User talk:Synergy/Archive 2

XD

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar! For being cool... :P :P LOL

Did you get the right guy..? ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Synergy 00:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:81.105.171.106

Just a question, but why did you give each warning a separate heading? Usually, we only give different months a separate heading. This isn't that big of a deal, but it just seems to be a lot of extra space that really isn't needed. Razorflame 14:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the vandalism was so fast, it was easier to do it this way to ensure no edit conflicts as I wasn't the only one reverting this ips vandalism. I needed fast record of the reverts, to block by the book as well. Generally, I used to see over 4 really bad revisons that were current, and just block after two warnings. But I don't feel like having to discuss those, so a quick set of warnings is much faster and will ensure no talk page posts. Synergy 14:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that makes sense. I most likely would have done the same thing. Thanks for explaining this to me :). Have fun, Razorflame 14:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Drop it

Just drop it at Jennavecia's talk page. There's absolutely nothing good that can come from what's going on there. It'll just lead to more anger, disgust, and a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Either way (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It was already dropped before you got there. One talk page post, informing her that it was a valid request, is hardly attacking either. Per IRC, she won't be responding. Synergy 15:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Muro Bot

That's already fixed. The error was done by a developer, who committed a bad revision, and it was fixed on the next revision. So, please, unblock the account. Regards, Muro de Aguas (write me) 16:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My Rollback

I just asked Vector this but i want to ask you also, is there anything I can do to get it back today, I feel out of the "reverting vandalism game" cause using the undo button takes so long. I KNOW I can be trusted with it I just made a mistake that all humans are capable of, I will strive to be better, I just need it back.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 23:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Synergy 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't elaborate, just "no""...-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 23:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfB

Dear Synergy, thank you for participating in my RfB, which ended with a tally of 21/5. I appreciate your support and will do my best in this new role. Thanks. Chenzw  Talk  07:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your old RfB

Hi, long time, no talk. I saw your crat run and hope you run again soon! You'd have my support. fr33kman ^{t - c} 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure when I'd run again though. Synergy 16:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When ever you do (and I'd be happy to nom), the support will be there! :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 20:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Synergy, I know it's only been a month, but I'd like to encourage you to run again for crat. The project really needs another (even with Chenzw's promotion) and I think you'd be a very good choice. Perhaps your activities over the last month may sway other users. You've basically got most of the admins behind you already and, as I said, you'd get my full support also. I can nom (or co-nom) you if you agree, or I'm sure someone else would be more than willing to. Please take a couple of days and think about it seriously. Cheerio fr33kman ^{t - c} 02:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD

Bet you never thought it'd get used that quickly :) fr33kman ^{t - c} 00:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah. No, I didn't. But I do know that there are plenty of problematic pages we'll be discussing eventually. :) Synergy 00:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

Userboxes have always been allowed in the userspace since I have been a member of this site. If you can give me links that can prove me wrong, please tell me, because as far as I know, userboxes are allowed in the userspace. Cheers, Razorflame 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"If" there is a userbox that various members of the project do not like, it will be the subject of an MfD regardless of the namespace it exists in. Which is why I undid your change. Synergy 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. There we go :). Thanks for the clarification. If it is a userbox that others don't like, then it is definitely up for deletion :). That was all you needed to tell me :). Razorflame 20:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

re

yes it is a sock, but it is a good sock. He created it for ease of sig code shortening.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 04:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Pilogovonosaur‎‎

Hi, I was going to QD this, but on rereading WP:QD it said that hoaxes had to undergo an AFD. I then thought it could be done under G3. Just for my future edification, what was your rationale for doing the QD? Cheers :) fr33kman ^talk 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My rationale was, it can be deleted to save time, and we can all go back to building this encyclopedia. Its been so long since I've read that policy, that I was taken aback by it really. We normally delete hoax articles as either vandalism, nonsense, or a test page (it has become standard practice). So in all likelihood, it needs to be changed. Synergy 15:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay; that was my thinking as well. The AFD really was a WP:SNOW so therefore not needed to be run, per SNOW :) Thanks, (getting better at this admin stuff) fr33kman ^talk 15:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To correct myself, I think that the QD policy needs to be updated, not that the nonsense rationale needs to be changed. I used G1 as the reason simply because it best fit (or maybe the RfD one would have been better). Either way, its a SNOW or IAR delete. Synergy 15:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Draft

Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated regarding User:Either way/draft. Make a talk page there, leave comments here, leave them at my talk page, whatever. Either way (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Synergy's Day!

