User talk:SynergeticMaggot/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello SynergeticMaggot/Archive 1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kukini 22:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zos vs SynergeticMaggot

Hi... your signature is a bit confusing. Is there any way I could persuade you to change it to something similar to your username? ---J.S (t|c) 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Sorry, but the signature does link to my user page. I prefer to use it as a knickname. May I ask why you feel I need to change it? Zos 20:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Because when I look in the history I see "SynergeticMaggot" and when I see comments on the talk page I see "Zos". Connecting those two currently requires a investigation and isn't immediately obvious. But, then again, there is no rule that sais you can have your signature as "Zos." If you really like Zos more then SynMag then there is a way to change your login name. It preserves your edit history, talk page, etc.

Well, I'm sorry your not willing to discuss this. ---J.S (t|c) 20:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. When I created my account, I was unaware that by putting in a knickname (I figured it was for anyone wishing to call me by that knickname), it was used for signing comments. I can change it if its needed. Although I'm unaware of any rule that says I'm not allowed to use a different name for signatures. I think if someone is that interested in me, they can see my user info page where I specify that Zos is a knickname for SynergeticMaggot. I just feel that Zos is much shorter for signing and will change it if its a conflict of a policy or guidelines of Wikipedia. Zos 21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No policy that I'm aware of. However, I've seen people be "voted" against when doing a Request for Adminship because of this very thing. There is kinda a general dislike of it... but no policy. ---J.S (t|c) 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well once I decide I'm ready for such a task as adminship or mediation cabal or anything of the like, I'll change it. Zos 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for Zos -999 (Talk) 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thelema

We can talk over on my page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation requests

Your use of cite request tags on Aleister Crowley has been abusive and disruptive. Please don't do that anymore. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see it has abusive and disruptive. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the tags were POV statements that were just added, or their sources failed. I've tried to correct the matter, discuss it, and ask for help. None of this works with Catherine. Zos 17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Harrision that you have been abusive and disruptive. Correct conduct on WP is a matter of community concensus and your personal assertions that you are correct are immaterial if the community judgment is that you are abusive and disruptive. Please tone it down. -999 18:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt a personal assertion. The section was removed, and you had previously agreed with it, so I'm not sure where you stand in this discussion now...And my tone is not laud, so how can I "tone it down"? Zos 18:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Catherine

Thanks. Doesn't worry me; my words and actions speak for themselves. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but I'd like to point you Here. The majority of the conversation was about me, but it involves you. Just letting you know in case you want to respond for the record (it helps to show evidence also, like I did), since I dont recall you harassing her as she says. 93 Zos 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not too worried either, but I left a short response. Some people simply don't have the temperment to be a WP editor, and I think she's one such, unfortunately. She does not know how to compromise and interperets corrections and legit edits as "attacks". Kinda sad, actually, because I think she could have been a good editor. –Frater5 (talk/con) 18:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Pennsylvania

Glad to see you made it to Pennsylvania safely, or at least you will have by the time you read this message!

KV 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Qabalah

Please see New Aeon English Qabala. -999 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you see this? -999 (Talk) 02:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

Please help watch! User:Frater FiatLux is at is again! -999 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have the bandwidth, you might want to add all the subarticles to your watchlist as well. It's where the action is going to be... -999 (Talk) 16:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.®
• Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O)®
• The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn
• The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn
• Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati
• Ordo Stella Matutina

For the love of LVX! Zos 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

 :-) -999 (Talk) 17:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yhea you better had, It just means I'll have to correct all your misrepresentations and prooves that your all working in cahoots. Frater FiatLux 03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actaully, we were hoping to fix "your" mistakes. Deleting cited material is not in keeping with policies and guidlines. Zos 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's utter rubbish, your the ones edit warring articles and reverting pages back to non-verifiable sources, and biased inaccurate P.O.V. articles. I provided sourced information for all of my changes, you guys on the other hand, did not. And furthermore, none of you discussed your changes in the talk page like I DID before you perform your egregious editing

