This is an archive of past discussions about User:Synergy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Synergy/Archive 1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini
Hi... your signature is a bit confusing. Is there any way I could persuade you to change it to something similar to your username? ---J.S (t|c) 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Sorry, but the signature does link to my user page. I prefer to use it as a knickname. May I ask why you feel I need to change it? Zos20:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Because when I look in the history I see "SynergeticMaggot" and when I see comments on the talk page I see "Zos". Connecting those two currently requires a investigation and isn't immediately obvious. But, then again, there is no rule that sais you can have your signature as "Zos." If you really like Zos more then SynMag then there is a way to change your login name. It preserves your edit history, talk page, etc.
I see. When I created my account, I was unaware that by putting in a knickname (I figured it was for anyone wishing to call me by that knickname), it was used for signing comments. I can change it if its needed. Although I'm unaware of any rule that says I'm not allowed to use a different name for signatures. I think if someone is that interested in me, they can see my user info page where I specify that Zos is a knickname for SynergeticMaggot. I just feel that Zos is much shorter for signing and will change it if its a conflict of a policy or guidelines of Wikipedia. Zos21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No policy that I'm aware of. However, I've seen people be "voted" against when doing a Request for Adminship because of this very thing. There is kinda a general dislike of it... but no policy. ---J.S (t|c) 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well once I decide I'm ready for such a task as adminship or mediation cabal or anything of the like, I'll change it. Zos23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't see it has abusive and disruptive. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the tags were POV statements that were just added, or their sources failed. I've tried to correct the matter, discuss it, and ask for help. None of this works with Catherine. Zos17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tom Harrision that you have been abusive and disruptive. Correct conduct on WP is a matter of community concensus and your personal assertions that you are correct are immaterial if the community judgment is that you are abusive and disruptive. Please tone it down. -99918:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It wasnt a personal assertion. The section was removed, and you had previously agreed with it, so I'm not sure where you stand in this discussion now...And my tone is not laud, so how can I "tone it down"? Zos18:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but I'd like to point you Here. The majority of the conversation was about me, but it involves you. Just letting you know in case you want to respond for the record (it helps to show evidence also, like I did), since I dont recall you harassing her as she says. 93 Zos 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I'm not too worried either, but I left a short response. Some people simply don't have the temperment to be a WP editor, and I think she's one such, unfortunately. She does not know how to compromise and interperets corrections and legit edits as "attacks". Kinda sad, actually, because I think she could have been a good editor. –Frater5(talk/con)18:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Pennsylvania
Glad to see you made it to Pennsylvania safely, or at least you will have by the time you read this message!
If you have the bandwidth, you might want to add all the subarticles to your watchlist as well. It's where the action is going to be... -999 (Talk) 16:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yhea you better had, It just means I'll have to correct all your misrepresentations and prooves that your all working in cahoots.
Frater FiatLux03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Actaully, we were hoping to fix "your" mistakes. Deleting cited material is not in keeping with policies and guidlines. Zos03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
That's utter rubbish, your the ones edit warring articles and reverting pages back to non-verifiable sources, and biased inaccurate P.O.V. articles. I provided sourced information for all of my changes, you guys on the other hand, did not. And furthermore, none of you discussed your changes in the talk page like I DID before you perform your egregious editing
Frater FiatLux. You seem to have a misapprehension.The talk page is not for providing source - footnotes are for providing sources. The talk page is for discussing - you know, a back and forth conversation (not a lecture). You have yet to use a talk page properly and have a conversation with the other editors. Try it sometime! -999 (Talk) 14:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Reverting
Just a note, I think it looks a lot better to admins if each of us do only two reverts. I'd have got that next one but you beat me to it. -999 (Talk) 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Just as well to use my three, so if Fiat went for four, I would have reported him directly (instead of him reporting me...). Zos19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Please note that 3 reverts is not an entitlement. People can and have been blocked for multiple cases of 3 reverts. Safer to stick with two and have patience. (Though I must admit that I don't always myself :-) -999 (Talk) 16:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Zos, if they are online GFDL sources like Free Encyclopedia of Thelema and Thelemapedia, then they have to be listed if even a sentence was taken from those sources. The whole article may have originated from the GFDL source. It's part of the GFDL license that you must provide a link to a GFDL source. Frequently, if the source itself has references, they will be indented another level under the GFDL reference... -999 (Talk) 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It was my understanding that wiki's (even wikipedia) were not aloud as a source, furthermore they are just sitting there in the references sections, and arent even cited. But eh. Zos14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You have to understand that WP policy on citations has changed. Many old articles will have only references, not citations, because they were not so stringently required in the past. And no GFDL reference can be taken out, without deleting the article and starting over. I know some of the Thelema articles were taken whole from FET or Thelemapedia. That is, as far as I know, not disallowed. In fact, it is the whole point of the GFDL that this can be done. -999 (Talk) 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
User conduct RfC on Zanoni666
I think if Z666 keeps pushing his changes in H.O.G.D., Inc., that we should open a user conduct RfC. In order to do that, I need a second person to try to resolve the issue with him, preferably on his talk page, like I am doing... -999 (Talk) 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright. Seeing as how I was apart of the reverting I'd have no problem. But I know nothing of the RfC process. Zos16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can get the RfC started. That's the hard part b/c I have to document all his reverts and our attempts to engage him in discussion without any reasonable response. Then you simply have to sign on to it and add links to where you tried to resolve the issues on his talk page with him. Anyone else who has failed to resolve the issue can sign on as well.
Let's give it a little time, it's a lot of work. But let's lay the groundwork to show multiple attempts to engage him in fruitful discussion. -999 (Talk) 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I can fill in a few blank spots if you want. It wont take that much time, I was actually working on it now. heh. Zos17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Give 'em the third degree! No, seriously leave him alone but discuss on the talk page the terr'ble G.D. edit wars (you must overact the terr'ble part, like Jim Carey as the one-legged sailor in Unfortunate Events ;-) -999 (Talk) 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Somebody else'll chime up over at Crowley I'm sure...
At this point its very difficult to keep up with these edit wars. And I'm surprised that the A+O page isnt a part of this anymore. Zos02:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It got locked a while back. I made a clueful suggestion but no one has responded. I think an admin got annoyed by a flakey request on an admin page, that's how it got locked. -999 (Talk) 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
reverts
Go to WP:DR. I think the Mediation Cabal would be the best first step. Also, if you put some effort into trying to resolve things on FFL's talk page, that can be used as evidence in a user conduct RfC... -999 (Talk) 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
FFL just got blocked for 48h with a next time you'll be blocked for a week warning. Ehheh reported him. -999 (Talk) 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Even better news, Opuaut got an indefinite ban for being a sockpuppet and FFL's block was extended to 72h. The admin who did it recommends we ask for a community ban of FFL on ANI [1] -999 (Talk) 21:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
But claims of meatpuppets was proved to be true, and per WP:SOCK, meatpuppets are to be treated the same as sockpuppets. -999 (Talk) 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm. The 5000 limit seems to have been removed. It used to be there. But it does still say Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work . User:Zoe|(talk)02:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes and its also a guideline, and I do not have to submit to it. So thanks for commenting, but the page will in fact be reinstated unless an actual policy is stated to me. I've already requested that the admin who deleted it comment on the wp:ani page, but alas, he is on wiki-break. I'll continue to add to it in the sandbox until I feel it has enough context. Zos02:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
My Response: The article no longer exists, so I requested speedy deletion of its talk page. That's standard procedure for an orphaned talk page. Hope this helps! --Alan02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
When I submitted the talk page for deletion, the main article was no longer there. Someone had already removed it. I deliberately checked for that before I submitted for the talk page to be removed. --Alan03:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I had already disputed that on the sandbox talk page. The original reason for deletion given, was that the article about the author had no notability, yet the notablility page is a guideline, not a policy. That was the first time it was deleted mind you, not this time. Zos03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, its true that notablity is a guideline, but its still a guideline; in other words, its intended to guide editors about what is and is not appropriate. Guidelines are actionable. If you feel the original deletion was inappropriate you should open a deletion review which is your opportunity to make the case to have the article restored. Gwernol12:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Mediation File.
Please do not interfere with my mediation file.
If there are any corrections to be made to the entry then as I made the file, I will edit the file, ONLY.
I didn't get chance to inform everyone last night, I will be providing the links today. Do NOT provide any of your own commentary as I will now have to take it down, as there's been an objection by a mediator.
You and eveyone else should just pledge agree or disagre, the mediation page states this explicitly. If you tampere with the file again, I may have to report you to the mediator that made the comment.
Please leave the file alone and refrain from editing it. Otherwise you're likly to start another edit war. leave it.