Synergy has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Synergy's day! For being such a great wikipedian and kind person, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Synergy! Cheers, Fairfield Deleted? 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

O Thanks! Synergy 19:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done Synergy! You can be first in the line today - have a sticker. Majorly ^talk 20:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You have new messages

... at my talk page. obentomusubi 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent block

Hi, I was concerned about Mr. Kruzkin Returns (talk · contribs) myself, and was about to undo his edit when Razorflame beat me to it. I see you have blocked them; just for my own edification could your explain your reasoning? I tried looking for an account called Mr. Kruzkin here and en: and figured with a name like that they might be a banned user or a sock? I figured I'd leave it and see if someone else took action because there is probably history here I'm not aware of. I'm just interested and am in no way questioning the block :) Thanks! :) fr33kman ^talk 20:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Kruzkin is already blocked indefinitely here, and Mr. Kruzkin Returns is a confirmed sock on Mr. Kruzkin. Razorflame 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, figured there must be history here. I've declined the unblock request.  :) fr33kman ^talk 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Egads, yes. Mr. Kruzkin (talk · contribs) has been blocked indef, any account created with a very similar username is subject to blocking (especially one in which a statement like this is made). My fault for not giving a reason, its not as obvious to some as it is to others. Sorry. :) Synergy 20:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

Perhaps you could have alerted me before going on your deletion spree. I've recreated the articles you've deleted and ensured they are not the same. None of them were, so I'm not convinced by your G12 argument. But hopefully they're fixed to your satisfaction now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I did notify you before deleting. You just restored copy vios TRM...Synergy 21:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but the templates have to be used the same way. The numbers and facts in the template are the same. The text in each article is different from en.wiki. Where's the copyvio? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the information was taken from one source, and this source was not attributed at all. I've been doing tons of work to counter these kinds of articles, and I honestly have to throw my hands up here TRM. We have to cite where the info is coming from, and when I look at the articles you created, check en, and find that the lead sentences (and 1-2 articles have whole paragraphs copy and pasted) are exact matches, save pipelinking, I delete. I didn't need to address this issue with you prior to deletion, since its a QD/speedy, but I did anyway. Synergy 21:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, none of these articles are copyvios. The most you could ask for is more references. Speedy deletion is inappropriate. Now, how many articles do we have without references? Please direct me to any articles I've created that right now have text copied-and-pasted verbatim from en.wiki? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All of them. All of the pages I deleted are copy vios. Let me give you only one example:You're creation and en's page. For clarity, I will show you directly:

• This is from simple
  • Edward John "Ted" Phillips (born 21 August 1933 in Leiston, Suffolk) was an English professional footballer.

• • He made over 250 appearances for Ipswich Town from 1953 to 1964. He scored over 150 goals making him the second highest scorer in the club's history. He also holds the record for the most goals scored for the club in one season—he scored 46 in the 1956/1957 season.

• And this is from en:
  • Edward John "Ted" Phillips (born 21 August 1933 in Leiston, Suffolk) was an English professional footballer.

• • He made over 250 appearances for Ipswich Town from 1953 to 1964, scoring over 150 goals making him the second highest scorer in the club's history. He also holds the record for the most goals scored for the club in one season with 46 in the 1956/1957 season.

