User talk:Synergy/Archive 4

This is largely bullsh*t - forget it

Take a break, hell, take a long break if you want. But then come back and keep doing that voodoo that you do so well. Hardworking, highly visible, helpful, polite, friendly and enthusiastic editors should stay the hell away from RfA - it's too soul destroying. RfA seems to be kind only to new relative unknowns and odd niche editors who lurk in the bowels of the 'pedia like me. Now on to more important things - how DARE you arrange a DYK co-writing cabal without inviting ME! Dammit DYK's are fun, we can co-write dozens together if you like. Now cheer up, take the missus out for a nice meal (and several bottles of wine) and forget this weird (and often dysfunctional) place for a while. BUT when you come back, look me up and we'll find a bunch of strange little SE Asian articles to put on the front page. Stay very well and remember that your work here IS deeply appreciated. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My break is over. Synergy 23:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA

As one of those who encouraged you to run again, I'm mortified that some extremely unfair and unfounded criticism of you has caused you to pull out of the RFA when you still had a fair chance of passing, and (apparently) to step away from the project completely. E-mail me! Mayalld (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As one of those who opposed the RFA, I'm surprised and disappointed by this turn of events as well. Not least because the RFA was passing - if you'd left it open just a day longer, it probably would have succeeded. But also because, as it turns out, at least some of my criticisms weren't valid. I'm somewhat regretting my oppose vote, particularly if it's what drove you to withdraw. I'm not sure I wanted that RFA to fail at all, and I certainly didn't want you to stop editing altogether! I encourage you to return to active editing soon and run again for RFA as soon as possible (say, in three months or so) - for what it's worth, you'll have my support next time. Robofish (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He'll be back dont worry :). He just needs time to withdraw and get it out of his system. Though I am a bit disappointed that he withdrew while he still had a chance to succeed. He probably feared that the thing might snowball. Taking tips from McCain probably didnt help either. Also, it is probably a good thing that he is spending time off wiki with real people. Hey Synergy, enjoy your wikibreak. You'll have my support with edit #6666 the next time you run (if you promise to let it go the distance.) Lucifer (Talk) 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for George W. Barrett

On April 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George W. Barrett, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 13:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK possibilites

Damn you drink fast! We have several options for DYK material:

1. From time to time I like to check out this [1]. Anything under or close to 300 bytes is gravy for turning into DYK worthy material as a 5X expansion (5 X 300 = 1500, the DYK minimum). The advantage is you can pick something that sounds interesting to research online.
2. Good old Alexbot is also helpful for finding DYK material. Checkout User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult for ideas. Some articles will only need some tidying up (move refs inline, infobox, cats, formatting) and a little extra prose (something interesting) to make the grade and include a good DYK hook.
3. I'm working on an insane project to get all these List of Cambodian districts and sections expanded to start class and on the front page as DYKs. So far I'm up to Kampong Chhnang Province. I have paper sources for all the demographic, transport and geography stuff and can do that easily. See Kampong Chhnang District for an example of a completed article and Tuek Phos District for an example of one I haven't expanded yet. For each district, I try to come up with some interesting fact specific to the district from online sources - this makes a change from all the boring demo/geo stuff. This is often a pain for me to research. If you fancy hunting through Google to find sources and then writing an interesting paragraph about the district, I'll do the rest and we can share the nom. We can then pull something out of the interesting paragraph for the DYK hook. The next few districts that I'll be working on are Rolea B'ier District, Sameakki Mean Chey District and Tuek Phos District. See any of the district articles linked from Kampong Cham Province or Banteay Meanchey Province for examples of DYK hook worthy paragraphs.
4. If you want us to write some new articles instead there are plenty of Cambodian articles still to write. For example, Template:National parks of Cambodia has 13 redlinks at the moment (as long as Blofeld leaves them alone!). I put Ang Trapaing Thmor on the front page recently - have a look at that. It still needs some work (but got over 5000 views on DYK!) There are lots of international sources online for national parks. Commons also has lots of great animal pics to make the article pretty on the front page.
   

