User talk:Synergy/Archive 2

Thanks for the revert
Hi, thanks for reverting the culture of greece article to correct edit, best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.237.95 (talk • contribs)
 * Not a problem. SynergeticMaggot 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent AfD withdraw
You beat me too it :) SynergeticMaggot 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, edit conflicts! Where would we be without them, eh?  (aeropagitica)   (talk) 

Hermeticism
Hi there, I have restored the article and moved it to User:SynergeticMaggot/Hermeticism and other thought systems. I will leave the rest to you. See you around, Rje 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 23:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wangi/RFA
Thanks for your support on my RfA. Give me shout if I can be of help. Thanks/wangi 00:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Colsing AfDs after nomination withdrawal
Out of curiosity, where's the appropriate template for that kind of thing? I was hunting for it the other day on that Azeri-wedding-dance business but couldn't find the code. BigHaz 01:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Special delivery
Hello SynergeticMaggot. I have placed a backup of the page you requested at User:SynergeticMaggot/sandbox. Please feel free to move this somewhere else if you would like. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! SynergeticMaggot 02:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete a page
Please delete Requests for adminship/Patchouli. I wish to start anew.--Patchouli 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please ask for the deletion of Requests for adminship/PATCHOULI now.--Patchouli 09:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean the one with the CAPITALS that I move to the deleted page.--Patchouli 09:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay; I withdraw.--Patchouli 09:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Croft No. 5
In response to your concerns about Croft No. 5, I added a link to the band's listing at the Danish folk festival where Croft No. 5 will be performing later this month. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It still doesnt pass for notability. I wont witdraw if thats what you're hoping. SynergeticMaggot 19:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Boston, Ontario
Sorry SMaggot for this late reply. Yes, i did. Please close it. -- Szvest 15:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Note that there are other delete votes, so this can't be closed early. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you think its not a speedy keep this time? Try rereading Speedy keep. If nom withdraws, its all over, no matter how many delete's there are. SynergeticMaggot 19:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding this AfD (Boston, Ontario). Thanks for your efforts, but its closed as speedy keep. I'm very capable of closing by myself, without any comments as to how it can or cannot be closed. For the last time, please let it be. SynergeticMaggot 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it meets no speedy keep criteria. If the nom withdraws and there are no other delete votes, it can be speedy kwept.  I wish speedy keep said what you erroneously think it says, but at the moment, I'll ask you to reopen it and let it run its course, or I'll be forced to take it to DRV.  I'll again request you stop closing AfDs as well, because you too often close them incorrectly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, all you have to do is actually read it. Its under A1 of Speedy keep. Here, let me reproduce it for you:


 * No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination...
 * Happy now? SynergeticMaggot 21:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, so it wasn't speedy keep eligible, as others recommend deletion. Thus, speedy keep = incorrect.  By all means, go to speedy keep and recomend changing it, I'll be right there with you but I've been blocked on the attempts in the past, but as it stands... --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually pretty sick of you questioning me. Please find an admin and have him/her intervene. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 21:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Gladly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have you know though, I've already spoken to two admins already on the matter, and both have said they would have closed it as keep. So I'm not at all concerned with it. I lighten the load for the admins on AfD, and I'm happy to do it. My closes reflect admin-like judgment, and I've only been questioned once concerning my closes. Good luck. SynergeticMaggot
 * I don't care if it's closed as keep, I do expect the process to be played out in full. Your close does not reflect admin-like judgement, as an admin-like judgement would not be done out of process like this in almost all cases.  You seem to misunderstand the problem, and thus are unable to provide the solution, and I'm not sure how else to make it clear to you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not really your place to tell me how to do something I'm already used to doing. You seem to have little understanding in the way things work on Wikipedia. Any Xfd can be closed early, if its warrented. I can use WP:SNOW, WP:IAR, or just not leave a reason if its common sense. For you to bother me with it for days is borderline harassment. SynergeticMaggot 03:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's anyone's "place" to do so or not. You seem to lack understanding of the deletion policy and of how articles for deletion, along with speedy keep, are designed to work.  I'll freely point that out to you if you continue to do it wrongly.  Since you're being unnecessarily hostile to me again on it, and since this one's at DRV now, we can consider this done unless you choose to reverse your mistake.  Until then... --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll stand my ground, thanks. SynergeticMaggot 03:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer you to do the right thing, but if that's how it has to be... --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thought you were gonna leave this up to deletion review? SynergeticMaggot 03:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am. What's up? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Boston, Ontario redux
Hi SynergisticMaggot, just wanted to weigh in on this. I had closed this AfD a few hours before you did, for the same reasons as your own. I was asked by badlydrawnjeff to re-open, and I did: in my opinion, any time anyone asks for process to be completed on guideline closures (such as Speedy Keep), I think it's fair to complete the process. This isn't a commentary on your choice to close this (which followed my own thinking on this AfD), but is more out of respect for anyone who wants discussion to continue to completion. As such, I'm re-opening the above. As an aside, many thanks for helping with AfD, as you've helped us quite a bit with the backload. Cheers -- Samir  धर्म 05:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's fair. I'll put a new AfD on today's log. -- Samir   धर्म 05:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. No hardships. And sorry to have overturned your reopen in the first place :) SynergeticMaggot 05:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC
If you're here - your assistance is needed on #wikivoter if you can give it. Thanks M  a  rtinp23  20:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris Facts
Hello again. Why was this closed early? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * S.M., if I were you, I'd file a complaint for harassment. I've been watching this. If you file a user conduct RfC, I'll sign it. &mdash;Hanuman Das 01:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Too soon, but thanks. I've been following RfC's and nothing really comes of it. The best I can do is ignore him. With twelve keep votes and not one delete vote, thats an obvious keep :) SynergeticMaggot 01:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse
Take a look at this activity. Now, some of it may be justified, and I tried to inform Rosencomet about WP:BIO, but this reaction seems a bit overkill. I've fixed the articles that are clear keeps and/or did have sources or references, but I'd appreciate if you'd look through the mess to make sure I didn't miss something that I just don't know the importance of... &mdash;Hanuman Das 01:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks ok from just eye balling it. If he has that much of a strong opinion on all of those, he can bring them to AfD. I'll look more closely at it in a minute. I just posted to WP:ANI about Badlydrawnjeff. SynergeticMaggot 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is an overkill. Some of those arent adverts. I'll go over them in a little bit, I'm partially busy right now, and might not respond that fast. SynergeticMaggot 02:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see H.D. has already made you aware of this. Mattisse finally went and AfDed one. Perhaps you could vote/comment? Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber. This guy's probably borderline, but wouldn't hurt to keep the article if it discourages further vendetta attacks against pagan writers. -999 (Talk) 20:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying
Not sure where I was supposed to post it, you cleared out your page into an archive too fast for me to use that section to respond.....

But yes, I do want them wikified so I can work on them.

KV(Talk) 11:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoth in Hermeticism
Did you actually remove the fact that Thoth plays a large role in Hermeticism as OR?