Copy vios. Synergy 21:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, can you explain how else you would say his name, his birthdate, his birthplace and his significance? This is conventional formatting for bios. If I write a bio from scratch, that is exactly how I'd write it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, you need to attribute it to where you got it from, the en. article. It's a copyright violation to just take their text and copy it over to here like that. It violates the GFDL to not credit the creator. Either way (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The text in each article is not the same at all as en.wiki (other than the fact that the facts are the facts and can't be re-written). I've attributed the information to the original source, the book and the website I used. That is sufficient, no? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we go through a regular deletion process, even if that is not the norm? - We want a solution after all. --Eptalon (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget it; I dont think the "paragraph" has the height of invention necessary to be copyrightable. --Eptalon (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point Eptalon. These are stubs (and another flaw of PVGA where no red links exist so stubs are created, almost for the sake of it...). Right now, I would expect Synergy to delete Bank of America Plaza (Atlanta) (created a second or two ago). For the reasons he has given above. Is that what you would expect? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And Bruno Walter has been hanging around for 2 hours... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And Eastern Grey Kangaroo has been here since lunchtime. Oh, and perhaps we should look at U.S. Bank Tower too? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And Spike Milligan has been here for over a day. If you're being harsh on these types of things I suggest you go back over the New Pages log and G12 a whole heap of them... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually took a break from deleting as this situation has caused me to take a break. Why don't you delete them? I (and Eitherway) do most of the copy vios deletions here. Your multiple posts to show copy vios (mind you, I haven't looked at them yet) I have yet to delete is just antagonistic. Synergy 21:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The multiple posts was to try to determine at what point you feel these articles become copyvios. If you have the time, I'd be interested to see if you think they all meet your criteria for G12, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a different example, Arkansas River has recently been created here. Now the text is different but the image used is the same as on en.wiki, and on the same place on the page. So, it appears to me that the article is based on en.wiki. Would this fall foul of G12 too in your opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And is an edit summary of create page, partly based on en and de wikipages (for the newly created Karl Muck) sufficient attribution in your opinion or is this another G12? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, since when does wikipedia count as a source in need of citing on wikipedia? Wikipedia has never cited who typed individual parts of it, therefore copying parts of it from one wiki to another is no different. Provided it's in simple english, it belongs on here, no need to delete things for that. In fact, if you do so, you're completely sabotaging Simple English Wikipedia, by preventing the existence of Simple English articles. -Kingreaper (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

GFDL demands attribution of the content of Wikipedia(s) to individuals and that's achieved in our history pages. Creating new pages here is a minefield as 99.9% of the time they'll be based on en wiki. How much similarity demands GFDL and how much attribution is required is what is up for debate as far as I can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right, am reading the GFDL now, and will endeavour to follow it as best as possible in my sporkings. -Kingreaper (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The so-called G12 problem

Morning Synergy. Following up our discussion yesterday, I think we need a centralised discussion on this. You and Either way both think that we have a problem with G12s here and after some digging around, I found half a dozen articles which easily fit into the same category, including Ronald Reagan for instance. Incidentally, it appears we have a problem with deletion criteria too as we have A3 - complex article from another Wikipedia without simplification. Isn't that the same as these G12s? Do we need both deletion categories? I'll kick off a bit of a chat at Simple Talk at some point, particularly now Eptalon has changed WP:COPY. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

When they finally come to an agreement, that both satisfies themselves and GFDL, then I will follow it when deleting copy vios. Synergy 21:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate your input in the discussion. Also, I would really appreciate your assessment of those articles I mentioned. They all, in one way or another, seem to violate G12 (per your interpretation). Also, Fibonacci number seems to have fallen foul of it too, an article you created some time ago. Some sections of that article are currently identical copy and pastes from en.wiki. As an active copyvio deletionist I think the community would benefit from your point of view. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have other things I'm doing right now, so I'll pass. I will abide by what the community decides in this matter. Why can't you handle these things? Synergy 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can handle plenty of things Synergy, but I was shocked at your speedy deletes yesterday, and it now seems that you and Either way may have misinterpreted what G12 means. As an admin, I find it surprising that you refuse to take part in a community discussion that is vital to the progression of this Wikipedia. Eptalon has modified WP:COPY and we need input from people who have opinions and experience (i.e. admins involved in G12 deletions) to sort this out. It's a shame you're too busy to help. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I might get involved, at my own pace and time. You, constantly insisting my participation, is what is turning me away from getting involved. We don't go from a dispute, right into a community discussion, since the dispute is still in existence. I find your lack of accountability astounding. Restoring copy vios is very bad judgment, worse than creating them. I didn't misinterpret our QD criteria. Fail. Synergy 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on anything but your and my actions have brought this to a head. It needs discussion. It appears that even Eptalon thinks the stubs I created are exempt from your G12 implementation. Perhaps you haven't read the discussion on Simple Talk yet but your opinion is not widely agreed with. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time, could you revisit the Simple Talk to read the latest issues I've noted with respect to our flawed deletion policies. It is of particular interest since our current policies state explicitly that you should not delete pages copied from other Wikipedias under G12. We have a real mixed bag of guideline and policy here and it needs sorting out. Since you were really interested in keeping "copyvio" away from this Wikipedia (and not many others are interested), I think your input would be invaluable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)