For your information User Opuaut is not blocked indefinitly, this was a proven false claim of sock puppets. User Opuaut account has been fully re-instated.
again please leave me to make the corrections to the mediation as the mediator has requested on my talk page. Other users simply state AGREE/DISAGREE ONLY. Nothing else.
I posted this to the discussion page you should take note:
Important comment on the mediation
No one is edit or revert the mediation file that I have submitted, user Zos/synergistcmaggot, has already taken it upon himself to edit the file, improperly, and against mediation rules. It clearly states that you all, are only to pledge in: AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT, ONLY. The mediator has asked myself to make changes on the file and I will provide them today as I was the one that submitted the mediation. I reiterate for total clarity and to evade all misunderstanding, do NOT edit or revert the mediation file, please only follow the rules on the mediation page stating you agree or disagree.
No one can add commentary on any of the content in any of the discussion pages or anything else for that matter. If anyone edits or reverts the mediation, and breaches mediation rules, I reserve the right to contact the mediator to inform them of this, and I will also report anyone that does edit or revert the mediation file to admin page. As you will be breaking the rules of mediation.The only thing anybody can write on the mediation file is agree or disagree under the header: "Parties' agreement to mediate", this is ONLY place anyone can make entries on the mediation form.
Furthermore, I just didn't get the chance to provide the link to the page last night, I have nothing to gain by holding the link back as all must pledge, agreeing to the mediation, on the mediation page.
You can view the current version before I make the changes to the file today, as per mediators wishes, to exclude all entries that appear to be commentary on the dispute. By clicking on the "/wiki/WP:RFM". on the tag at the top of the page. The mediation file is the second entry under the new submissions.
Once again, only myself is to make these changes as per the mediators request to myself, directly.
Please be patient while I perform these pages and observe good faith and adhere to the rules of the mediation page. I will report any one who breaks these rules: 1. To the mediator I in contact with. 2. The administration page.Frater FiatLux13:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I only fixed your mistakes to make it clearer for mediation. Zos
14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment:That's not the issue, if anything is wrong with the mediation file the mediator will notify me and I will make the changes myself, as he has done so. You are not authorised under the rules, as per the mediation page to make any changes to the file. Or the added commentary you made and false claims that users involved in the dispute had been blocked for being a sock puppet.
The claim of user Opuaut being a sock puppets was proven a false misguided claim, and you knew this; the evidence is here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Frater_FiatLux This comment by user Zos was a direct attempt at trying to bias the mediator from the outset, by adding this false claim to the mediation file. Do NOT make any changes the mediation file, I will make all changes as per the mediation rules with assistance from the mediator presently involved. You are only to state you “agree” or “disagree” ONLY.
Frater FiatLux 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in contact with any mediator, so I think you misunderstand my help. Opaut is banned, not by anything I did either. Zos15:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Opuaut has been unblocked. What I'm amazed at is that FFL left out Baba Louis, and when he added himself, FFL broke his own rules and started adding commentary to the mediation request. I've deleted it as FFL made clear that noone was to add commentary... keep an eye on it too. He also keeps using Zos as you username, when anybody with a brain can figure out that SynergeticMaggot is your username and Zos is just your signature. If you use Zos in a user: or user template, you point at the wrong user or nobody... -999 (Talk) 16:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, I didnt know Essjay was a person who usually fills the role of Mediaton Committee Chairman when I began talking to him. In the conversation I told him I was fixing things for you, so please let this go and lets focus on the request. Thanks.
999: I;m just going to have to switch it. I'm getting tired of people saying I'm two users, or i'm some sock puppet of myself!Zos16:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
RfM
Hi, just to let you know that I edited the RfM earlier today, to try and stop all this conflict that has been going on (and to stop a whole host of you getting 3 RR warnings and blocks). There was clearly a misunderstanding on Frater FiatLux's part about what people could edit, and also the fact that the two of you (you and 999) were amongst other things correcting errors (e.g. there is no User:Zos !). I hope this clears up the matter, and I have also comment on the 3RR noticeboard, as 999 requested that Frater FiatLux get blocked due to 3RR of the RfM page. You can see what I've put in relation to that on the noticeboard. I've asked both 999 and Frater FiatLux to ask a member of the Committee to edit the request if it needs any more additions (to try and stop all this conflict). I hope this does end the problems related to the RfM. If there are any more issues then please do contact me. --Wisden1718:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you know by now that "I" am Zos, its my nickname. I'll change it after the mediation process (if it gets accepted). Although I wasnt apart of the reverting to the Mediation page, I only made a few changes at the beginning, to help. Thanks. Zos18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there's absolutely no reason why you need to change your signature/username. A large number of users have signatures which are different to their usernames, although you may wish to change your username (as it is certainly interesting!) to User:Zos. I think that the RfM bit is now sorted out and that all the conlfict about it has stopped, it's amazing how something can so quickly snowball from one reversion. --Wisden1718:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
RfM
Hi, just to let you know, I've now fixed the User talk links confirmation section bit. I'm not quite sure what Frater had done, but it's all fine now. --Wisden1716:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Zos, I've already mentioned to Essjay on his talk page that the RfM is getting a little big. In terms of the number of participants that can be reduced to two (as the mediator can ask to deal only with two spokespeople for each side). The number of issues does seem to be a concern, bearing in mind that the average is 2/3 issues, not 10/11 or whatever it is up to at the moment! --Wisden1723:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The primary issue here is sources. Frater FiatLux was using things like jpg images and court documents (which were not ruled on yet, if I'm not mistaken). He then caused an edit war, which esculated until he had been blocked a number of times. In short, two articles were merged (The Golden Dawn Tradition (spelling?) and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn), and the rest of the pages being requested for meditation are splinter groups from the main one (Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is the main one). All the sub articles were sourced from their main web sites, and reverting took place on a number of them (as there are lack of sources for secret societies). With this all in mind (try and retain it :) ), the majority of us are all new users to Wikipedia (it shows!), and there are questions of socks and meat pupetry due to voting consesus. Here ends the history (or at least the major turning points).
I noticed you mention a request for arb. Not sure how that works but to address the issue of users invloved I'd have to say that I shouldn't be a part of the process. I don't recall actually contributing to the article, just reverting POV and bunk sources. But I will contribute to the article once this is all over (I've ordered a few book on the history of the articles in question), and hopfully nominate it for a featured article! Zos23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you say I mention arb, if you are referring to my latest comment on Essjay's talk page the RfAr is realted to another case the Sathya Sai Baba 2 case. Hope that clears that up, unless you are referring to another comment, in which case it clearly won't have done! --Wisden1723:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I had figured you meant that the Seven articles request was so large that it had to be taken to arb, heh. My mistake. Zos23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Drat. I'll go lookgin for them later. He was using the images as citations. I think those were the court documents. Four of them. And I remember seeing that they turned red, someone had deleted them. Zos21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not policy, it's just real rude -- in other words, incivil. I was in the middle of adding something when I discovered what I was responding to had been swept away. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆04:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm on it. But just to let you know...you wont get blocked if you have already reached the 3 revert limit, as long as the user was blocked. Zos16:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they apply it that way when you already have 3 reverts in. I asked an admin about it once and they said it's better to let someone else do it... -999 (Talk) 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No, that was just a move from the previous title. It needs a revert back to the version by catherineyronwode, of all people. -999 (Talk) 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Zos, no slight was meant by my removing comments from my talk page... It was not directed at you, or caused by your querry. If you look at the edit summary for my page, you will see that I do semi-blankings like this a lot. I simply don't like keeping chat, that's all. If something is needed, one can always recall it by looking through the history. As for Imacomp... I am staying out of it. No comment one way or t'other. Blueboar22:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The proper way to do this is archiving though. so its safe to assume that you do not wish to add your voice to the RfC on Imacomp? Zos22:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Suit yourself, but the next time he starts reverting Freemasonry pages, and wont discuss it, you'll wish you changed your mind. Zos23:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of. But then again, I don't think Blueboar is a mason (or last time i checked his user page), and I'm wanting tho know who made Imacomp a Freemason, if he is one as well. The way I look at it, I dont care who you are, theres no excuse for how Imacomp is acting...and not contributing, to me, is a way of supporting his actions. Zos01:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, not supporting is going to get rough in the long run Blueboar, we usually vote on consensus here on Wikipedia. Zos01:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I was just curious about whether such an enjoining exists, since it's one of the things forbidden to OTO initiates. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What's interesting about that is that the logic behind it is very similar to that of WP:NLT - the "no legal threats" rule on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's a collaborative effort; you're obviously not collaborating if you're threatening to sue. Similarly, OTO is supposed to be a fraternal organization with brotherly bonds and blah blah blah; if you've reached the point where legal action against a brother is necessary, then those bonds have already broken. Or something like that... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆03:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point. I doubt the level of objectivity among "brothers". From what I remember there was supposed to be some rule about not talking about politics or personal beliefs in Masonic lodges. This, I'm assuming, is one of the reasons why there is the universal name for God (grand architect), so no one fights about beliefs. I would figure that this would lead people to actually do this outside lodges, something called respect (oh and tolerance). I don't know much about the OTO's way, only from third party disagreements, but I'd assume that there was no rule about discussing beliefs (political or otherwise philosophical/personal). But if legal matters are resorted to it shows a lack of communication and ignorance of setting aside emotions. And from an occult perspective, you have no reason to be above that of a neophyte. Zos04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Copyvios
Please don't post copyrighted material at all. Try to modify it enough before saving that it isn't a copyright violation, and cite it as your source. Mak(talk)03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah thats what I said I was going to do. But I can in fact add it, if its a direct quote, or a block text, so I would say "at all". Zos03:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend against touching them prior to mediation. The fact that we are leaving them alone while FFL and his bunch have been essentially vandalizing them gives us the moral high ground in an obvious way. We lose that if you start editing them... The other issues might not be so clear to the mediators who may not have looked into it very deeply. Thus better to preserve the appearance which they can see. -999 (Talk) 21:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I had figured we might as well add the citations if we got em, so they dont get deleted, as per fiatlux wishing as a bullet point, the deletion of such. I do in fact have citations, and we were already working on the Cipher Manuscripts article, and I noticed he has put that one on for meditation as the last one.
