded. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about closing frivolous AfDs. Sunray (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, just for the record, I'm not the one that took this to ANI, and I agrere with you that it didn't need to go there either, I just participated in the discussion once it was there. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh thats right. My mind has been on other things lately. My bad o:-) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple Gifts

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)

A barnstar for you

		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)

WP:Lectures

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)

AfD help

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, I'll be archiving soon - specifically on the traditional May 1st spring archiving date, huh? - and I'm just going to do cut and paste jobs for the time being.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re : =)

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)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Rollback permission

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)

Rollback removal

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)

• Thank you for your response at my talk page. If it was a mistake you could have reverted your edit before taking the argument to a long established editor that was justifiably upset by your acting off the cuff, after "a long day at work". You also did not explain to that editor or to the community at large why you think it is your right to use rollback in anyway you wish. As I said I would rather have discussed the removal with the administrator who gave you the rights first so that I could get a second opinion about you as an editor - but you dragging out the appropriate response until you feel it becomes necessary to criticise me because my action is forced to be taken against you, does not help the process. Let me know when you are ready to have me reconsider a return of those rights - perhaps after you realise that not everything you do with rollback is correct. Until then, my best wishes. 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You assume too much. I never intended to criticize you. But something like this needs to be talked about before you go and remove rollback. You also, still, are misunderstanding. I've already explained and my usage of words was, sadly, ambiguous. That is my fault entirely. But that still is no reason to remove it. The edit I made, was meant to be an undue edit, which was explained as well. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's RfA

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)

Keeper's brain hurts.

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)

Yes this was all over one button click, compared to 2 years (registered) of using this nick and tons (about 10,000 edits) of edits, with a large hand full of edits reverting vandalism. One mistake, one misstep in communication to an editor, and an admin who watches the talk page to remove it without a required clarification. Notice how I never took this to ANI or to anyone in hopes of this being corrected. Nor have I brought this up with the admin who granted me rollback. I am still very pissed about this in general (I have a right to be) and have considered leaving the wiki in the last few days. I actually liked my user logs untainted (no blocks, bans, removal of rights). I'm leaving this one alone because it's making me mad enough to not be able to maintain my formal neutrality while editing. END of DISCUSSION (not getting loud with you Keeper, just in general). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I note with much relief the comment at my talk page. Welcome back - I expected that your history as a great editor would not let you down and it clearly has not. My personal thanks in return. Good luck with your off-wiki also.--VS ^talk 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's future

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)

Billie Lee Turner

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)

Treelo's reversions and warnings

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)

No. We generally do not do cool down blocks on wikipedia. I'm still waiting for a response, patience is a virtue. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:17, 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)

Closed RfA

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)

Not a problem at all. In retrospect, I couldn't help thinking that I should have gave you a chirp before I undid it, after I had done it, if that makes sense. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Undoing my undo

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)

closed = no more "votes". The response was to someone other than the candidate, and clarifying their position. Since the page will be used as a reference, I don't see the "harm". That said, as I noted in my edit summary, another "common practice" is to move such discussions to the talk page. (Regardless of the closure, the discussion may continue there, and often has in the past.)

Anyway, as the commenter doesn't seem to care, it's pretty much moot. - jc37 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Another venue altogether. You could have added the discussion to the talk, although there really isn't much point. The preservation of the RfA at the time of the withdraw/close is common, and to revert it is common as well. Give me a few examples where conversation inside of a closed RfA goes on and I'll agree its common practice, or at least in the minority. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the closer moved the discussion to the talk page. So now it's definitely moot. - jc37 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know. I was going to revert you, but someone beat me too it. Care to respond to my proposal on common practice? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your oppose

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)

I have 10k+ and I'm still not an admin. Don't beat yourself up over it. And refrain from further attack posts to Enigmaman's talk page. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

The Twinkle bug

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)

The COOKIE MONSTER ate the cow

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)

Usernames

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)

WP:Lectures

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)

Rfb participation thanks

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)

"Correct result"

Oops my bad![2]

I though that was the date not the final tally. Good spot! -Icewedge (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(response to User talk:Icewedge): Don't worry; I made sure to notify the user immediately afterwards, it would have been a jerk move not too. -Icewedge (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application

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.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Woot. Thanks!. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

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)

WP:HAU

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)

Not again! Revamping is a norm for this page. I think we need a new group of editors who are higly active on revamping the highly active users related article. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

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)

WP:Requests for adminship/Qaddosh

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)