Right, that little lot should keep you busy for a while. Let me know what you'd like to do. I'm extending the offer to anyone else who visits Syn's page and feels like collaborating on an article for DYK (or GA) - just contact me and let me know the article you'd like to work on and I'll do my best to help. Of course if 20 editors contact me, I'm well and truly stuffed :) Good to have you back. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Blpwatch

Hello. Is your removal of {{Blpwatch}} from dozens of articles supported by consensus? If so, perhaps you could link to it in your edit summaries as "remove" is not very descriptive. If not, perhaps you could stop and discuss this somewhere. Best wishes, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here regarding the same issue. I have reverted your edit to Sarah Palin, but I see that you emptied the category and had it speedied. I'd like to know why, and I plan to ask the deleting admin if he was aware of what was going on. Horologium (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The category comes from a dead project. There is no reason to have these templates on BLP articles. Why are they there? Synergy 21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Synergy's in the right here; this is the tag from a defunct proposal. – iridescent 21:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I would just ask for a little more clarity in the edit summaries :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll make it clearer next time. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Synergy 21:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have apologized over at Julian Colton's page, but I will reiterate the apology here. I over-reacted (badly) due to the particular article on which I encountered the removal; the article is under ArbCom editing restrictions, and I thought the category was related to the arbitration. Horologium (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You have no need to apologize. It was my edit summaries that threw up the red flag. Its just faster and easier to type "remove" 31 times. :) What alarmed me much more was the objection to deletion. I assumed it would be uncontroversial because this category would not be repopulated in a 4 days period, so waiting 4 days seemed redundant. But I'm fine with the wait. Synergy 21:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Synergy's Day!

Synergy has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Synergy's Day! For being an excellent editor and hand at WP:SPI, and being helpful all across WMF (including your great admin work at SEWP), enjoy being the star of the day, dear Synergy! Signed, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

Thank you. Synergy 00:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lake Manzala

On April 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lake Manzala, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Right then!

Today or tomorrow (OK maybe even the next day!) I want to get Sameakki Mean Chey and Tuek Phos into the DYK suggestion queue. If you feel like doing some ref hunting, both articles need an interesting paragraph that we can plunder for a catchy DYK hook. Here's a list of some of the hooks I've used for ideas User:Paxse/Sandbox1. I started the Sameakki Mean Chey expansion on the 18th and I'll start Tuek Phos today (19th) so the DYK clock is ticking. If you don't think you'll get to either of those in time, let me know and I'll come up with something. I think today I'll also start Boeng Tonle Chhmar to begin filling out the National Parks and Reserves template. If you feel like helping out, Google either "Boeng Tonle Chhmar" or "Boeng Chhmar" for sources. I think we could do a decent start article with a structure like 1 Lead, 2 Location and access, 3 History, 4 Mammals, 5 Birds. But I'm open to ideas for structure. There are three stunning pictures of the Brahminy Kite on commons [2], [3], [4] that we could use for a lead image and the DYK hook. Let me know which one you prefer or if you have another idea. This .pdf [5] is a good place to start for info and has a list of species found in the reserve in the appendices. Have fun! I'll be logged in to #wikipedia-en-accounts for the next ten hours or so if you want to discuss any of this. I'm planning a long wiki day before I have to go back to work tomorrow <groan>. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sameakki Mean Chey and Tuek Phos are expanded and ready for you - add a funky para, make a hook and list em at DYK. Boeng Tonle Chhmar is started and ready for some more text - whatever you like! Cheers, Paxse (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Please see the category description pages for Category:Unknown births, Category:Unknown deaths, Category:Year of birth unknown, and Category:Year of death unknown before adding any articles to these categories. They have a fairly specific meaning that isn't obvious from their titles. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop/Ncmvocalist-PD

I did want to make some more proposals, but I don't have enough time to get through them - so unless I make a note to the contrary, you can assume I'm done. As there are some new proposals & comments (in principles, findings, remedies and enforcement), you may wish to make your views known - similarly, you might also wish to revisit your previous comments. If that can be done in the next 2-3 days, that would be great. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Spray-on condom