I'm thinking that after all of the vandalism is documented, we should be able to secure the articles from being deleted. The people over at mediation wont be confused, its the only thing they do (actually depending on the mediator). 72.81.87.132 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC) oops forgot to sign Zos21:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
But further more, I'm not going to let Frater FiatLux get his way here. The articles shouldnt be deleted just because he wants them to. If sources are needed to keep them from deleted (and I should know, I've had two articles deleted already) then I'm adding them. 72.81.87.132 21:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) ok this is getting to be enough, forgot to sign yet again! Zos21:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
They won't be deleted. I'm sure the majority of votes in an AfD would be keep. Mediation won't lead to the deletion of the articles or the combining of them as the current solution is the best way to observe WP policies... -999 (Talk) 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If its a point to be addressed upon mediation, its more likely they will be deleted with only their web site as a source. And AfD can go either way, but wouldnt even be placed there if there were more citations. 72.81.87.132 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Zos21:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You're way too concerned about this. Having only a web-site as a source is and has always been acceptable for organization with a web-site. There are tons of articles that would have to be deleted if this were not allowable... -999 (Talk) 22:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The same can be said about you (being way too concerned). But nonetheless, I'm adding citations. Who is going to stop me? The page is not protected and I have yet to read where an article cant be worked on while under mediation (this is to say, it gets accepted, because it hasnt yet). Zos22:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, do what you will. I've done what I think addresses the point more directly: brought up eliminating deletion as a viable option on the mediation request talk page. -999 (Talk) 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. Theres a box that lists the headers. You first click on that box, in the section header where the comment was made. Then you go to the url address and copy only the area begining with the talk page, like this:
Ok, I fixed it for you. I forgot you were using an embedded link like this. It can be done both ways still though. Just click on the header on the talk page that you want to use. Zos23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Zos... sorry about the "lore"... that was not my edit. Anyway, if you are looking for a good source on the Hiram story, I would suggest John Robinson's "A Pilgrim's Path"... The book is mostly a defence of Freemasonry against the more outlandish claims of the Anti-Masonic religious right, but it has a very good chapter on Hiram. My "keep the secrets at all costs" brothers < ;) > will have a very hard time deleting anything Robinson says, since he is generally acknowleged as a solid historian with a pro-masonic bias. (can I have my 30 pieces of silver now?) Blueboar23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I knew, there werent very many secrets in Freemasonry anymore. With the a Dc lodge inviting tv to watch a ritual, publication of almost all of the rituals (be it old or new), and the substitution word being published, I don't see what the fuss is about. And as for the "keep secrets at all costs" people, they should go after publishers. Any published source is aloud on Wikipedia. To contest it, you'd need another published source to say otherwise. So I'm not too worried about them. Zos00:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Articles
Have you read WP:CSD? Some articles can be speedy-deleted, including ones on non-notable people and copyright violations. Articles about things people simply don't care about are not necessarily candidates for speedy deletion. Mak(talk)04:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said I didnt care about the article Dismal's Paradox. I just think that there is no future in it. You feel it can be expanded? A simple paragraph cannot even be called a stub, more like a mini stub. And with the article I created, mine had more notability than this one. So this is showing mere bias as to what can and what cant be deleted. Zos04:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup. There is a bias, since people tend to create articles on themselves and their bands. I'm sorry your article got deleted a bunch of times (I only deleted it when it was a copyvio, which I stand behind). Try creating it in your userspace and finishing it up before moving it to article space. Permanent stubbiness is just not a speedy deletion criterion. You could prod it or merge it or put it up for AfD though. Mak(talk)04:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the policy I was referring to was WP:CSD. I'm not sure what the problem is, are you just cranky? If so, I'm sorry. I try not to delete things out of process unless they're really over the top. This is just a plain slightly-irritatingly-crufy article, which is actually better than most and can't be speedy deleted. Grrr! I see people having been using re-post for speedy deletions again. They're not supposed to do that. Well, geocities isn't a very good source. Try to find some better ones and try again. I can retrieve what you've already done and put it in your userspace if you'd like. Mak(talk)05:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No thanks. I have both on my user page. And yes I'm cranky. It makes no sense for WP:CSD to rely upon a guideline and not a policy. I may just be retarded, but it clearly states that you dont have to follow guidelines if you dont wish, but policies are law. And when someone deletes my article (not the copyvio I understood that one clearly) quoting a guideline, I get suspicious and angry. Zos05:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I also made mention before it was deleted that my page did not meet the "criteria":
General criteria
Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes.
Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?").
Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism.
Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in user space or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject. In case of a speedily-deleted page, they must also determine that it met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place. Likewise, an article that was deleted as an uncontested prod and then re-created is not subject to this criterion, as the re-creation effectively amounts to contesting the proposed deletion. Such cases should be taken to Articles for deletion for discussion by the community.
Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned.
Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a disambig page that only points to a single article.
Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author.
Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article. This does not include subpages, nor archive pages, of unorphaned Talk pages.
It was deleted under CSD A7- "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Then for repost, which it shouldn't have been. Mak(talk)05:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy in to the quality thing. And thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Zos02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It stops vote stacking. If one person makes some good arguments for an articles deletion following wikipedia policy, and 10 users vote keep without giving any reason why it should be kept, the article is likely to be deleted. Some people just vote without even looking at the article or may get their friends to vote for the deltion or keep of their favourite article.Viridae02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Heres an interesting tid-bit. I personally know the user who created the article, and I'm voting for its deletion. By the way, I think hes on wiki-break. Zos02:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
surprised
Is there an issue about Freemasonry at the Golden Dawn page that I should know about? I will check it out and see. Thanks. Blueboar17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
well... I suppose I did single out OTO. But that was really only due to the fact that I happened to come across it first. Anyway, I checked it out... Yeah, I may want to simply pop my UGLE quote in there somewhere (probably after the reference to the Blue Lodge)... but I am not quite as concerned after reading the GD article as I was after reading the OTO article. One difference is that the GD article already makes it fairly clear that there are major differences between GD and Freemasonry. Reading this article I simply do not get the impression that the article is trying to imply a stronger connection than there is - that GD is in some way "Masonic." Perhaps it is that it doesn't keep repeating the line "similar to Freemasonry" the way the OTO article does. The repeated reference to "noted Grand Lodge Freemason Kenneth MacKenzie, author of The Royal Masonic Encyclopedia" needs to go... but that is because it is repeated in two adjoining sentences, not because of what it says.