• Could you please close it for me per WP:SNOW. This is a bit disheartening, since I see editors with less experience than me becoming admins, but all is still well. It allows me to work on my weaknesses. I may be taking a wikibreak for a bit. I think I needed one before the RFA. Thank you so much for your assistance. -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 20:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you so much. -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Synergy/Archive 3, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wirt H. Wills

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)

Good start. Still needs the for the tone to be a little more formal. My Wiki-time is likely going to be a bit limited over the next couple of weeks (new computer and DV camera! yay!), but I'll do what I can. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, no problem. And again, thanks. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		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)

Wikipedia:Lectures

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)

BTW

For future reference, it's not "knit pick", it's nitpick. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. What I was thinking when I typed that was beyond me. ;p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin request

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)

Thanks. Though I do have a minor question... what are typical "admin related" areas? I plan to do more work in the mainspace... are there other areas I should focus on too?

My recent RfA

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)

Are you going to add Fercho85 to unsuccessful?

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)

I was looking at the chronological order and its not there, so i will add it now. Thanks for replying and take care. Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 01:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA note

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)

You need to know more than reasons to block to do that well, but thanks for your reply anyways. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just said block. There are other sanctimonious guideline and policy pages like WP:EDITWAR and WP:GAME, but as the content of most of these pages changes so rapidly and fickley, it's probably not as important. Because it is not the case that there you will be faced only with established users reporting anons and redlinks, more important is having the experience to spot the nuances of content disputes and editorial behaviour, something you cannot ask me to believe you have. Bad decisions can have disastrous consequences, and the emergence of a collectivity of bad wiki-philosophies can be even worse. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I read your RfA, was referring to what you mentioned in response to me on my talk page, and as you can see above, it's a different kind of experience that I think's needed. I would take for granted you know or can know all the policy and guideline pages. Good luck on your RfA. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you. I will reflect on your opinion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Wish you all the best for your RFA -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not let down by your recent unsuccessful RFA. Please understand that 'Adminship is no big deal'. Keep doing the good work in Wikipedia. Your contributions are much appreciated. Take a break and do come back again for RFA when you feel that you are armed :) .

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!

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)

About my RFA comment

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)

Hello from Keeper

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)

Got your reply, and thanks for it! My question then, if you were going to let it run a full 7, why did you withdraw? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there SynMag. I have seen your reply on my talkpage, regarding a particular user. If this is someone you know IRL, I would recommend, at least on-wiki, completely avoiding said person. I haven't been ignoring you, just thinking. I strongly recommend that you move on beyond anything regarding this particular user and do your best to avoid any situations that involve said user. I'm hoping that you are not feeling to shabby, I realize you've had a hell of a week. Let me know if there is anything I can do, as an editor (not admin) to help you along. Cheers friend, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Got your message, and glad to see your not completely fed up with this place. Let me know if you need admin assistance whilst you edit/improve the encyclopedia. All the best - have a great weekend Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

F*** that! No beer and no grilling on a holiday weekend?!?!. I'm planning on indulging in both! See you Monday editor, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on your last edit on my talk, I will assure you, that I am planning on completely and unashamedly overindulging in several things. Mostly beer though. Which is why I will be offline until Tuesday...I'm planning on extremely enjoying my weekend off work, and off wiki. (I'll be online a bit in the morning, but that's it! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wink wink. We say that all the time! Have fun though! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Woot

User:SynergeticMaggot/Activities restored. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

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)

RfB

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)

Saw your change. As long as your comfortable with your opinion/voice there, that's what's most important. I made a personal decision to not "challenge opposers" directly on the RfA/RfB. Too much potential for bad blood/hurt feelings there. RfA is broken, and while I certainly agree that the forum is supposed to be a discussion, and welcome the discussion (obviously, what I'm typing right now is a "comment on your oppose", I feel that the talkpages are better for these purposes. If I posted at the highly trafficked RFB, it too easily would look like I was trying to show you up. It would have been much more likely that you (or any editor) would see a challenge to your opinion as an opportunity to dig your heels in. And most importantly, it would have been too much opportunity to have other editors make comments when really I just wanted your opinion on your opinion. Make sense? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! I missed that part. I can't think of anything really, and I'm not particularly stressed ATM, rather enjoying the place right now. But I'll remember the offer - I might use you as an "accountability" partner to enforce a "no admin actions for a week"-break where I'm required to only edit articles. I'll let you know when that day comes! :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be borderline blasphemous, being a lifelong Minnesota resident, but I've never liked hockey. Go Red Wings. Go...wait who are they playing? Meh, don't care... :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you spam

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)

WP:300.