Should be pretty much ready for DYK (no pun intended). Feel free to look it over and nom it when you get the chance. I will be leaving soon, but back around 6:30, so in case we don't cross paths on IRC feel free to go ahead. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just remembered that we need a hook. How about "... that the Spray-on condom was invented by Jan Vinzenz Krause?" Short and sweet. Do you want to write stub for Krause, or leave him unlinked? — Jake Wartenberg 19:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that's not particularly interesting in my opinion. What about: "DYK... that during testing for spray-on condoms, hesitant men were unwilling to insert their penis into the device, opting to test it on their finger instead?" It's a bit graphic, but hey. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with the cotton on this one. Lucifer (Talk) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Regarding your recent edit here, I would like to ask why you changed that redirect. User:Admin redirects to User:Jimbo Wales, so what's the problem with having User:Administrator redirect there? -- IRP ☎ 00:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it should link anywhere, but linking it to an informative article in the project namespace just makes more sense. Why did you link it to Jimbo? If a new editor follows the link they will be confused (very confused). I think the other one should link to the same place. Synergy 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just don't understand why you changed User:Administrator but do not seem to object to the redirect on User:Admin. -- IRP ☎ 00:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know about it until you told me. I also did specifically object to the redirect on User:Admin. I just can't be bothered to change it right now. I'm just more interested in the article I'm writing to bother changing it. Synergy 00:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I told you about it in my first post, and was wondering why you didn't change User:Admin when you replied. So I'll change User:Admin and User:Administator (superficial difference in spelling) to keep it consistent with your change to User:Administrator. -- IRP ☎ 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Happy editing. Best. Synergy 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fools DYK

I think you guys should hold your Spray on Condom for the 2010 April Fools---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha. It would be stale by then... (no pun intended). :) Synergy 22:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it would get a bit uncomfortable to wait that long? Durova^Charge! 22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

... ! Majorly talk 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If your Conan lasts for more than 10 months, please consult your doctor. Lucifer (Talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fools is the one day where the 5 day limit is overlooked...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but for 11 and half months? ^_^ Synergy 17:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

SPI Yourname

OK so now what do we do here? Just keep getting vandalized and blocking? Chillum has had to semi his/her user_talk, luckily the troll doesn't like me as much. So basically he just gets blocked on sight? Not disagreeing, just not sure what's next. StarM 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You never specified what you wanted out of a check. Everyone is already blocked, so there was no reason to run one. Do you suspect the initial account has sleepers? So yes, anything that moves like this user will be blocked on site hopefully. But I'm not under the impression he is still able to. Synergy 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nakon went and ACB blocked them. I'm almost positive there are sleepers, this guy has not stopped. Does ACB prevent him from IP hopping and continuing to do this? As his "first" account (User:YOurname), I was allbut certain he was someone's sock anyway due to his initial CSDs - what got him on my radar. He was blocked for incivility once and since then has returned as little more than a troll. He's a fan of putting shit related images (most now deleted) on user pages and appears to be here for no good StarM 01:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that "he is a sock"? His account goes back to 2005. If you wish to request CU again, I will have no problem. You'll just need to wait until another clerk reviews it. I'll abstain from anymore action on the case, and reverse my suggestive closure. Synergy 01:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