Frater FiatLux 04:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux. You seem to have a misapprehension.The talk page is not for providing source - footnotes are for providing sources. The talk page is for discussing - you know, a back and forth conversation (not a lecture). You have yet to use a talk page properly and have a conversation with the other editors. Try it sometime! -999 (Talk) 14:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

Just a note, I think it looks a lot better to admins if each of us do only two reverts. I'd have got that next one but you beat me to it. -999 (Talk) 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as well to use my three, so if Fiat went for four, I would have reported him directly (instead of him reporting me...). Zos 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that 3 reverts is not an entitlement. People can and have been blocked for multiple cases of 3 reverts. Safer to stick with two and have patience. (Though I must admit that I don't always myself :-) -999 (Talk) 16:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion + survey

Please respond to the survey at the bottom of Talk:The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. -999 (Talk) 16:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia sources

Zos, if they are online GFDL sources like Free Encyclopedia of Thelema and Thelemapedia, then they have to be listed if even a sentence was taken from those sources. The whole article may have originated from the GFDL source. It's part of the GFDL license that you must provide a link to a GFDL source. Frequently, if the source itself has references, they will be indented another level under the GFDL reference... -999 (Talk) 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that wiki's (even wikipedia) were not aloud as a source, furthermore they are just sitting there in the references sections, and arent even cited. But eh. Zos 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand that WP policy on citations has changed. Many old articles will have only references, not citations, because they were not so stringently required in the past. And no GFDL reference can be taken out, without deleting the article and starting over. I know some of the Thelema articles were taken whole from FET or Thelemapedia. That is, as far as I know, not disallowed. In fact, it is the whole point of the GFDL that this can be done. -999 (Talk) 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User conduct RfC on Zanoni666

I think if Z666 keeps pushing his changes in H.O.G.D., Inc., that we should open a user conduct RfC. In order to do that, I need a second person to try to resolve the issue with him, preferably on his talk page, like I am doing... -999 (Talk) 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Seeing as how I was apart of the reverting I'd have no problem. But I know nothing of the RfC process. Zos 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can get the RfC started. That's the hard part b/c I have to document all his reverts and our attempts to engage him in discussion without any reasonable response. Then you simply have to sign on to it and add links to where you tried to resolve the issues on his talk page with him. Anyone else who has failed to resolve the issue can sign on as well.

Let's give it a little time, it's a lot of work. But let's lay the groundwork to show multiple attempts to engage him in fruitful discussion. -999 (Talk) 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can fill in a few blank spots if you want. It wont take that much time, I was actually working on it now. heh. Zos 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

We need a revert on H.O.G.D., Inc.. Looks like Zanoni didn't see you'd removed the link... and he's on his last revert. -999 (Talk) 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imacomp

He's already gone over, and I'm already on it. -999 (Talk) 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aleister Crowley

Give 'em the third degree! No, seriously leave him alone but discuss on the talk page the terr'ble G.D. edit wars (you must overact the terr'ble part, like Jim Carey as the one-legged sailor in Unfortunate Events ;-) -999 (Talk) 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Somebody else'll chime up over at Crowley I'm sure...

At this point its very difficult to keep up with these edit wars. And I'm surprised that the A+O page isnt a part of this anymore. Zos 02:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It got locked a while back. I made a clueful suggestion but no one has responded. I think an admin got annoyed by a flakey request on an admin page, that's how it got locked. -999 (Talk) 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverts

Go to WP:DR. I think the Mediation Cabal would be the best first step. Also, if you put some effort into trying to resolve things on FFL's talk page, that can be used as evidence in a user conduct RfC... -999 (Talk) 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

FFL just got blocked for 48h with a next time you'll be blocked for a week warning. Ehheh reported him. -999 (Talk) 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Even better news, Opuaut got an indefinite ban for being a sockpuppet and FFL's block was extended to 72h. The admin who did it recommends we ask for a community ban of FFL on ANI [1] -999 (Talk) 21:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