KV(Talk) 11:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keeps
Closing something as a speedy keep really should be reserved for when there is obvious unanimity and where the AFD discussion is actually counterproductive. Remember: "Speedy" processes are for where a decision can be reliably made by just one, or two, people. We don't entrust decisions about notability, verifiability, and original research to just one or two people, for the simple reason that one or two pairs of eyes is not enough. Editors can miss things that other editors can find. There was disagreement at Articles for deletion/Boston, Ontario over the notability and verifiability of the place, and editors were doing research and discussing. There was no unanimity, and no reason to close the discussion early. Also remember: The original point of "speedy keep" was to quickly deal with AFD nominations that were made in bad faith, in order to disrupt. It didn't come about as a mechanism for curtailing good faith discussion. If you wish to help closing administrators, a far better way to do so is not to look for discussions to close early, but to provide detailed, well-researched, rationales for either keeping or deleting an article. It helps a closing administrator more to see a detailed argument based upon our policies and guidelines that has clearly been well researched than to see rationales such as "delete for good". Rationales are more important than the raw "keep"s and "delete"s. Closing administrators read all of the arguments and decide based upon our policies and guidelines. It is therefore a boon to them to see a good rationale. It doesn't help them at all to have rationales that are basically argument-free. See also AfD Patrol. Uncle G 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not further debate the Boston, Ontario AfD. Being the middle closer and having two others agree is enough for me. As far my "delete for good" comment...
 * I usually offer a multitude of reasons on AfD, it just so happened that you found one where I had nothing to say and I felt like being sarcastic. If you'll noticed, the user before me said "Delete for now..." and my response was "Delete for good." The main issue of the AfD was that it failed WP:BIO. Frankly, there was nothing really else I could say because I agreed. I usually say either "per nom" if nom has covered it, or "per above" if the discussion has covered the issue. Theres not really a need to say "Fails BIO" or "Well I think..blah blah BIO..." when others are already saying it. Good reasons are given when there are bad ones, not simple obvious ones. SynergeticMaggot 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Taking of blessed hat of neutrality. Hey, here's the short on sweet on this whole thing:
 * Conflict resolution
 * It's a good thing to have made attempts to get a third party involved here. The adminstrator's notice board is a common first stop, but it's a poor choice.  Try droppping a note on someone uninvolved's talk page asking them to look it over next time.
 * When things heat up, going slower is usually better. Only even look at the page in question once a day.
 * Try as much as possible to contain problems, not spread them. This may mean not commenting on some things, or commenting only in a careful and dispassionate manner.  But sprawling multi-page arguments do no one any good.
 * Accept all criticism gracefully, no matter how misguided or wrong-headed that you think it is. You'll be judged on this more than anything else in most cases.  even if you're right.
 * Early closes
 * There's no question that you're doing yeoman service, and your effort is appreciated. However...
 * In most cases, an early close doesn't save any effort. It also increases the signal-to-noise ratio and makes it harder to detect bad closes.
 * Closing 23 hours early is an easy mistake to make, done it myself many times. Use the old afd list to avoid it.
 * Even in "unambigious" or "unanimous" discussions, the closer needs to do a lot more than count !votes. Consensus cannot override verification, for instance.  Be more aware of this and consider avoiding these in deference to more experianced closers.
 * The most important part of the close is not adding a template, but the words that you put after it.  Put some effort into them.
 * There's a lot more than a person's recommended daily intake of advice there, but it's all pretty uncontroversial. I'm always happy to talk about closing deletion discussions in greater detail, too.  A good excercise might be if you see an interesting one, drop a note on my talk saying how you would close it if you were an admin, and we can compare notes.
 * Sorry this didn't work out,
 * brenneman color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 23:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Antoine Idji Kolawolé
Technically you can't close that as nom withdrawn because there is still one delete (Daniel Case). However, I believe his reasoning is conditional, and warrents an exception. Good day! Computerjoe 's talk 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right. I should have just said keep instead. SynergeticMaggot 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Award
Barnstars aren't cool, so I'm giving you something different for an ability to keep your cool! --Doc 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your note. I've left a response on my talk page. -MrFizyx 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw. Not a problem. SynergeticMaggot 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A final thing about this
Listen, you're officially on my last nerve now. If you're going to go around and taunt me like your most recent comment at the PROD WikiProject (which you only would have found by following me, from the looks of things), I will be forced to escalate this further. I've tried reasoning with you, and you were hostile. We tried the mediation, and you went and spoiled it. Is that what you want? It's like you're trying for it on purpose. I don't want to, but I don't want to be provoked by you any longer either. Back away from me and don't do anything else out of line, and I guarantee you won't hear from me directly again. If you're going to keep this up, though, I will request actual, serious intervention. This is my final statement on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hows it feel? You've been on my case for days because I close AfD's in a way that seemingly only you disagree with. With the arbitration case: that was an honest mistake which I removed and apologized for. You bring all of this on yourself and I do not pity you in the slightest. Best wishes, and I still suggest that you take Yanksox's suggestion to go on a semi or small wikibreak to cool down. For all of us. SynergeticMaggot 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How's it feel? Yuo did multiple things wrong, and I've done nothing wrong.  Now quit it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon me butting in, but looking over the total amount of obsessive energy (i.e. your contribs) you've put into this, my recommendation is that you need to step away from your computer for a few days, badlydrawnjeff. Yes, you have done something wrong, you've been harassing someone. &mdash;Hanuman Das 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only one Hanuman, so far as I can tell, he was on someone else as well. I believe it was Doc glasgow. But now he claims his issues go back even further than that so who knows. SynergeticMaggot 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Haumann, you'd be incorrect. Thanks for the input, though.  The inability to do actual editing during the day leaves me with more time to deal with this nonsense.  The problem, which you fail to see, isn't me.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Banning
They really need to add a feature which enables one to ban people from one's talk page :-) &mdash;Hanuman Das 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The best they came up with was page protects, and user ban/blocks :) SynergeticMaggot 01:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it'd suck to have a fully protected talk page. :p &mdash;Hanuman Das 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt mind. I could just use yours :p SynergeticMaggot 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I noticed you removed the stubs from Cem Kaner. Given that this means I effectively took an article from zero to non-stub solo, I wanted to thank you for the vote of confidence, compliment, or whatever. And to think, I'd never heard of the guy until an hour before I started writing. ;-) --KGF0 ( T | C ) 08:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. SynergeticMaggot 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Antoine Idji Kolawolé
Daniel Case did not change his vote. This is not a speedy keep. Please read the guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally valid speedy keep, and AfD is not a vote. No reason at all to wait for an admin in a clear case like this (nomination for lack of sources, sources are provided => keep). Kusma (討論) 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. Please read the speedy keep guidelines.  I'm aware he knows when it's proper - see his close for Loni Sanders - they're not the same.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case did not ask for the article to be deleted in any case, only if the claims were not supported by sources. It was sourced, so there was no longer a valid delete vote. Speedy keep per guideline. Kusma (討論) 11:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So you know that Case was a-okay with what was presented? I sure don't, and I don't think anyone should be speaking for him.  It was improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I don't see any point in anybody besides Daniel Case protesting this AfD closure. Kusma (討論) 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Very clear speedy keep. Sources were provided, overriding the only objection, the nominator withdrew. Simple. --kingboyk 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're speaking for Daniel Case now? Even if you are, you didn't speak up for him there, it's a moot point.  Why are you defending this?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Final statement?. Ha! Obsessive-compulsive is more like it. I think you've been asked to drop it several times. If the people you're harassing don't open a user-conduct AfD, maybe I will. You crossed the line between trying to be helpful and being a DICK some time ago... You say I don't get it? Well, I do. And it doesn't justify what you're doing. &mdash;Hanuman Das 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comment here suggests you, indeed, do not get it. This has nothing to do with you, and I have no clue who you are or where you came from, so perhaps you should uninvolve yourself.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I changed the first AfD to keep instead of speedy, since he didnt change to keep (just for you), yet his opinion to delete was based on if the article can be verified. It had been, and the nom withdrew. Which means his decision to delete was a conditional delete until conditions were met, and they were. SynergeticMaggot 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've said my piece on the matter. Thanks for your continued attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