99.9% positive he is, I've seen the "bad typing" and poor CSDs that fit the pattern, Chillum, DGG and I User_talk:DGG#Yourname were discussing this and whether it was possible to more easily track. I could be wrong, but spidey sense going off. Just saw your self -revert. Like I said, I had no problem with your close, I just don't know what else can come of it. If they're all proxies then we can't prove they're the same, but the patterns of edits match. Guess socks can't be ferreted out then either. As you can tell, I don't work much in SPIs. Thanks StarM 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue here, is that we don't bother to run checks to prove an account or ip is a match, when its already blocked as a match, if you follow. This was why I declined. If all accounts are already blocked, we call it a closed case unless there is suspicion to think otherwise. If you wouldn't mind providing more evidence, I might be able to endorse (given its accurate and justifiable). However, you can still ask a CU to run a check without an endorsement, privately or on their talk page. Synergy 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a matter of miscommunication. I would like to add I also suspect this user may have more than one account, and while familiar with proxies may have made a mistake and linked his accounts. Chillum 02:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you add this to the case page please? Synergy 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Synergy, Chillum can you show this. You understand the technical stuff far more than I do. I'm about to sign off for the night but will check in in the morning. Syn, don't wan to overrule clerk - it's what you guys are there to do - I just wanted to learn for the future so I know what to do in a situation like this should it happen again. Oh and thanks for cleaning my e/c double post - I e/ced with you there as well StarM 02:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I have to log off for the night. I'll be back in 7-9 hours. :) Synergy 02:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to help any admin interested in helping out at SPI. Just say the word. Synergy 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Four sights

Hi, Synergy! I've just expanded the Four sights article, and noticed you had done quite a bit the previous day. Sorry if I butted in when you were developing it, but I noticed only after I finished. Anyway I have added you as an expander to the DYK nom for this article. Chamal ^talk 10:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I and another editor were supposed to be bringing this up for DY also, for the birthday DYK section. I distracted him with Alice Allison Dunnigan which went much faster. ^_^ Its great that others are helping for this occasion. :) Synergy 12:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Synergy/Archive 4's Day!

User:Synergy/Archive 4 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Synergy/Archive 4's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Synergy/Archive 4! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Synergy 01:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Must have been the wrong person. Congrats Synergy! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Run a check on this fellow above me, I think its Poet.... Synergy 02:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Four sights

On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Four sights, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Julie Wainwright

On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Julie Wainwright, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dharma combat

On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dharma combat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to take a bet on this one breaking 5000 hits? Btw The Five Houses of Chan is a redlink, as is the master of the fifth school Fayan Wenyi and his particular school of Zen Fayan School. In fact at least two of the schools and their masters are missing articles. Feel like working on a multiple DYK? Paxse (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Let me see if the sources are available after I get off work. Synergy 10:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

6.8K views in a few hours - see here a fine effort :) Paxse (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mpress1

Hey, I was writing this comment before the case was archived:

 Administrator note Looking throught the deleted contribs of Marinapress (talk · contribs) shows that the user originally created the article Michael Velliquette which was speedily deleted. It was then recreated by Mpress1 (talk · contribs), and then another speedy was declined. Not serious abuse, I'll let another admin decide what action this warrants.

The abuse was minimal, however, and I don't really think any action was necessary, so no harm in archiving. – Toon^(talk) 23:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I left it open (spiclose is a suggestion, and I leave it for an admin to archive usually) as I can't see deleted diffs, but thanks! Synergy 23:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

50 DYK Medal

Hi Synergy, many thanks for the 50 DYK Medal and the compliments. Kind regards. --Bruce1ee^talk 08:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Did you know...

Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing a lot of nominations at the DYK suggestions page. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! As you know, you don't need to be an administrator to review hooks or to move hooks to Next update, so your help is more than welcome.

You may already be familiar with the DYK rules by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the official rules and the Additional Rules. You may also want to look into some useful tools that can allow you to review nominations more quickly: the Cut & Paste character counter is a helpful JavaScript to calculate the length of hooks, and User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js is a script you can install on your own Wikipedia account for more heavy-duty article length calculating.