I will pop over and suggest a few small edits once the page lock is removed... and I'll make sure to discuss them first :>) so no one gets upset. Blueboar18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. The only thing I did was cut and paste it to where I thought it should go. At that time, I actually had no sources for the article, or else I would have added to it. I now have a few small citations I may make in the future though. Zos17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Regardie
You sure about that? Some sources I've seen imply rather the opposite. "Dammit, I’m a Golden Dawn man and not a Thelemite, and I wish people would realize it."[2] Not a good source, but it does seem consistant with what I've heard and read of Regardie. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆05:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Its straight out of "What you should know about the Golden Dawn" (by Regardie). I believe this is the 6th edition and was previously published as My Rosicrucian Adventure. There are documents in the book giving evidence of Regardie being a member of the AA and the OTO. This is the only reason I added him as members of both of the articles (Argenteum Astrum and Ordo Templi Orientis). ::shrugs:: Zos05:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, that bio is copyrighted by Chic Cicero & Sandra Tabatha Cicero. In my opinion they are rejects, and I've heard they claim Golden Dawn status, yet regard Regardie as their source. To keep it short, Regardie was never a member of the Golden Dawn, but the Stella Matutina. And that order was B.S.! They changed a number of things and Regardie himself says it was a decaying order, hence his publishing of the Golden Dawn book, and then the Complete Golden Dawn system book. Zos05:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
To further my disgust, the Stella Matutina revisions were akin to Crowley running into the OTO main lodge and saying (figuratively speaking): "screw freemasonry, i'm re-writing these rituals. they wouldnt acknowledge me in freemasonry, i wont acknowledge them in my order!" feh. Zos05:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There is contradictory evidence on this, for example, here says "Israel Regardie didn't care that much about the 'Caliphate'. He was supportive and provided suggestions. McMurtry offered him the IX°, real and honorary and Regardie refused, saying he could do more good for them out of the Order than in the Order." and here, "Despite his association with, and admiration for, Aleister Crowley, Regardie never considered himself a Thelemite. It is telling that he joined an offshoot of the Golden Dawn in 1933, over thirty years after Crowley himself terminated his association with the G.D. In fact, Crowley was actively involved with the Ordo Templi Orientis during the 1920s and later, yet it appears that Regardie either had no interest, or Crowley did not invite him to participate therein." -999 (Talk) 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Him not concidering himself as a Thelemite and being a member are two different things here. There is documented proof of him claiming membership in both the AA and OTO, in his own books. His own printed books mind you, not web site sources. Either way, he was a known member and I added nothing more to the article other than him being a member at one point in time. Zos16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Then add a citation... I believe that if he was in the OTO, he was expelled by Crowley. He was never considered a member of the caliphate, and if he had been an active member in good standing under Germer, he would have been. -999 (Talk) 17:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not feel that there should be a citation for a known members section, but I have added a citation for both articles already. And when you are done disputing it, I will make a section or add to an already existing section on both articles, talking about Regardie as a member. Zos17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hiram Abiff
Regarding the article Hiram Abiff, don't you think it's long enough for the stub tag to be removed? haz(user talk)18:29, 27 June 2006
Nope. Most of the material on that article needs citations. There needs to be more information added before the stub can be removed. I'm not sure how many kilobytes is needed until it can be removed, but that standard size of an article is 32kb. Zos19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever?
Hey, have you ever just gone over to the current WP:AfD page and just voted in various AfDs that you have an opinion on? I highly recommend it. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff people post :-) —Hanuman Das02:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really. I havent had much time. I've been busy trying to add to some of the pages before they get deleted, but I will when I have more time. Zos02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Jesus. I just went through some of the AfD pages. Who would create so many idiotic articles? Zos03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
He he! I find it quite therapeutic to go vote on some AfDs when I'm frustrated with other editors. Gives me some time to cool off when someone seems to be working at crosspurposes with me. —Hanuman Das13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but I also feel kinda bad because some people work hard on these articles thinking everythings ok and then they wake up and Oh No! AfD. heh But others are just begging for deletion. Zos15:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article... care to have another look? Oh, and - good to see your work on Stella Matutina, too... if you have any info that could be added to the Whare Ra page, it would be welcome! Grutness...wha?04:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. I still feel it needs alot more work, but I changed my vote to keep. Looks notable and what not now.
Yeah the Stella Matutina articles is slim but getting there. And as for the Whare Ra article, I'm getting to that soon :) Zos15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I posted to the Whare Ra talk page. That whole article is cut and pasted from answers.com. Zos03:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't! Answers.com often gets its information from Wikipedia - have a look at the bottom of the answers.com page and you'll see that they say that the information on Whare Ra came from the Wikipedia article. Grutness...wha?06:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Some Helpful Advice
I STRONGLY suggest you change your username. "Maggot" can easily be mistaken for "Faggot" and that would cause much chaos hear on Wikipedia. You DONT want the Username police coming knocking on your "talk page" do you? NVid23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Please review my user page. I'm not changing my nickname, user name, or anything else. And your not the first. Thanks. Zos23:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No, thank you! You did the real work, I've just been trying to improve the details. And I already caught FFL's change and fixed it. Next time it'll be back to "much more controversial"... ---Baba Louis02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha. Yeah I noticed after I posted to your talk page. And no, thank you. If it wasnt for you fixing my grammatical errors, they would be spread throughout the article! I lack this skill :/ Zos02:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've started a new article on the Alpha et Omega which desperately needs to be expanded. I know you've got the sources, so if you could add a little history, it'd be appreciated by most. ---Baba Louis15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Because the new Order is not continuous with the old Order. They are not the same organization. The old orgs should have their own articles without the possibly spurious claims to continuity of the new org. The new orgs have slightly different names and dubious claims mostly only backed up by their web sites and should be kept separate for that reason. Basically, the new orgs did not exist until they incorporated or got a DBA or whatever registration process they used to make themselves a legitimate business. ---Baba Louis22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, another matter to consider is whether the modern order's article would survive an AfD. I have a feeling that sooner or later, all the modern order articles may get nominated. Either FFL and his bunch will nominate all except theirs and then JMax or 999 will nominate theirs in retaliation, or vice versa. I think it essential to make sure that the articles which deserve to stay do, and I count Ordo Stella Matutina among them. I think OSOGD is able to stand on its own now, but HOGD, Inc. might need some expansion. I see that Hanuman Das has already expanded the SRC+SA a little, but it could use more... ---Baba Louis23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not as concerned about the modern orders being deleted. They've been there for a bit now, and no one has bothered to find any book references for them. I myself cant seem to locate anything about them, so it will be difficult to obtain such. But then theres also deletion review and undelete, blah blah. Theres only so much info you can take from the main web sites. My main concerns are golden dawn bios, temples, and things that can be properly sourced and expanded. And AfD can go either way, if the voters are convinced that any of the pages are relevant. Zos01:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thelema
Hey, I know we've had our differences, and I apologize for any rudeness I may have directed toward you, but I see that you and Baba Louis have worked toward a better understanding of the reasons to keep the historical and modern offshoots of G.D. separate. You've done some great work while I've been busy with real life matters.
I was wondering what your take is on the recent changes made by Dan on the Thelema article. In my opinion, the article had previous achieved a nice balance between Rabelaisian and Crowleyan Thelema, and Dan's edits are detrimental to this balance and reflect the denial of the existence or validity of Rabelaisian Thelema promoted by a certain single Thelemic organization. What do you think? —Hanuman Das05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I try my best on the articles, and I'm not very good with grammar per say. With the articles name being Thelema, is should include anything germane to it of course. But we do need to get the editor who wrote that section and request a citation, since, the burden of proof lies with the contributor. Zos05:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there have been new additions to the article that demonstrate Zered Bassett's notability, perhaps you might want to change your vote? Dionyseus01:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I still don't feel its notable enough. If more sources are found to establish the articles notablility then I'll change my vote, but one citation in my opinion does not constitute notability. Zos02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
AfD
Please stop making comments about how to vote in AfD. I've been doing this for longer than you've been on WP. Some people assume that their nomination is a vote, some do not and add a separate vote line like I do explicitly mentioning my nom. Neither way is incorrect, so butt out. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
By simply placing Delete along side your nomination, you can save the space and time for nominating and voting on your own nom. Its helpful advice, and I won't stop giving it just because you disagree. Have a nice day :) SynergeticMaggot16:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I consider that uncivil, since I've explained my position and I prefer to do it the way I do it... -999 (Talk) 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to do what you like, as long as it doesnt conflict with policy. And as far as I can tell, I'm remaining civil. Editors agree to disagree all the time. SynergeticMaggot16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The act of continuing to comment on it on AfD's after we've had this discussion would be uncivil. Please refrain from doing so. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've made no further comments pertaining to the nomination you were referring to on WP:AfD. In an interest in fairness, I didn't get mad or upset because you striked out the comment (which was in no way uncivil in the first place), but I have let it go. So I'm asking you to please do the same, to end the matter. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then. Just FYI, the first line is supposed to be the reasons for nomination, not a vote. Some people just nominate but do not vote to delete. All votes are bulleted points, thus I am not voting twice. I am nominating once, and voting once. On occasion I nominate but do not vote. Please give the admins who process the AfDs credit for being able to count votes regardless of which variant of voting the nominator uses. If you look at any day's AfD page, you will see other Wikipedians doing it the way I do it. I don't see you commenting about it to them, so it seems you have singled me out for harassment, which is how I view your repeated comments on the matter. Perhaps I should bring up the topic of your Username/Signature mismatch everytime you comment on something? -999 (Talk) 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If I've given the impression that I singled you out, then I apologize. While strolling through AfD, I barely see other people doing the exact same thing you did, and if I did, I would have given the same advice. Maybe I confused my wording, but I'm very aware of nominations for deletion. It was in no way a matter of harassment, and I am again asking you nicely to let it go.
