User talk:Synergy: Difference between revisions

Don't bring that up

Please don't bring up anything to do with anything over on the Simple English Wikipedia. Thanks, Razorflame 15:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ghost

Thought you may want to add 2c worth (or more) - I had a hankering to spruce up ghost in the manner of vampire, which occupied me for much of 2007. There is lots of fun and games on the talk page about merging various articles like wraith and shade (mythology) which are sort of syonymous outside of roleplaying games, and also how much weight to give paranormal investigations etc. Have fun. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're always there when I need you Cas... or wait, thats the other way around. :) I'll take a look soon, I'm going to be off for the night soon. 2:30pm my time is when I should be home from work. Synergy 02:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, see you in an hour...oh wait, that's in Sydney time... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Present time is 9:46pm. I have work at 4am :) Oh and, that talk page is a mess. Tony's there, you, and nothing is accomplished yet. This should work out in the end, hopefully. Synergy 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No fear. Talk page is a barrel of laughs XD. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Chemical postevolution

Hi, I agree with the outcome of the discussion as "keep", but I am puzzled by "speedy keep", because I don't see how it was necessary. Are you aware of the traditional semantics of that result, as defined in WP:Guide to deletion#Shorthands, which is not the same as the one in WP:Glossary#S? There seems to be a real chance of offending some of the "older" nominators. I think you should at least add a rationale, to make it clear you don't intend the traditional (bad faith etc.) meaning. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No a problem at all. Under the first bullet point at wikipedia SK is says that No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. In this case, the nom struck through the delete comment and replaced it with Merge to Total synthesis. Now, if a discussion begins on the talk page to merge, then thats fine. But AFD is not the place to discuss merges. Hope that helps. Synergy 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Hermetica

Are you going to fihish Portal:Hermetica? Its only 25% comeplete and the last edit was 5 moths ago- if it is not to be comepleted, it should go into the waistbin. Resident Mario (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Synergy 00:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaww that was a shame; neato idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That portal is limited in scope. I created it for another user who went on a semi, to permanent wikibreak. Synergy 20:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Portal:Hermetica

A tag has been placed on Portal:Hermetica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section P2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a portal based on a topic for which there is no non-stub header article, and there are not at least three non-stub articles detailing subject matter that would be appropriate to discuss under the title of that portal.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Portal:Hermetica|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Synergy 00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about the early closure of afds

Hello, I noticed you have recently closed AfD debate(s) early and would like to direct you to a discussion currently in progress at the administrators noticeboard here relevent to the early closures of AfDs. Thankyou and happy editing! Sorry if you are already aware of this discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Synergy 03:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you, so much, for the nomination on my RFA, that passed today. I will do my absolute best to live up to the incredible trust you've given me. rootology (C)(T) 07:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FakeAccount Sockpuppets

FakeAccount119 did edit Spotsylvania High School with a vandalism edit -- the account was blocked. In fact all three accounts have been blocked. The sock puppet report is basically a request to see if these accounts were created from the same IP, and if so, maybe prevent account creation from that IP. --Tckma (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you double check the accounts that were listed, 119 was not registered. I've added the right account to the list, that shows the account that made the edit, and was blocked. Synergy 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cookingapples

Hi, could you have a look at the sockpuppet template that you put on this talk page? Something seems to be amiss (Cookingapples cannot be a sockpuppet of cookingapples....) Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping that template linked to the spi case (which is what we should be using). I've changed it to the old one for the time being. Thanks for the heads up. Synergy 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Synergy. You have new messages at Mayalld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mayalld (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AC/N

Hi. I assume this was an accident? I have replaced Coren's comment as I edit-conflicted with you as I tried to reply to it. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how that happened. I must have hit it by accident from my watchlist. Thanks. Synergy 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did it earlier this week -- "rollback" had gone onto a new line and was directly under "diff". Maybe that was it? [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It could have been. I at least know that I wasn't reading that particular page. Synergy 20:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Delayed SPI

There are some uncertainties about the results, and I have contacted ArbCom as to what results, if any, should be posted. For the time being, the investigation remains, unfortunately, in progress. As soon as some resolution is decided upon, the report will be updated. Sorry that I cannot be more specific. -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Archives

Continued from my Talk page: I find this truly bizarre. It seems the "case" was created today and "archived" today. why, then, does it have a section for "Comments by accused parties"? If you are saying that that section is not to be edited by the "accused parties", then what on earth is its purpose? An answer would be appreciated. Xn4 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)