All claims of sock puppets were proved to be false. Frater FiatLux 17:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

But claims of meatpuppets was proved to be true, and per WP:SOCK, meatpuppets are to be treated the same as sockpuppets. -999 (Talk) 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BIO

Hm. The 5000 limit seems to have been removed. It used to be there. But it does still say Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work . User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and its also a guideline, and I do not have to submit to it. So thanks for commenting, but the page will in fact be reinstated unless an actual policy is stated to me. I've already requested that the admin who deleted it comment on the wp:ani page, but alas, he is on wiki-break. I'll continue to add to it in the sandbox until I feel it has enough context. Zos 02:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HOGD Mediation

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, HOGD/A+O, HOGD Inc, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible..

[edit] David Allen blahblah

Please see WP:Deletion Review if you want to recreate the article. An admin speedy'd the article again. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

[edit] Question on my Talk Page

You asked:

Did you review the talk page before removing the article I created? Zos 01:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and the discussion on WP:ANI. Gwernol 02:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about putting that on your user page, my mistake. Gwernol 02:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: article deletion

Your Post: Wait, you just added a tag, giving the reason for the deletion. Its a bit confusing. It say:

• It is a talk page of a page which does not exist (CSD G8).

What were you refering to? The article? Zos 02:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• My Response: The article no longer exists, so I requested speedy deletion of its talk page. That's standard procedure for an orphaned talk page. Hope this helps! --Alan 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

When I submitted the talk page for deletion, the main article was no longer there. Someone had already removed it. I deliberately checked for that before I submitted for the talk page to be removed. --Alan 03:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and still no policy has been quoted to me. This is a typical injustice. Zos 03:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

All speedy deletion policy material is listed at wp:csd --Alan 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I had already disputed that on the sandbox talk page. The original reason for deletion given, was that the article about the author had no notability, yet the notablility page is a guideline, not a policy. That was the first time it was deleted mind you, not this time. Zos 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, its true that notablity is a guideline, but its still a guideline; in other words, its intended to guide editors about what is and is not appropriate. Guidelines are actionable. If you feel the original deletion was inappropriate you should open a deletion review which is your opportunity to make the case to have the article restored. Gwernol 12:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation File.

Please do not interfere with my mediation file.

If there are any corrections to be made to the entry then as I made the file, I will edit the file, ONLY.

I didn't get chance to inform everyone last night, I will be providing the links today. Do NOT provide any of your own commentary as I will now have to take it down, as there's been an objection by a mediator.

You and eveyone else should just pledge agree or disagre, the mediation page states this explicitly. If you tampere with the file again, I may have to report you to the mediator that made the comment.

Please leave the file alone and refrain from editing it. Otherwise you're likly to start another edit war. leave it.

Frater FiatLux 13:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For your information User Opuaut is not blocked indefinitly, this was a proven false claim of sock puppets. User Opuaut account has been fully re-instated.

again please leave me to make the corrections to the mediation as the mediator has requested on my talk page. Other users simply state AGREE/DISAGREE ONLY. Nothing else.

Frater FiatLux 13:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted this to the discussion page you should take note:

[edit] Important comment on the mediation

No one is edit or revert the mediation file that I have submitted, user Zos/synergistcmaggot, has already taken it upon himself to edit the file, improperly, and against mediation rules. It clearly states that you all, are only to pledge in: AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT, ONLY. The mediator has asked myself to make changes on the file and I will provide them today as I was the one that submitted the mediation. I reiterate for total clarity and to evade all misunderstanding, do NOT edit or revert the mediation file, please only follow the rules on the mediation page stating you agree or disagree.