As for my signature, there is little room for comment. I've already stated on my userpage that its been changed, and I've only changed it once :) If you feel confused about it, please review my talk page history, as well as my user page info under the header "nickname". Thanks. SynergeticMaggot17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you fixed it! I didn't even notice. Drop. Roll. Clunk. Clunk. Clunk. (rolling down stairs). :p -999 (Talk) 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
RfC
Well, I think nothing will happen with it until he slips and breaks some rule such as 3RR or civility. Then the RfC can be brought up with the admin who responds. If it's a formal 3RR complaint it could be mentioned that there is an RfC to which the subject has not responded. I suspect that will count seriously against him wrt the length of a block... -999 (Talk) 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've only observed one other RfC, and nothing was ever done... but the result was that the subject realized that they had to play nicer and they allowed a neutral article to replace the biased promotional article they were trying to create and then simply faded away... That's about what I expect to happen in this case... -999 (Talk) 19:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I've checked out this one RfC (actually 4 I believe) on Tony Sideaway (sp?). Hes an admin that everyone loves to hate appearently. SynergeticMaggot19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if the references that I added to the High Zero discussion, and later to the article, help significantly with respect to notability. If so, could you lend your support? (is asking this appropriate in trying to establish consensus?) best, --Ravelite01:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
AfD closes
Hi,
After the five day period is over, non-admins may close AfDs ONLY IF 1.) The result is a unanimous or near-unanimous keep and 2) the closing user has not participated in the debate he closes. "Deletes" and "No consensus" closures must be left to admins. No one, even an admin, should close a debate he/she has been involved in. After closing, remove the AfD notice from the article, and post the result to the article's talk page. Why do you ask? Need a debate closed? Best wishes, Xoloz02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I was just wondering because I like to keep busy on Wikipedia. I'm also thinking about trying out for adminship. Thanks again for the advice. SynergeticMaggot02:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
*pokes nose in* It's a two edged-sword that one. I was known to close complicated (i.e. other than near-unanimous) nominations as a non-admin and got a little pat on the back now and then for having done so. Then I've seen people excoriated in their RfA for doing the same thing. Dive deep into Wikipedia:Deletion policy and read Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-Administrators_closing_discussions. *pokes nose back out*
Thanks for closing that one for me. I didn't realise it had been listed (edit conflict perhaps?) Anyway, thank you, you did fine. Mak(talk)05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have expanded the article somewhat. I would be grateful if you could have a look and see what you think. There are more sources available for further expansion if necessary. Capitalistroadster09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Re : AfD Logs
Yeah, when I just woke up, closed a few AfDs at 18 July (because I count by 120 hours rather than 5 days, AfDs list for 6 days to ensure the 120h treshold passes completely for all AfDs into the 5th day)...and then sensed something amiss. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) nominator's comment was around 19 July. Then when I counted the number of hours, it became even more amiss when 18 July was way short to the 120 hours' grace. =P
Mistakes do happen now and then in this aspect, so don't worry too much about this. I understand there will be occasional hiccups on updating WP:AfD/Old, since AllyUnion's AfD/VfD bot is 'dead', which these days in the era of automation we take reliability way too much for granted. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo09:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Michael Behe mediation
I'm afraid you're being used here; there's noting to mediate. ChulaOne (talk·contribs) has failed to discuss his edits at the article in any real depth, instead favoring edit warring and rushing to force his edits in through mediation since he's unable to make a cogent case on the talk page. There is broad consensus among 6-7 long-time contributors to this article, including a number of admins, that the edits sought by ChulaOne fall short in accuracy while violating violating WP:NPOV#Undue weight and thus have no place in the article. This article has been maintained for several years now by the same very knowledgeable editors and admins. So my suggestion to all parties is that ChulaOne learn to start abiding by consensus, become more knowledgeable/less POV on the topic, and stop edit warring, and Guettarda to not waste his time. FeloniousMonk19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Synergy/Archive 1, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!
Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.
The article you marked Jay Ryan was in request for more than two years. I can see why now. Four attempts at speedy deletion on a crappy subject. I don't even know who this Jay guys is..
meatclerk02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Certainly...looks like you set up a nice project. I don't "own" WikiProject Thelema, but I appreciate your asking. Good luck with it...I will probably join eventually... –Frater5(talk/con)13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wiki Project Occult
Well, then, okay. Please note that I currently only work on WP when I'm in the office, so won't usually reply on the weekends or evenings. I'm not sure what all a Wiki Project on the occult ought to include... I'm interested in Magick and Thelema and some other aspects of the Western Mystery Tradition, but not necessarily the occult in general... -999 (Talk) 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It would include anything related. There are seperate WikiProjects for things like spirituality of other things of that nature, so I wont be including new age or Sylvia Browne related nonsense. Just Occult related articles that wouldnt fall under Thelema. Things like occult orders/orgs, magic(k), writers, publishers, books, styles etc. Pretty much everything you already work on. The wikiproject is new to me too. I've still got to make a template, a talk box, fix my to do list, and overall, make the main page look like its worth something so others will join! SynergeticMaggot19:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello SM!
Sorry I didn't respond sooner - I've been "globe trotting" on business lately in Europe and sometimes net access is spotty.
So how goes it all? I don't think I can compose any new articles until I return to the USA in late August, but I'd certainly like to do an article on the Flying Rolls; there are some interesting historical quirks in their story, but I'd have to duplicate some old research and come up with the citations.
Actually, that is not exactly what I'm looking for. I reckon those are just a list of the existing templates/infoboxes. What I need is, I want to make a really new infobox, about guitar specification, like, type of wood, artist, company and stuff. So do you know where and how can I make my own new infobox to make a new project?
Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.
I'd have to say no. In my opinion, its an indiscriminate collection of information under WP:NOT, although the last time I tried that on AfD, it didnt go so well. They all complained because it wasnt listed under it, in the 11 filed. But I'm still looking for some guideline, even if its just proposed, because there isnt a need for it. SynergeticMaggot05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Would it be original research? Does this bibliography exist in some reputable source? Or is it simply the opinion of the editor(s) of the article that these books are related to the Da Vinci Code? —Hanuman Das05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Whadda you mean, "not copyrighted" - everything is copyrighted. A notice hasn't been required since 1985. Copyright automatically vests in the author at the moment of creation and only an explicit statement releasing the work into the public domain by the author can make it otherwise. Can you say "copyvio"? —Hanuman Das05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I checked the web site it was taken from, and there was no copyright on the bottom. I usually see this. Also, its more common sense for me to think that there is no copyright on a basic list of references an author used to create a fiction book. SynergeticMaggot05:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The lack of a notice means nothing. Its copyrighted. Any copying from a website is a copyvio, notice or no. As I said, the law does not require a notice. —Hanuman Das05:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, he called Mental Gender "occult cruft" for his whole argument.
cruft
/kruhft/ [very common; back-formation from crufty] 1. n.
An unpleasant substance. The dust that gathers under your bed is
cruft; the TMRC Dictionary correctly noted that attacking it with a
broom only produces more. 2. n. The results of shoddy construction.
3. vt. [from `hand cruft', pun on `hand craft'] To write assembler
code for something normally (and better) done by a compiler (see
hand-hacking). 4. n. Excess; superfluous junk; used esp. of
redundant or superseded code. 5. [University of Wisconsin] n. Cruft
is to hackers as gaggle is to geese; that is, at UW one properly
says "a cruft of hackers".
Cruft is a term used on AfD. I'm not sure what you should do. If you feel he is violating some policy then yes, report him to WP:ANI, although I'm not sure how he is violating civil. SynergeticMaggot18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
prod -> AfD
Well, I think maybe they could be cleaned up and retitled to redeem some of the content. I'm happy to see what happens and what other editors have to say. If they're still mostly OR in a week or two, maybe I'll AfD them. If you feel more strongly about it than I do, feel free to AfD them yourself. Now, Mental Gender, on the other hand, is clearly hopeless. -999 (Talk) 19:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If that was the case then you should have just tagged it for cleanup, expand, wikify or something related. A prod is to discuss the deletion. SynergeticMaggot19:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, because I do think they should be deleted, but am happy to have another editor disagree and remove the tag. I see other editors are looking into it and in one case have removed the tag and in others have added additional tags. I think its better to get more opinions but not a strict survey like AfD. It's working out about the way I expected... I like it. It's a good alternative to AfD, a bit softer, doesn't take up space and multiple editor's time like AfD does... -999 (Talk) 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but it doesnt always work out. Seeing as how the one that was removed, the reasoning behind it was that it was forked. Yet NOR is policy. So simply saying its forked, wouldnt override polciy in my opinion. SynergeticMaggot19:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Which basically means that they're asking for it to be AfDed. However, since K.V. is already accusing me of a vendetta, I'll let someone else do it :-)... -999 (Talk) 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll do it at about 8pm my time, which usually means its a fresh day for AfD. I should be the one to do it anyway, since I added the prod2. SynergeticMaggot19:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I see Hanuman Das beat you to it. Oh, and thanks for the note about WP:AN. Waste of everybodies time if you ask me. Why is it that some editors don't seem to be willing to admit that they might be wrong when half-a-dozen independant editors have pretty much the same opinion of the work or sources or policy or whatnot? -999 (Talk) 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Articles Feedback
Thank you for your feedback and I've read it sooo many times. After I read the links you gave me, WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC and WP:NOR , I reckon that the main issue here is citation, where did I get the info from. As I always did, I put the sources on external links. The problem is, its in Indonesian, as probably you wouldn't understand, so how to solve this problem?