The redirect's actually been there since February 2007. ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I meant re-created then. :) — _Maggot^Syn 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAG MFD

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)

• SM, please see what I wrote here. If the discussion remains closed, could you at least not use reversion tools to remove post-closure comments. Those should be allowed for a while, or moved to the talk page. I think that some centralised discussion, linked by a prominent tag at WP:BAG is needed. The MfD did succeed in attracting attention (sometimes difficult with bot policy), though the look of the MfD tag does prejudice some people, and the MfD was essentially turning into a centralised discussion, regardless of whether it was the right venue or not. Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it out, but first I'll respond, as I've responded on Gimmetrow's talk. I used restore only, with a kind response, I feel its entirely appropriate. Although the MfD attracted attention, it was only due to the sudden cry of Speedy keep. I think a cent discussion should be a link to a talk page, and not an MfD though. I'll check on your comments now. :) — _Maggot^Syn 08:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page notices have not got enough people involved. I think as this is a Wikipedia namespace page, a notice on the page itself announcing a discussion is entirely appropriate. Limiting notices to talk pages is really only done for articles, with the exception of deletion notices and clean-up tags. Carcharoth (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I beat you to that. I edit conflicted with another editor. :) — _Maggot^Syn 08:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking back, I think you misunderstood. What I meant was, the centralized discussion link should be to a talk page, not a link to the MfD (which would be less appropriate). — _Maggot^Syn 08:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bottom template of Certified RfA.

Thanks for doing that, temporary mind slip. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thanks, Synergy, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• No worries Syn, thanks for dropping by my talk page after-the-fact. =) xenocidic (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ash and baby V

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)

FUNLIB

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)

AfD

[3]. The perils of going by both Dan and Daniel. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't think to look. Thanks for the link. — _Maggot^Syn 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Larry Torres AfD

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)

ETA, done. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center

I have re-opened this debate. Two and a half hours was insufficient. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) It's a good enough reason, I think. Wikipedia has contributions from editors who contribute from time zones all over the world. And two and a half hours is, frankly, a joke: I was at dinner the whole time that this debate was (briefly) open. You need to give these things more time. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) This is not a frivolous MfD. If someone else closes as keep after there's been time for discussion, so be it. But you need to have the discussion first. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed, but there was a discussion already. What happens now is even more reasons to keep. — _Maggot^Syn 08:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)save, for those out there who delete per nom :)

Again, there was a discussion for 150 minutes. Or to which other discussion are you referring? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion in which no one thus far has agreed with the nominator, and has asked that it be closed. Its a good faith project, and I consider it poor form to go to MfD a third time, especially when the last nom is arguing to keep it. — _Maggot^Syn 08:23, 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)

Yes indeed, I agree that there needs to be more discussion. But MfD is not the venue for a discussion other than to delete it. Discussions on how to change or reform is already ongoing on the talk page, and bringing it to MfD while changes are being made is in bad faith. Also, I was asking your opinion as an admin, not an editor. If you were acting as an editor, I would have reverted you and told you to go to WP:DRV. So again, if I can have your opinion as to the articles fate. — _Maggot^Syn 08:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion as an admin is that you were too quick to close the debate. Hence, I reverted. Regarding the page itself, all that counts is my opinion as an editor, not the fact that I'm an admin. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you don't want to answer. Thats fine too. I don't want to pressure you or anything. :) — _Maggot^Syn 08:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given my opinion (a preliminary one, to be sure), as an editor, at the appropriate place. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I retorted already. But that wasn't what I was asking for. Still, no pressure, but what I was asking (in an effort to make myself clearer only, as sometimes I'm not :) was as an admin, would you delete it? Not how would you vote, but how would you have closed. — _Maggot^Syn 08:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why "retort" rather than reply? I'm more and more surprised that you chose to close this debate, as you are clearly so invested. Meanwhile, as for your question, I have answered it: as an admin, I would not have closed the debate at all after a mere two and a half hours. Is that clear enough? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, because its a form of reply, and it was to a comment you made, technically not a !vote. And no that wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean would you close as fast as I did, since my style of closing is not a norm and I can clearly see you don't like it. What I was asking, is if you would have clicked that delete button on the top of your screen. Is the userspace page that damaging? You don't have to answer though. I can see your a little rattled right about now. It was nice chatting with you though :) — _Maggot^Syn 08:52, 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)