The best way to learn is by doing, but here is also a quick reference of the things to check for each hook you review:

Quick Reference Is the hook under 200 characters? Was the article written or expanded within the past 5 days? Is it over 1500 characters long? If it's an expanded article, is the expansion at least 5x? Does the article have an inline citation for the fact? If there's an image, is it free to use? Is the hook interesting? Are there any other miscellaneous problems with the article? Useful Links DYK suggestions DYK discussion Next Update DYK templates

Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at DYK, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at DYK. Now get to reviewing some noms! Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

O.O Synergy 17:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please revert archival

Please revert the archival you did here, as it was not found whether the user was a sockpuppet or not. True, the user was blocked, but they just smell too much like a sock, and if the user had indeed been a sock, further actions need to be taken.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I too am asking that you revert the archival. The information about whether the user is a sockpuppet has not been revealed yet. So I agree with Daedalus969. —Mythdon t/c 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As am I. Please revert the archival, the case was incomplete. Xclamation point 03:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fourthed. This case can definitely use some more investigation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

My opinion, is that more people are interested in seeing Dougstech be checked, than providing a sound reason to run one. Just let it be, its been declined by a CU anyway. 14:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. DougsTech has, up till now, been the only one with this opinion.
2. The accused sock is providing a ton of support for DT, a usual activity of socks.
3. MOU and DT have been tag-teaming times between contribs, switching between one account and another account.
4. MOU appears to have paid close attention to WT:RFA, which very few editors read when they get started.

There's your sound reason. Xclamation point 16:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So now you know better than the CU's? Why do you insist on this? Discussing this with me, will get you nowhere. I will not be reverting myself, so you can take this to a wider discussion area if you feel it needs to be looked into further. I have no need or concern for drama. End of discussion. Synergy 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A check user was done on DT before Synergy archived. The Checkuser came back negative. See User_talk:DougsTech#Sockpupet_investigation---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mibbit

I've finished the rewrite for Mibbit. Could you take a look at it? --Tothwolf (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Its much better than the original, and should be fine for DYK. Prior diff looks like it was 343, and you've expanded to more than enough. Whats left is the most interesting sentence/topic in the article. Synergy 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer

The ManueversGold case has had difficulty apparently determining who the "master" sockpuppeteer was. Would there be any purpose to tagging the pages of the sock accounts with a sock template, and, if so, is there any particular preference which name should be indicated as the master sockpuppeteer? John Carter (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking into this for the last day, and I'm still not sure. I'll try to make some sense with these interlinked cases soon. Synergy 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Amalia Mesa-Bains

On May 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amalia Mesa-Bains, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Nice one Syn! Paxse (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Spray-on condom

On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spray-on condom, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Alice Allison Dunnigan

On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alice Allison Dunnigan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Cor, that was quick. Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rigoberto Torres

On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rigoberto Torres, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Firehose instability

Synergy: I like your revised hook! Hope you can make this into a DYK. David R Merritt (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Phillip Santos

On May 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Phillip Santos, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Awadewit (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Your Message

Hi Synergy, I've left you a reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes at WP:BN

Hey, just a quick note to say thanks for your kind words at WP:BN. I really appreciate your comments in light of our past disagreements. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. `Synergy 00:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thank You

My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Whay did you block all my hookah accounts?

I am not mad at you, I am just very shocked and confused as they were never used.

--114.76.218.60 (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI closing

Hey, I have a quick question for you. I was wondering why you placed a hold on the SPI case here. Is there something that still needs to be done? Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 02:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on Dom's comment, its now merged to wp:spi/the cheapo. Synergy 11:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the article on Harvey A. Carr

Many thanks for starting the article on Harvey A. Carr. The other day, I made a request for an article on Harvey A. Carr at Wikipedia: Requests for New Articles: Biographies (I do not remember the full text for that title!) and I see there is one there already. Brilliant! Thank you again for your help, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It will be on the mainpage soon enough. :) Synergy 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Failed mass murderers

Well, to answer your question about reverting your edit at List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims I'll simply quote Michael Kelleher's Flash Point: The American Mass Murderer

The definition of when multiple homicides committed in the same

incident or episode become categorized as a crime of mass murder has been debated over the years. A common definition of mass murder requires the intentional death of at least four individuals in a single incident. Another interpretation of the term reduces the number of slain victims to three for the crime to be considered mass murder. Both of these definitions are obviously arbitrary and focus exclusively on the number of victims killed. Many mass murderers injure far more victims than they kill; however, they must certainly be considered mass murderers by the obvious intention of their actions. For example, if an individual randomly attacks children in a school yard with an AK-47 assault rifle or indiscriminately assaults coworkers with a powerful handgun, yet only manages to kill two individuals while wounding dozens, is he less an intended mass murderer than the perpetrator whose aim was better or

whose victims were less fortunate? Certainly he is not.