Yeah see, if someone sees just a bunch of external links they still wont call it sourced. Try locating anything english pertaining to the artilcle you speak of. Also, if its a person or company/corp or related, you can use that persons main website to cite biographical content. SynergeticMaggot10:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
But the problem is, I don't use any english language source as the source of information. Only the Dewa Budjana article has the information from his website (on the external links), but I will make the sources part.
One more thing I've done the wikipediholic test :) (what a long test), how can I post the template/userbox with my score? I've tried it but my it says my score is one, actully I scored 2100something. Or is it probably because I did it with the automatic version? Thanks - Imoeng11:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoa! Wheres the english on that website? You might want to change that. Other than that you seem to have grasped the idea of citation usage, epecially with the mutiple sytle. Looks good, but english references are needed for english encyclopedias, sorry :/ SynergeticMaggot12:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Barnstar
Hey, thanks for the barnstar! I'd award you one too, but then K.V. would accuse us of being in a cabal. Maybe later... -999 (Talk) 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right. He's not nearly as bad as FFL was. At least KV is trying to improve WP...he just sometimes goes about it in a less than optimal manner. Though I guess that could be said about me too. :-) -999 (Talk) 14:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There are currently challenges made by the same three people, all of whom will recieve this message, on Thoth, Hermeticism, Hermetism, Cult of Hermes, Mental Gender, and Hermeticism and other thought systems all at the same time. Some people actually work for a living and have a life outside of Wikipedia. If you want to make challenges, you are free to do so. But when you know that they are all against the same person, have a little bit of courtesy and challenge them one or two at a time, and allow appropriate time for someone to actually do something about it. I am not a superhuman, and blitzkrieging me with all these challenges at once is unrealistic and shady. Try to have some patience and actually make it possible for me to work with you rather than trying to send me on the defensive and effectively make me leave Wikipedia. If this continues, I will have to make this an issue through RfC, Administrator's noticeboard, or Arbitration Committee. Try to use your time actually find sources to contradict mine if you feel that you have too much free time to wait around for me to be able to act on any given article.
I was under the impression that there were more editors of these articles. There is no personal challenge so please do not take it as such. We are helping to improve the article. If you do not have the time to edit Wikipedia, then wait until you do have time. If you feel the need to aquire an RfC, then by all means. And if you wish to bring this to ArbCom, I will be glad to participate. No worries. SynergeticMaggot16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Requests for Support
I happened to look at your contributions (when I get bored, I sometimes look at the contribs of users who most recently edited pages on my watchlist, because their contributions are likely to lead to something I care about) and saw a handful of request for support in a particular discussion, of which this is one example [4]. Requesting support in a discussion is poor form, as per WP:SPAM. Better form is to ask people that would be interested for their opinion. GRBerry17:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there Maggot! I posted to a few well-known WPSS talk pages (Alai & Grutness come to mind) asking for comment. I hope that isn't bad form. Thanks for your support work! ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hermeticism pages
If I had more time I would contribute more, but I should be working. The most glaring issue in all of the pages is that clear distinctions are not made between Hermeticism in historical periods and places, and little effort is made to distinguish modern Hermeticism from historical. The second issue is the POV pushing by practitioners and the anti-Christian rhetoric. I'm a scholar of ancient philosophy, particularly late antiquity. I never heard of the Kybalion - then I find it was written in the 20th century. The average person will think it's an ancient hermetic text such as found in the Corpus Hermeticum. Zeusnoos17:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny. The Kybalion was the first book I read dealing with Hermeticism. I only took the book to be a rehash, expansion or clarification of old. I'll move on the talk page for changes to be made. Although I wasnt asking for you to contribute to the article, but lend your knowledge on the talk page. Either way, thanks for stopping by :) SynergeticMaggot17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Red links
SM, typically one does not delete red links on WP, unless they occur because of a deletion. See Wikipedia:Red link. Red links are one way of knowing what articles are most wanted. -999 (Talk) 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, you know what the admin response is likely to be (I've seen it before) - content dispute, see WP:DR, take it to moderation or ArbCom, BUT GET IT OFF THIS PAGE!!! I'm not even going to bother to reply. It's just a waste of the admins' time. Next he'll be claming me and 999 are your sockpuppets. (It'd have to be that way since he knows you in real life. Sorry chum). —Hanuman Das02:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Theres no way. I make too many typos. Plus theres a checkuser if sockpuppet is claimed. He'd have no evidence of it anyway. :) SynergeticMaggot02:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, all your typos and grammatical errors are intentional so that you can them clean them up with your socks. I find socks great for cleaning up spills and other accidents. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
p-fffft SynergeticMaggot16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Stub-sorting Barnstar
I would like to lend support for a Stub-sorting Barnstar but I did not see any mentions of it on the page that you linked to on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24fan24 (talk • contribs)
For future reference, all New York State route articles are deemed stubs unless they contain the following sections: "Route description", "Towns along the route", "Major intersections" and "References". --TMFT - C07:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For future reference, state policy or guideline. Its a matter of opinion what a stub is, and is not. Looked like it wasnt a stub to me, so it was removed. SynergeticMaggot07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This goes beyond project standards; this is a matter of encyclopedic (in other words, textual) content. NY 5, when compared to an article such as NY 104 or even NY 153, currently pales in comparison. Personally, I don't consider a lengthy junction table for a route 370-ish miles in length indicative of the length or content value of the article. That's just my view. --TMFT - C07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your view. You are more than welcome to re-add the stub tag, although you might want to think more along the lines of adding an expand template instead. Happy editing :) SynergeticMaggot07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Offending personal information
Sorry, but you shouldn't worry about it, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Circumstance only.KV(Talk) 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not ashamed of you putting my personal information on WP:AN. There is a valid reason why I am unemployed, I just moved from Mi, to Pa, and back to Mi. And I'm here to take care of my mother during surgery. You're lucky I don't hold grudges, or else I would have posted you still live with your mother and have never lived on your own. SynergeticMaggot17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid this kind of personal information posting. Seriously; we really want to avoid even speculation about the identities of editors. As far as the fuss at WP:AN, I'd also like to encourage you not to use automated tools in content disputes. Regardless, I don't think that there is any administrator action needed; this should be de-escalated through discussion, not through enforcement of policy. WP:RFC is a more suitable venue for getting more community input on the dispute. Jkelly19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. An RfC was already tried on at least on of the articles already, after a prod to AfD process was being followed. SynergeticMaggot20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you can get away with it, yes. :-) I'd redirect that incovenient red link to it, though. I remember moving a page, I think it was Nuit to Nut (goddess) or maybe Nuit (Thelema) to Nuit, one of the two, and then discovering just how many links and/or double redirects I had to fix!! Oh my! -999 (Talk) 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Your question asked "who 'convinced' you" that that article wasn't OR. The question is poorly worded. You may have forgotten that I had previously responded to the RFC on that article. In both an RFC and AFD context, I expect anyone who shows up to do their own research. So I looked at the article, and the talk page (both times) and didn't find evidence that it is OR. You are encouraged to read my response on the AFD as saying that you and the others saying that it is OR have not been persuasive; that is very much why I emphasized the wording "no reason to believe that it is original research".
I read the policy at WP:NOR to have two primary rules. First, the material added to Wikipedia must not be unpublished. The number of citations and references, plus WP:AGF make me believe that the material is previously published. If you were working through this discussion with KV slowly, over a few weeks, testing each item that you object to one by one the WP:AGF portion of that conclusion would be either proven or overcome by the evidence. Second, it must not be a new synthesis to make a point. I can't see what point the article is making, so I can't see how it falls afoul of this rule.