Actually thats more of a sign that one or two people think this should just be deleted, which holds little water. If 12 people instantly showed up saying delete, now that would be a sign that there is unease from the community. Giggy showed up because I asked his opinion in private since he was a past nominator. His concerns are not my own. I am of the breed that feels that one or even two editors are not the whole of a small community, and nor should the community bare the brunt of their mistakes, mishaps, or whatever you wish to call them. By asking your opinion, as an admin, I wanted to know more about where you were coming from (sort of like from all angles). What I expect from admins is accountability, reasoning, and explanations (calm as a gentle breeze, sorry, possibly a bad joke?: guess we'll find out). This lets me know more about who I am talking to (even though I supported your RfA, meaning I should already know you). With that said I think I'm going to be off to sleep soon and may not be more prompt in my editng. :) — _Maggot^Syn 09:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Where I'm coming from, as an admin, is as follows: admins don't get to decide what happens on Wikipedia; their responsibility is to ensure that the community can decide such things with the minimum of rancor or bad feeling. I'm happy to be fully accountable about that. Hence my reasoning: the debate about the Award Center should take place; it's not a frivolous nomination; it shouldn't be closed after two and a half hours. It may well be that at the end of a full and thorough debate, the conclusion is that the page should be kept. That is fine. It will make it less likely that a fourth MfD comes along in a few weeks. Anyhow, I should also be off, as I have to pack for my flight in a few hours. Good night! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:21, 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)

Laser_brain: That has to do with joining in on the discussion. I did this after it had been reopened, and not before. Contorting the situation to suit your needs is the only out of line thing thats been done here. Once again, that section is for closing a discussion in which you have participated in. My opinion is that the article up for MfD is rather lousy and is in need of reform; I don't like it, but thats not a reason to delete. — _Maggot^Syn 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Frankly if I weren't out the door, I'd be tempted to open up a thread at ANI or an RFC on this editor. The close was clearly inappropriate. And yet, having been told this, he almost immediately put the following text on his user page:

I believe that if an XfD is found to be frivolous, out of place, out of order, or in bad faith, it should no longer take place. I frequently close them on this basis, but not on this basis alone. If others can delete pages, that are not backed by current policy or guidelines, then others can keep based on good old fashion rationale.

Extraordinary stuff. This editor shouldn't be closing debates at all, if this is the way in which he goes about things. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to link rationale to WP:COMMONSENSE Jb. — _Maggot^Syn 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh but it does make a difference. I would just like it more if I wasn't misrepresented on my talk page, or any other page for that matter. — _Maggot^Syn 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A request

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:

• "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator.";
• "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided."; and
• "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought."

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)

I urge you to reread what you just posted here. Not one of those bullet points reflects how I closed, at the time of closing (besides the fact that an admin reopened, and I was fine with that: its an afterthought bullet point;it deals with post closing). You're differences with WP:SNOW make no difference, XfD's are closed this way everyday. Also note that I just added that to my userpage before I logged off. But thank you for your concerns. — _Maggot^Syn 20:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously just use Twinkle to rollback comments about your MfD closing that didn't suit you? --Laser brain (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of wikilawyering, which I wasn't. I've had a full conversation about this MfD already, and can communicate rather well when not subject to accusatory remarks, such as the ones reverted. — _Maggot^Syn 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You had a full conversation, but I still don't get impression you understand how inappropriate your actions were. I apologize for accusing you of wikilawyering—it was out of line. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. What appears to have happened is that I've gone against a norm and not a policy here. I don't find it inappropriate in the least and my reasons are thus: I don't like that userpage, but not liking it isn't a reason to delete; this whole project appears in good faith and should have some help in the way the do things yes, but does deleting it really accomplish this?; if its true that newcomers will benefit from this type of project, then deleting it will more than likely discourage them from the start. I exercised my option to be bold and ignore things with good reason, not just to do it for the sake of doing it. — _Maggot^Syn 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not your contribution to the discussion; it's the fact that you tried to close down the discussion before it had hardly started. That was inappropriate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:25, 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)

Y'know, I don't think he does get it... Not least because he added the paragraph above to his user page after much of the discussion had gone by. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah don't mind me, I'm new to the pedia. — _Maggot^Syn 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree here jbmurray. synmag has been here for years. He understands that others disagree with his premature close. Time to move along for all parties? White flag? Truce? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeper: More like an RfC. — _Maggot^Syn 21:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with your snow close Syn, and while I support deleting said page, I would strongly advise to all parties that an RFC would be way overboard/overkill. Let it die. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an RfC accomplishing anything here other than taking more of my time away from building the encyclopedia. --Laser brain (talk) 22:13, 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)

It's Friday and almost 6:30 in my neck of the woods. Everyone should seriously be drinking a beer right about now. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Its 6:30 here too and yes, I'll be going out tonight possibly for that purpose (but then again I have to go by the bookstore also). — _Maggot^Syn 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I had one or three too many. My head is pounding today. Didn't help that User:SonofKeeper decided to play with his toy bowling pins at 6 this morning. Grooaan...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agnistus Note