I hope this explains, why they are included in the list. Cheers. (Lord Gøn (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Ok....this still does not mean someone who injures another human is a "mass murderer", more like a mass injurer. If you kill one person, and injure 75, you are not a mass murderer by the very definition of the term. Our own article on them specifies murdering many people. The term "mass murder" refers to the killing of four or more people during a particular event. Synergy 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but then the introduction to the list explicitly mentions that "Mass murders by intention" are also included.
Anyway, finding a title for the list that paraphrases what it is about is very difficult, as the English language lacks a term that exactly describes the matter. Grant Duwe wrote an article about the usage of the term "mass murder" and how its meaning is distorted in the public perception. You see, given the correct definition, a mass murderer would be anyone who is responsible for the death of three/four or more people, be it by shooting them, bombing a building, or simply setting a house on fire. But most of the time the media is reporting about mass murderers they only talk about a certain kind, the guy with a gun (or a knife), going on a rampage, which is what this list is about. You could call them rampage killers, if you like, but afaik that is no official term.
So, if we have somebody going on a rampage, randomly shooting 30 people and none of them dies, does this make his deed in any way different from that of a mass murderer who randomly shot ten people, killing six of them? I'd say no. They are the same, and thus belong together, which is the reason why "mass murders by intention" are included in the list. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

I still can't wrap my head around the idea that someone is still a murderer if they haven't murdered anyone. Especially going by the numbers. Synergy 01:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to see somebody coming up with an official term for these people. After all a great lot of those shooting sprees happen in the US. But, oh well, nobody has so far, so I have to deal with insufficient words.
Ok, I'll do my best to explain the concept behind this list, as it is not about mass murderers, at least not only and not all of them.
You've certainly heard about some guy taking a gun, knife or whatever weapon he has at hand, heading into the next restaurant, school or church and blasting, stabbing or hacking away whoever dares to cross his path. You'd certainly agree that these incidents have something in common and form a special form of crime. The thing is, although this is recognized by the media, police, psychologists or whoever you might talk to, the English language has no overarching term for them. In German these persons are called "Amokläufer", the Malays called them "Amuco". In English you have to deal with several different words or terms, being e.g. school shooter, a gunman on a shooting spree, some guy on a stabbing rampage, spree killer, or mass murderer, though none of them catches the whole matter. The thing is, these rampage killers do not always shoot up schools, nor do they always use guns, nor are they always murderers, much less mass murderers. Nonetheless they all form one large group of criminal and therefore they should be all in one list. And as the term mass murderer is commonly used to describe this special form of criminal, and as the public seems to associate the term mass murderer almost exclusively with the rampaging guy, I've used it.
I hope this explains what the list is about, why it is called "List of mass murderers" and why there are people in the list who have killed nobody.(Lord Gøn (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

Many thanks

Many thanks for leaving a message on my userpage. I did not know about the Kerplunk experiment,despite having taught Psychology for many years. That is one of the nice things about Wikipedia - one can always go there to learn something new. Again, many thanks for your help, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

50 DYKs

Hi! Synergy, Thank you very much for recognising my DYK contributions. More are on line.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD!

So here are the humble beginnings of our mighty Zen empire User:Paxse/Five Houses of Chan. Pick a piece and start adding to it. I reckon this one we ought to take all the way to GA. Structurally it should be a breeze - decent sections on each of the five houses/schools and their masters and perhaps a little Tang Dynasty history lesson for background(?). Ending with a section on the remains of the five schools today in Japanese and now Western Buddhism. However, we have a kinda tough call to make on the subsidiary articles. The bio articles on each on the missing masters are no problem - notable, fairly easy to source etc. But the individual school/house articles are trickier. Do they justify individual articles, separate from their masters? Rinzai and Caodong we already have, although there are some article naming issues to sort out. What do you think about the other three schools? Cheers, Paxse (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Plane of ecliptic