If you want to give me reason to believe that it is OR, you'll have to make clear which of the rules you think it is breaking. If it is the making a point rule, what is the point the article is making? If it is the unpublished material rule, you need to spend more time discussing exactly what is unpublished. GRBerry03:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I already did this on the talk page. But since you asked, I will do just that. Give me a few minutes or so and I will write it all up. SynergeticMaggot03:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Re double redirects: as far as I know the double redirects are being handled by someone with a bot now. I haven't done a double redirect cleanup project in quite some time; none of the ones listed are active. Triddle02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Question about stubsensor
To tell you the truth, SynergeticMaggot, I just found the section in the Stubsensor project, and assumed that they were not stubs. I looked over them and found that basically all of them had a short paragraph, yet had a wealth of information in lists or tables. To me, this seems like a pretty good reason to remove the stub tag. However, if you or anyone else finds a good reason to put the tag back on, be my guest. (One thing, I believe List of communities in Quebec is not a stub, because it is essentially what the title says.) As for removing known stubs from the list, i may not be the best person to ask. I believe the home page for this project says to just ignore these (which is what you did). You probably have more experience on this part than I did. Perhaps, though, I should be more cautious about such changes in the future.
Thanks for the contact --Canadian Joeldude05:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Hermetic alchemy
Yeah, it's pretty bad too. My inclination is to wait until the current AfDs finish before doing anything about it, though. —Hanuman Das14:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Do come by and voice your opinion when you have a chance. Paul Stone seems to be threatening a revert war over stating the Crowley taught sexual magic before Samael Aun Weor did... After making the claim that Weor was the first to do so in the 1950s... —Hanuman Das20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. This bit, "Crowley released most often", reminded me of something I've heard, which is that if the Doctrine of Signatures is true, then the structure and method of the OTO should resemble its secret. That being the case, the secret must be "withhold it as long as you can." —Hanuman Das22:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. Never read it (Doc of Signatures). Altough the true secrets of the OTO are not really sexual in nature I don't think. I envy 999 for having a copy of Francis X. KingsSecret Rituals of the OTO. I'm waiting for a copy to show up on ebay or amazon under used because that book is not cheap. Who wrote the doc of sig's? SynergeticMaggot23:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Not a book, but an occult principle, the doctrine of signatures. Silly of me not to have linked to it in the first place, this being WP and all. I understand that used copies of King's Secret Rituals book go for $400 to $500 or so. Maybe you could get 999 to photocopy it for you? —Hanuman Das01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I should give you a Barnstar for humour I'm laughing so hard. I doubt he'd do it, hes a busy guy from what I can tell, but then again I'd want my own copy. But I'll check the link. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Reignyday
keeps think ing that I am Qho while I am not I Like to Sighn my comment s wit his name.
He gave me permison pesronaly by letter. go ask him and he will agree-GeorgeeBoy --70.233.181.3600:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Reinyday thinks that since I signed my comment using Qhos tag. It means that I am him.
Any way I am Close friends with User:Qho. As I said Ask him and find out your-self. Any way User:Reinyday keeps readding that dumb comment on the talk page. Yes I did put down Something Stupid as a Practical joke. but i did that under the IP name. Not Qhos.
--70.233.181.3601:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Ouch. But thats one way to clear it up. At the time I didnt even know what was going on, and I figured if the user was having that much of a problem, they should inform an admin. I never thought they would actually take it to WP:AN if in fact they really were doing as you say. But now that they did, it would be much easier to file a case, with them starting it out for you. Yet I'll offer an apology though. Sorry. SynergeticMaggot10:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. I do appreciate it. And thank you for your efforts to be helpful to other users. — Reinyday, 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Clearing something up
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced by the answers you give. My point about the change of signature was that you'd had several reasonable requests to change it since it clearly was confusing people. You replied: "Well once I decide I'm ready for such a task as adminship or mediation cabal or anything of the like, I'll change it". If there's nothing wrong with it why would you change it? The only reason I could see would be because J.S. had just told you it can count against you on an RfA. In other words you'd change it to avoid critisism on an RfA but not because it was confusing other editors in your regular editing. You're correct about it being in May though - sorry for getting that wrong.
Personally I find WP:BIO to be very clear. It has specific criteria that can be easily applied to any article. The issue is that you were suggesting you could ignore all the guidelines if you want, since they are not policy. While its true that guidelines are intended to carry less weight than policies they are still important parts of what define Wikipedia. As an admin you would be expected to stay within the guidelines and use the tools to enforce the guidelines as appropriate. I remain concerned that you do not understand this or are not willing to follow it. This does not give me confidence that you will use the tools well.
The final episode is the most worrying. I agree that it is not okay for anyone to post personal information about other editors. In fact this is a pretty serious issue. Even if another editor released information about you, that does not give you the right to do the same back to them.
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this further, but I'm afraid I cannot change my opinion on the AfD yet. Sorry, Gwernol11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
With your permission, and per my suggestion on the RfA, I'd like to copy this conversation to the RfA's talk page as I believe it would be useeful for other editors to see it there. Best, Gwernol11:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Permission granted, although I'd like to say, I dont wish this to sway anyones decision. I believe in fairness and balance only (NPOV is more like it). I don't mind that others oppose my RfA, I just dont want any confusion as to why they oppose. They are more experienced than I (I hope :p ), for determining who gets the mop. :) SynergeticMaggot12:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Its closed now. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. And one more thing, I'm not an admin. If you were refering to the template above, thats a request for adminship. I havent been accepted as an admin yet, but I like to do admin type things on Wikipedia. Have a nice day, and drop by anytime if you see another speedy keep for me :) SynergeticMaggot18:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am behind a NAT server at my employer here which handles a couple thousand people, I think. So my IP address will match some other users. But I'm pretty sure you don't live or work where I do, so let 'er rip, I say... -999 (Talk) 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You really are getting a roasting! You seem to be taking it quite well, so keep it up. It's good that your addressing any issues now so they dont hinder any of your future RfAs. If your feeling a bit tense read WP:COOL, that's what I do anyway. :) --Andeh07:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact SynergeticMaggot to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Synergy/Archive 1. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I'm sorry to see that you had a tougher-than-usual time at your RfA, didn't expect it to turn out like this. I hope that you're feeling well right now despite all these. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo17:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:CaGuJung.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CaGuJung.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I disagree with the decision to fragment the Necromancy articles (Necromancy, Necromancy (Fiction), Necromancy in popular culture), but either way, strongly feel that the latter two should be combined. I am cleaning/structuring the articles at the moment, but I would like you to consider merging the two (and possibly trying to make them less of lists and more of an analysis.) 66.229.160.9405:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by to address the issue with me first. The issue at that time, was that the fiction section was a bit long. It still seems kinda long to merge it back. I don't mind merging the fiction and pop culture back, but not to the main one. SynergeticMaggot05:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
IRC
Hi, the HTTP server on Zedler (the toolserver) is currently dead, so toolserver tools like Bjelleklang's pjirc won't work. You can try using a normal IRC client, or finding one on the web. Cheers, Tangotango03:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Recent response to ZIP codes
I'm new to the website so how will I know if any of my contributions have been nominated for an AfD? -- Goosar19 (talk·contribs)
Told you so...
Sorry the RFA isn't going so well. :( I think a lot of that oppose would dry up in a month or two. Let me know when your next RFA comes up. (assuming this one ends in fail/no-consensus) ---J.S (t|c) 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Given your action concerning the Barbara Schwarz case, I assume you're an admin. Concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas, it seems the subject of the article has intervened at length in the AfD discussion. I am not sure just how permissible this is, or if the huge speeches he's inserterd are regarded disruptive, but I guess somebody with the powers ought to look into it. --Svartalf08:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
your RfA
Hi SM - with respect, it doesn't look like your RfA will attain consensus. Permit me to suggest that you withdraw your nom and return in the near future, say 3 months. If you chose to keep fighting, you of course have my support. You'll make a great admin, so don't worry about a thing. Cheers, Rama's arrow17:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No sir, it is only the privilege of others to support you and seek to make you an admin. Just don't let this flag your spirits. Wish you all the best, and do lemme know if I can ever be of assistance. Rama's arrow21:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I just knew someone was going to say something about this. :) The only reason I put the tag on the article was because I was removing about 3 stubs, plus there was a comment above, and I was not sure if someone was going to disaprove of me removing all three stubs. So I replaced it with the expand tag, to show that if whoever put all those stub tags on felt it still needed expansion, then the expand tag was the way to go. Seeing as how its not a stub. I'm supposed to file a request before placing a tag on an article? SynergeticMaggot06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. But this particular tag says that that either on the talk page or on Wikipedia:Requests for expansion it gives details of what expansion has been requested. If there's no note in either place, then the tag isn't much use. Almost any article could be expanded, so if it isn't tied to a reasonably specific request, it really doesn't communicate much. - Jmabel | Talk06:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux20:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, sorry to hear about the outcome, hopefully you'll be able to make it the next time round! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo08:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, SynergeticMaggot. Of course I still design userpages, and I'd be more than happy to help out with yours! :) What details or type of layout do you have in mind? Cheers, Sango12322:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
How does it look now? :D Before I create subpages for each section, feel free to change anything or come to me with complaints. ;) I hope you like your new userpage as much as I had fun designing it! Cheers, Sango12317:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the barnstar, SynergeticMaggot! :D I've split your userpage into the following subpages:
P.S. Sorry, but I couldn't find an appropriate place for the "This page designed was by Sango123" comment you asked me to add. I'll leave its inclusion up to you, and again, enjoy your new userpage!