your state of not panicking
Wasn't saying you were, just trying to lighten the mood a bit...glad to see it worked. -- nae'blis 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * :p SynergeticMaggot 18:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Something for you
Since you love removing anything that isn't fully 100% cited, I thought you might want to see this new addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%C3%A0t#Origin_of_name

KV(Talk) 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If that was the case then I'd remove half of the article. I moved the Origin of the name to the top, whether its the etymology or not, and also a tag. I think this gift is reminiscent of Thoth, which is very differnt from Maat. Thoth had more citations. SynergeticMaggot 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

random help from someone who knows more than I
It seems to be that this new category duplicates folks this category  or is just plain pointless for lumping people from many different time periods together in one category. The category deletion policy is beyond my comprehension, so I thought I'd ask for help in figuring out whether or not it should be nominated to be deleted. Desertsky85451 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it should be nominated for deletion, so long as its an actual duplicate. If everyone list in one category, is listed in the other, then theres really only need for one category. I'll look more closely at the two, who made them, and look for a reason that both should exist. SynergeticMaggot 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it! Desertsky85451 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Which of those points am I proving on the link you sent?
If you mean following Wikipedia policy is proving a point? Well, yeah, I do support Wikipedia's policies. That's true. GBYork 18:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I linked it for you to review. State your point; don't prove it experimentally. You had already tagged the article as uncited, theres really no need to do the same to the talk pages. SynergeticMaggot 18:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry
Yeah, all those subcats look extreme. I'd probably leave American and British and maybe ever French Freemasons, but let the supercat catch the rest... -999 (Talk) 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GIen's RfA: Thank you!
'''PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)'''

Zos my good man, got a few things to tell you mate!! All good! :) See you on IRC, and thanks so ,much for the support mate - GI e n 05:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hermeticism and Ancient Egypt
Looks like K.V. is looking for a fight: Talk:Hermeticism and Category_talk:Hermeticism. &mdash;Hanuman Das 18:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Teke's RfA thanks
Thank you for your support of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke ( talk ) 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