On May 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Plane of ecliptic, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Harvey A. Carr

On May 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harvey A. Carr, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 15:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kerplunk experiment

On 18 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kerplunk experiment, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yes, you are right - I'm afraid this was DYKadminbot's doing, though. :-) He's operating pretty well, but still has some shaky moments since being re-launched just a week ago. Jamie^☆S93 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankie. :) Synergy 23:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was about to drop a word at WT:DYK, too. ;-) Jamie^☆S93 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gotha Observatory

On 19 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gotha Observatory, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rick Gibson

On May 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rick Gibson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

But I didn't support you.... :) Syn 19:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behavior, Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped. Mythdon (talk · contribs) is restricted and placed under mentorship for a period of 1 year. Mythdon is also admonished for their harassing behavior on and off-wiki and directed to refrain from contacting Ryulong off-wiki and seeking Ryulong's identity on and off-wiki. All participants of WikiProject Tokusatsu are advised to work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject Tokusatsu. They are urged to work in collaboration with Mythdon while seeking outside advice and help. Other remedies also apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Traubner

Thanks for the new references, but I think that the article is too short to qualify for DYK. They don't count the words in the references, I believe. Can you add a page number for the new cite to "Classical music: the listener's companion"? I would like to see more added to the Traubner article about his life and writings, but I don't have time to do anything about it any time soon. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, what about Kate Bishop (actress) and Amy Roselle? Think they'd be good for DYK? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Query: Another editor started the article, but all he did was put up a photo. I think the two real creators of the article are me and User:Tim riley. Do you know the right way to state the DYK? Here's a hook: ... that in 1875 actress Kate Bishop created the role of Violet Melrose in Our Boys, which was by far the longest-running work of theatre up to that time? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've nominated both articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Synergy. Check out the DYK page. One of the reviewers had a problem with the hook for Traubner. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Graham Fuller

On 26 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Graham Fuller, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I'd already said at my talk page, I figured I'd drop by just to thank you. Far from minding, I'm very pleased that you thought the article was worthy for DYK, and doubly pleased that somebody else agreed. :) Personally, I tend to be a bit shy about trotting my stuff to DYK unless I feel very sure that others will be as interested as I was. Since there are probably others like me, I hope you won't ever hesitate to nominate somebody. I actually didn't even know DYK existed until somebody had nominated an article of mine, so you may be doing a bigger service to Wikipedians than you know. (I had always entered Wikipedia through the back door, so to speak, and had never even read the main page. Which is probably jaw-droppingly strange, given that I was already an admin by then. I'm very good at keeping my head down and working in the trenches, so to speak. :D) Thanks. I'm grateful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Winfried Freudenberg

On 26 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Winfried Freudenberg, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Redlinked AfD

That wase not a "redlinked" AfD on Julius Ylitalo. Such are placed by unregistered users, who can not complete an AfD nomination and are instructed to explain their reasons on the talkpage.

And on Poperratic the AfD was placed there by Jarhed and I have already written him on his user talkpage, so let's await his actions.

In short, I reverted both, in awaitance of proper processing. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, because this idea is in fact foreign to me. We leave a redlinked (and yes, it was redlinked, and has been since May 13th) AfD tag on the article for how long, before someone decides to nominate it? In my mind, you either nom it, or you don't. This page, where I found it, does not mention any formal process for proxy noming, nor does it imply we should wait x-amount of days before removing it from the article. So why are we? Syn 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid them. They shouldn't be sitting on the article for so long. If the user wishes to finish the process, he can do so and add the templates back on. As far as I am aware, there is no waiting period, and they should not be there if there is no AfD discussion underway. Syn 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are technically right about the AfD on Poperratic, but since I wrote Jarhed just today, I'd like to ask you to wait until he has been on Wikipedia.