Please see this. Yours sincerely, Agnistus (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me an update on the MfD page

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)

in re: Fishing

Absolutely not serious in any way shape or form - no worries. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User space design

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)

Mergers

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)

Rendezvous (political cartoon)

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)

So then why haven't you just merged it in then? I opted to remain neutral, and posted the information about the cartoon (one paragraph, with the message: Please feel free to incorporate the content below into the article) to the talk page over a month ago. Or maybe you just didn't notice it? :) — _Maggot^Syn 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Disgusting

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)

Horribly untrue. It's a good quote. LaraLove|Talk 02:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed comment

Sorry about this. I didn't get the usual "edit conflict" warning message. --Jenny 21:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

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)

Hi

I am the Bluegoblin7 from IRC. Bluegoblin70 (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your sig...

...overlaps the time. Goodness knows why, just thought I'd say.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix it to something like whats in my sandbox. Any help would be appreciated and we can bury the old sig in the garden...... — _Maggot^Syn 10:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

*groan* weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You picked your username, not me. I have to deal with maggot this and maggot that. Hopefully if my request for usurption goes through, I won't have to deal with it anymore. — _Maggot^Syn 10:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw man, I liked the old signature! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI/ER

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)

I never said I wanted you to look at only one issue. You chose to focus on that sole issue when a sockpuppet needed blocking. Rather than support it, you decided to question my judgment, which is fine. You can see that I am fully capable of discussing my actions, and welcome it. And I invited you to review me. Its bad form to spread a current conversation across the wiki. It makes it difficult for observers to follow the situation. And thank you for your assessment. I will take your advice into consideration. Best regards. — _Maggot^Syn 12:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly about keeping discussion in one place, which is why I kept the discussion at ANI. I don't feel able to contribute fully to your ER with a full review, so I felt that my contribution there would be best as a footnote to another review. Sorry if you feel that my way of dicussing it wasn't the best. Mayalld (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. And theres no need to apologize as theres no harm done. — _Maggot^Syn 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Article Rescue Squadron (3 nomination)

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)

Thank you. I disagree. — _Maggot^Syn 15:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please tell me which speedy keep criteria apply. Taemyr (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My 2p-worth of advice on non-admin closes per SNOW: always allow 24 hours; let the discussion go around the world and then the outcome should be that much clearer. Hmm... strange sense of deja-vu. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment - if you were to let a discussion go for 24 hours, then you wouldn't close per WP:SNOW. A lot of people use this guideline incorrectly, thinking it means "snowballing" close, i.e., when you have an overwhelming number of keep/delete votes. In actuality, this guideline means that the article "doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell", meaning that there is no reason to let a discussion go any further. Tan ǀ 39 15:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tan. Thank you for showing me how to fix my sig, by letting me look at yours...I have mine all wrong. — _Maggot^Syn 15:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case the discussion had gone for more than 24 hrs. Delaying a SNOW closure would serve little purpose. Taemyr (talk) 18:14, 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)

Sorry, my comment was posted in the wrong section and that's my bad for not following all the links. Although my advice ought to apply generally, it was specifically prompted by the recent ANI discussion where you closed a discussion after 1hr citing SNOW. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. No problem. My close there was based on a sock puppet that is now blocked from editing under that account. Synergy 09:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Worst. Sig. Evar. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Help-A-Noob

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)

• {{WP India|class=Stub|importance=|auto=yes}}

This is on the talk page. Make it look like this:

• • {{WP India|class=Start|importance=|auto=yes}}

As time progresses, and it gets better, the class goes up. ^_^ — _Maggot^Syn 16:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Danke Lucifer (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bitte. — _Maggot^Syn 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Hermetism

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)

Declining Unblocks

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)

Done. I've been made aware by other means that its not expressly prohibited under the auspice of frivolous requests. However, this particular request did not meet those requirements specifically, so I've reverted it back. Synergy 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: declined again by an admin for the same reasons I specified. Synergy 00:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of good faith towards me

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)

WR is not a troll site, and this comment is incivil, and so was Tony S's. Synergy 01:37, 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)

I have no lack of faith with you. I just think there are some situations that you should stay out of. I've seen multiple response made by you, all of which are unproductive. Pointing this out is to help you realize this and to take corrective action. Whether or not you chose to do this is up to you. Synergy 01:44, 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)

AN

For future reference, I'm well aware of the process. Perhaps you should try reading what I wrote. --Stephen 07:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, and responded already. Synergy 07:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)