Yikes. I wouldnt know how to put anything into the templates. But I will try, as you deserve to be recognized for your work on userpages. :) SynergeticMaggot18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
We've awarded you this PARC research star in recognition for your contribution to research about conflict in Wikipedia. Thank you for your help!!! --Parc wiki researcher20:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Please let me know the next time you submit your RfA - based on what I see, I'll support you. I'm sorry I missed my opportunity this time. Brian22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)btball
I see your RfA has ended, I'm guessing the result wasn't much of a shock to you. But from all the advise/criticism/pointers given, you should be able to make yourself a "can't believe he's not an admin already! user ;).--Andeh00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Uhh, I meant you can respond to the things given in your RfA so they aren't reasons to oppose any future RfA of yours. Where'd you get the idea of making a sock come from!?--Andeh00:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, from this part of your comment: you should be able to make yourself a can't believe he's not an admin already! user. Which is why I asked for clarification. SynergeticMaggot00:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks...
I'm still super confused about what that guy thought was a personal attack. And why do people hate maggots so much? They are super important to the ecosystem! People just hate the non fuzzy animals. The ugly ones don't get the respect they deserve. Good luck on your next RFA, I'll be keeping watch for it! ---J.S (t|c) 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I didnt understand that either. Stubbleboy was confused in thinking I was attacking him/her. I've been in much worse debates, and I never brought up "dont bite the newcommer" (I'm still new too!). That was kinda weak. SynergeticMaggot22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi SynergeticMaggot, when you come across pages that are _already done_, then subst them. That's why they're in the list, cuz they're not subst'd. Subst'ing is the correct way to do it, so please either add the box using the {{afdoldfull}} template, or subst it. There are some times where you'll look and it's already subst'd, that's fine. Most likely just a bug. Thanks for helping out on Wikiproject AfD Closing. --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D00:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your support vote on my request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future! —Mets501 (talk)03:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential!
What's New?
In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs.
To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed!
The In development section of the proposals page has been created.
Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created.
Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter.
Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Kenneth Grant
If you don't have Kenneth Grant on your watchlist, could you add it? I just rewrote the whole thing and expect it to be attacked from multiple directions :-) -999 (Talk) 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sex magic
An article that needs some real work is Sex magic, especially the section titled Aleister Crowley, which should be trashed and started over. Unfortunately, I'm not comfortable bringing my reference works on the topic to work :-( Any help you could bring to the article would be appreciated... -999 (Talk) 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope this is not a breach of etiquette, and if so, I apologize. I appreciate your comment and realize that I may not have done much actual editing of articles, but I have been very active on the talk pages on several articles, as well as user talk pages, attempting to reach consensus before supplying edits. Often times another user will make the agreeable edits. I hope that this doesn't hurt my chance to become an admin. Ramsquire23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I assume that to withdraw, I just have to delete the entry from the RfA page. I must admit that I am very disappointed though. I didn't realize that quantity would matter so much more than quality. Oh well, I'll try again in a few months, maybe. Ramsquire23:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I am a bit disappointed that this was closed early. This is not an article, and not a good list. It satisfies the criterion for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A3, but I won't tag it as such because I am not a complete bastard. If people can't even write a one-line introduction, they shouldn't submit work in progress to article space at all. Thank you, Kusma(討論)09:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You can go ahead and do what you like, overturn by all means. I felt it was time to close it, so I did. It doesnt meet CSD#A3 by the way, or else it would have been deleted already, obviously. While there is very little content, it doesnt mean there is no content whatsoever. SynergeticMaggot09:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Any article consisting only of links elsewhere" well that's what it is, an A3 (and possibly an A1 as the list is pretty incomprehensible and doesn't have any obvious ordering that would put the links into context). No text at all (not a single sentence), only links. Not all speediable articles get deleted, as you see here. I don't think that having the word "list" in the title automatically disqualifies an article from deletion by A3. Kusma(討論)09:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
To continue ranting, I actually don't want this article deleted, I only want to use the threat of deletion to force somebody to write an introduction by August 20, but people in this AfD don't seem to realize that {{subst:afd}} is (among other things) the more efficient version of {{cleanup}}... Happy editing, Kusma(討論)10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Not all editors will agree with that. I dont really think the article is needed personally, but I didnt use a pov to close, only what I saw from the discussion. CSD#A3 isnt 100% clear, I had thought it meant the "what links here". I'd also like to note that the AfD was in fact too fast, at 3 seconds after the page was created. Not enough time to tell in my opinion. Should have been prodded first. And CSD#A1 wouldnt hold up either per the second sentence Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. And everyone was calling for expansion. You have your intro now also. SynergeticMaggot10:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, three seconds is too fast. I wish people would do new page patrol by checking the oldest of the newest 500 pages first, not the most recent ones - those only need to be monitored for attack pages, everything else should wait. Thanks for adding the intro; the list is IMHO still useless, but I will shut up now. Happy editing, Kusma(討論)10:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
AfD closing
Hi, I've noticed you've closed a lot of AfDs recently. Can you just be sure that, in the event you're closing AfDs early, they actually meet the speedy keep criteria? Otherwise, we shouldn't be closing them early. Thanks! --badlydrawnjefftalk11:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Which AfD's are you talking about? I'm not stranger to closing them, so if you are taking an issue over one of the ones I've closed in the last 12 hours or so, you should really let me know which ones you're referring to. As far as I recall, I closed a few SNOW AfD's, withdraw of noms, and maybe one or two speedy keeps. SynergeticMaggot17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't keep track of 'em all, but pretty much none of the ones that you speedy kept met the criteria, and you shouldn't be closing anything per WP:SNOW. --badlydrawnjefftalk21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I asked, which one are you referring to? The majority were kept as Keep, not speedy keep. And there were good reasons to keep, so if you disagree, relist. SynergeticMaggot00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'd appreciate it if you didnt tell me what I should or shouldnt be doing. It was my call, and if I'm wrong, an admin will address the matter to me, and overturn. Regards. SynergeticMaggot00:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I'll be glad to tell you if you're doing things incorrectly, and I'd expect the same from you. As for the ones you've closed incorrectly recently, they're here, here, here, here, and here. And those are just the ones I've found right now. Please be aware of it. --badlydrawnjefftalk01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No, they were done incorrectly. None of them met a single speedy keep criteria, and yet you closed them ahead of time. I even recall seeing one this morning that you closed multiple days ahead of time, even though it lacked a speedy keep rationale. Please be aware of this. --badlydrawnjefftalk03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not really sure what the overall issue is here still, but the diffs he gave were, as far as I can tell, closed after 4 days, with no valid reason to delete.
Badlydrawnjeff: If you notice on all of the closes, they are closed as Keep, not as speedy keep. Others, like myself, close these obvious keeps because there is no sense in letting them drag on. Admins have enough to do, like closing AfD's that are controversial and complex. Just out of curiosity, how many AfD's have you closed? SynergeticMaggot04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You closed them early. They provided no evidence as to why they should be closed early, and they're supposed to go 5 days if they don't meet a speedy criteria. I don't think non-admins should be closing AfDs, so I don't close them, but you're not doing much in the way of being constructive when you close them early. Here, I found two more from my observations today: here, and here. These didn't even go for a day! Please stop closing AfDs early, or consider not closing them at all. --badlydrawnjefftalk11:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a problem here either. I believe it is normal to close AfDs in which there is a supermajority of keep votes quickly. I don't see why it matters whether it's done by an admin or non-admin. I do tend to have concerns about non-admins attempting to tell other editors what to do, though... —Hanuman Das13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't see the problem with it. It isn't normal given the deletion policy. If you have concerns with me pointing out these problems, though, by all means let me know. I can't in good conscience stop, however, because it's important that we follow the general processes when it comes to these issues. --badlydrawnjefftalk13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing your opinions to me. I will take notice before closing another AfD. Although, I will continue to close them by my usual method. I hope this satisfies you. Regards. SynergeticMaggot20:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