I am not intimately familiar with the procedures pertaining to AfD's placed by unregistered users, but the discussion is taking place on the talk page. I already invited an admin to close the discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I know. Jamie filed the AfD's, which would have been the actual process here. Syn 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So we both learned something from this. All is well, that ends well. Good luck, Debresser (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit to SPI archive

I wasn't expecting a response. I just wanted to document it for reference the next time. And I assure you, there will be a next time, and a next, and a next, until they figure out a way to stymie that guy altogether. He's been at this since October of 2006 with no signs of letting up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My issue is only that you are editing archives. Please don't. If I see it again, I'll just start removing them. An archive is not meant to be edited, and we don't generally allow it at SPI. I decided to not remove it, and have another clerk just message you about it. Syn 22:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you weren't in such a hurry to archive it, I could have put it in the original page. That guy is showing up on a daily basis now, and because they keep closing the SPI so fast, a new one has to be created every time. Someone had deleted that one entry to the ANI page, so it never got archived to ANI. So posting it in the SPI archive seemed liked the most obvious place to stash that info. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is how we operate. Once the incident is over, we close. When there are new incidents, it is reopened. Essentially, with all situations being posted to a single archive. Stashing the info there was fine, which was why it wasn't removed. Just note that this is only done when needed, and it doesn't become a habit please. Thank you. Syn 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, NO, I would not normally update an archive. I just wanted a place to stash this info for the next time. Although his username in this instance was pretty obvious and fairly easy to remember - "Explainingpioneer" - unlike some of the other nonsense names he's come up with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it probably would have been better to prefix that post-archival comment with something like "FYI for possible future reference only". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats actually how I worded it. Syn 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I misinterpreted your comment I thought you were literally saying not to worry about getting it right, i.e. just leave it alone. In any case, User:Tedder is now constructing a handy-dandy reference page for reference in future incidents, including the same link to the vandal's "co-worker". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Traubner

On May 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Traubner, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Syn. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Coleridge

User talk:Ottava Rima/Samuel Coleridge's early life - if you want to put together leads, wikilinks, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

One last poem for his early poems and everything should be done except for your part. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia

Hello, Synergy. Welcome to the Amazing Race Wikipedia. In your travels, you will encounter two types of tasks. In a Detour, you have a choice between two tasks. Both of you must work together on this. In a Roadblock, one team member must work on a task alone. Your Amazing Race Wikipedia submissions page is located here. Enjoy the competition! Best, Shappy (talk · contribs) and Firestorm (talk · contribs). 19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

SPI

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for sticking around at SPI even though the bot is down. It's more work, with suddenly less clerks and CUs, so thanks! Nathan T 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nathan. I really do appreciate this. Syn 21:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nichalp

Hi, at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#What_the_clerks_jobs_are_if_I.27m_not_here you said, "Nichalp is not listed, on purpose." Could I ask why he's not listed? (watchlisting)--Aervanath (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted to that case explaining myself partially. Really its to avoid unnecessary comments and speculation. It remains a case only because I was told ArbCom is discussing it. Best. Syn

I see. Thanks, --Aervanath (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia Starts!

Hello, Shappy. This is a reminder that Amazing Race Wikipedia will start very soon. At 00.00 (or whereabouts), our host Firestorm will place the first Detour on your submissions page. Again, the Detour is a choice between two tasks; both members of the team choose one task and work together to complete it. A Roadblock is a task only one team member must perform; he/she may not have any help from the other team member. Good luck and enjoy the Race! :-) Shappy (talk · contribs) and Firestorm (talk · contribs) --EdwardsBot (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Hey, I'm interested in possibly being trained to be a clerk at SPI. I mentioned it to PeterSymonds a while back, but it seems that he may have forgotten. Is this something that you wouldn't mind doing? Thanks for your time, t'shael^chat 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I will discuss it with him, and should get back to you tomorrow my time. Best. Syn 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. :) -t'shael^chat 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

He said he would inform us, which he has. The issue is that there are no positions available at this time, as mentioned on the clerk talk page. Best. Syn 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I must have misread what he wrote. Thanks for you time, I appreciate it. :) Happy editing, t'shael^chat 19:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)