List of beat 'em ups undeletion request
I have nominated List of beat 'em ups to be undeleted, under the reasoning that it is not redundant to the category; it contains many games which are not covered by the category, and may never be able to be covered by it. In addition, the list can do more than the category. It can put date, developer, release date, system, et al., useful especially for articles that would be difficult to create an article for. I hope that you will vote on this and hopefully support its undeletion, on the basis that it does something that makes it not redundant to the category. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dattatreya
Could you add to your watchlist? We've got a "add a tiny bit of scripture with my personal interpretation thereof and call it cited" kind of guy, User:Green23. &mdash;Hanuman Das 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

 * I'm loving your userpage. Come back soon...alpha Chimp  laudare 01:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tattva
Do you have any knowledge of the tattvas in the western tradition? Or eastern for that matter, though I have that covered. The article that used to be there appears to have been a copyvio. Although there is a note claiming to have permission on the talk page, the article copied was completely unsuitable for WP, full of POV and original research, so I've started the article over. Check the old article for some possible references. I should probably move them to the talk page, but don't have time right now... &mdash;Hanuman Das 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey!
What's happened to you? Long time no see. Let me know when you return. &mdash;Hanuman Das 05:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Kybalion
Hi Zos. Tell me a little more about the Kybalion. Is it worth reading? I'm half way through the Hermetica now. Extraordinary stuff and amazing how its influence has been so suppressed in the study of science and literature now. Had I been given it to read when I was at university a great deal more work would have made sense. But then that would be too much like giving credence to it, wouldn't it? I suppose what I want to know is is the Kybalion genuinely related or were the Three Initiates doing the common thing of linking it with Hermes T so as to give it added credibility? Look forward to hearing from you. ThePeg 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oaths in Freemasonry
New article recently created that may be of interest to you, if you get back. The usual suspects, etc. &mdash;Hanuman Das 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter
NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

Help out now!
We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.
 * Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
 * Give people the Civility Barnstar.
 * Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
 * Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
 * Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

Decision Making
The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian ¹³  /t  20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot.

Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Signs of life
Are you coming back? You have been missed. A lot of things have happened. Hanuman Das has retired from editing. Long story. Ping me when you really return. -999 (Talk) 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual Humanism Afd update
I appreciated your vote on Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism (second nomination). Meanwhile, as original nominator, I think the situation has sufficiently changed to appeal once more to your interest. Kind Regards. — SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 04:15 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hanuman Das
You probably know he left WP back in December. Now he has been accused of being a sockpuppet of Ekajati. There's a thread on WP:ANI. Search for "Starwood". I've pointed out some discrepancies, I don't think they are the same user, regardless of whether Ekajati had other socks. 999 (Talk) 07:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA! It succeeded, and I now have The Tools – which I'm planning to use as wisely as I possibly can. I hope I will be worth your confidence. Thanks again! :-) –m y s i d ☎ 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

H. Das reply== ==

Well, I'm more concerned with the living at this point, i.e. Ekajati. Blnguyen claims they had no overlapping edits and bases his assessment on the improbablity of this, but I found three examples of overlapping edits within a few minutes of looking for them! Something fishy here. 999 (Talk) 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Howdy
Hey! lots of work has been done with counter spam efforts. If you do ever get a chance to stop by check out #wikipedia-spam-t. Hope to see you around, and glad that you are back! (nice userpage) Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 20:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin McGartland
This article has been considerably expanded since you commented in the AfD. Maybe you could take another look at it. Tyrenius 04:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship, take two?
I am curious to know if you are interested in having another go at requests for adminship. I was scanning the "Administrator hopefuls" category and your name came up as one I recognized. I have not finished reviewing your contributions yet, but what I see so far looks promising. Of course if you're not interested any longer, that is your prerogative.. please let me know here or on my talk page when you get a chance. -- nae'blis 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on that redlink, or let me know if your activity level changes. -- nae'blis 16:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Thelema
Please note that Portal:Thelema and its subpages, which you created, are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Thelema, the rationale being lack of activity. You may wish to comment on the MfD. Awyong J. M. Salleh 01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Hi, SynergeticMaggot, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored at the trust the community has placed in me and hope my conduct as an administrator will justify that trust. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 09:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template
Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the Category redirect template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)



Grrrlriot (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.