No one can add commentary on any of the content in any of the discussion pages or anything else for that matter. If anyone edits or reverts the mediation, and breaches mediation rules, I reserve the right to contact the mediator to inform them of this, and I will also report anyone that does edit or revert the mediation file to admin page. As you will be breaking the rules of mediation. The only thing anybody can write on the mediation file is agree or disagree under the header: "Parties' agreement to mediate", this is ONLY place anyone can make entries on the mediation form.

Furthermore, I just didn't get the chance to provide the link to the page last night, I have nothing to gain by holding the link back as all must pledge, agreeing to the mediation, on the mediation page.

You can view the current version before I make the changes to the file today, as per mediators wishes, to exclude all entries that appear to be commentary on the dispute. By clicking on the "/wiki/WP:RFM". on the tag at the top of the page. The mediation file is the second entry under the new submissions.

Once again, only myself is to make these changes as per the mediators request to myself, directly.

Please be patient while I perform these pages and observe good faith and adhere to the rules of the mediation page. I will report any one who breaks these rules: 1. To the mediator I in contact with. 2. The administration page. Frater FiatLux 13:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I only fixed your mistakes to make it clearer for mediation. Zos

14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment:That's not the issue, if anything is wrong with the mediation file the mediator will notify me and I will make the changes myself, as he has done so. You are not authorised under the rules, as per the mediation page to make any changes to the file. Or the added commentary you made and false claims that users involved in the dispute had been blocked for being a sock puppet.

The claim of user Opuaut being a sock puppets was proven a false misguided claim, and you knew this; the evidence is here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Frater_FiatLux This comment by user Zos was a direct attempt at trying to bias the mediator from the outset, by adding this false claim to the mediation file. Do NOT make any changes the mediation file, I will make all changes as per the mediation rules with assistance from the mediator presently involved. You are only to state you “agree” or “disagree” ONLY.

Frater FiatLux 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in contact with any mediator, so I think you misunderstand my help. Opaut is banned, not by anything I did either. Zos 15:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Opuaut has been unblocked. What I'm amazed at is that FFL left out Baba Louis, and when he added himself, FFL broke his own rules and started adding commentary to the mediation request. I've deleted it as FFL made clear that noone was to add commentary... keep an eye on it too. He also keeps using Zos as you username, when anybody with a brain can figure out that SynergeticMaggot is your username and Zos is just your signature. If you use Zos in a user: or user template, you point at the wrong user or nobody... -999 (Talk) 16:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I didnt know Essjay was a person who usually fills the role of Mediaton Committee Chairman when I began talking to him. In the conversation I told him I was fixing things for you, so please let this go and lets focus on the request. Thanks.

999: I;m just going to have to switch it. I'm getting tired of people saying I'm two users, or i'm some sock puppet of myself!Zos 16:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfM

Hi, just to let you know that I edited the RfM earlier today, to try and stop all this conflict that has been going on (and to stop a whole host of you getting 3 RR warnings and blocks). There was clearly a misunderstanding on Frater FiatLux's part about what people could edit, and also the fact that the two of you (you and 999) were amongst other things correcting errors (e.g. there is no User:Zos !). I hope this clears up the matter, and I have also comment on the 3RR noticeboard, as 999 requested that Frater FiatLux get blocked due to 3RR of the RfM page. You can see what I've put in relation to that on the noticeboard. I've asked both 999 and Frater FiatLux to ask a member of the Committee to edit the request if it needs any more additions (to try and stop all this conflict). I hope this does end the problems related to the RfM. If there are any more issues then please do contact me. --Wisden17 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you know by now that "I" am Zos, its my nickname. I'll change it after the mediation process (if it gets accepted). Although I wasnt apart of the reverting to the Mediation page, I only made a few changes at the beginning, to help. Thanks. Zos 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, there's absolutely no reason why you need to change your signature/username. A large number of users have signatures which are different to their usernames, although you may wish to change your username (as it is certainly interesting!) to User:Zos. I think that the RfM bit is now sorted out and that all the conlfict about it has stopped, it's amazing how something can so quickly snowball from one reversion. --Wisden17 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfM

Hi, just to let you know, I've now fixed the User talk links confirmation section bit. I'm not quite sure what Frater had done, but it's all fine now. --Wisden17 16:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. I just want things to be done right. Thanks. Zos 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Zos, I've already mentioned to Essjay on his talk page that the RfM is getting a little big. In terms of the number of participants that can be reduced to two (as the mediator can ask to deal only with two spokespeople for each side). The number of issues does seem to be a concern, bearing in mind that the average is 2/3 issues, not 10/11 or whatever it is up to at the moment! --Wisden17 23:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The primary issue here is sources. Frater FiatLux was using things like jpg images and court documents (which were not ruled on yet, if I'm not mistaken). He then caused an edit war, which esculated until he had been blocked a number of times. In short, two articles were merged (The Golden Dawn Tradition (spelling?) and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn), and the rest of the pages being requested for meditation are splinter groups from the main one (Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is the main one). All the sub articles were sourced from their main web sites, and reverting took place on a number of them (as there are lack of sources for secret societies). With this all in mind (try and retain it :) ), the majority of us are all new users to Wikipedia (it shows!), and there are questions of socks and meat pupetry due to voting consesus. Here ends the history (or at least the major turning points).

I noticed you mention a request for arb. Not sure how that works but to address the issue of users invloved I'd have to say that I shouldn't be a part of the process. I don't recall actually contributing to the article, just reverting POV and bunk sources. But I will contribute to the article once this is all over (I've ordered a few book on the history of the articles in question), and hopfully nominate it for a featured article! Zos 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you say I mention arb, if you are referring to my latest comment on Essjay's talk page the RfAr is realted to another case the Sathya Sai Baba 2 case. Hope that clears that up, unless you are referring to another comment, in which case it clearly won't have done! --Wisden17 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had figured you meant that the Seven articles request was so large that it had to be taken to arb, heh. My mistake. Zos 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Frater FiatLux

I've started this RfC on FFL's conduct. Please help with it. ---Baba Louis 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Added a bunch. If I can remember anything user 999 hasnt already added, I'll go searching for more. Zos 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't recall about the images.. -999 (Talk) 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Drat. I'll go lookgin for them later. He was using the images as citations. I think those were the court documents. Four of them. And I remember seeing that they turned red, someone had deleted them. Zos 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-hem

Unilaterally archiving an active discussion is generally considered an uncivil act. For what it's worth. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt aware of it being policy, under WP:CIVIL. If it is, I apologize. Zos 04:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not policy, it's just real rude -- in other words, incivil. I was in the middle of adding something when I discovered what I was responding to had been swept away. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I wasnt trying to be rude. Zos 04:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Kellner (Ordo Templi Orientis)

You might want to revert to this version. Imacomp is taking an involuntary 72h sabbatical. Also, it appears that SeraphimXI has started an RfC on him -999 (Talk) 16:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. But just to let you know...you wont get blocked if you have already reached the 3 revert limit, as long as the user was blocked. Zos 16:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they apply it that way when you already have 3 reverts in. I asked an admin about it once and they said it's better to let someone else do it... -999 (Talk) 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you've done it already..? Zos 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that was just a move from the previous title. It needs a revert back to the version by catherineyronwode, of all people. -999 (Talk) 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Og good god. Mention her name three times and she'll return. Zos 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He he, that's why I didn't link her. ;-) -999 (Talk) 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing stuff from my talk page

Zos, no slight was meant by my removing comments from my talk page... It was not directed at you, or caused by your querry. If you look at the edit summary for my page, you will see that I do semi-blankings like this a lot. I simply don't like keeping chat, that's all. If something is needed, one can always recall it by looking through the history. As for Imacomp... I am staying out of it. No comment one way or t'other. Blueboar 22:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The proper way to do this is archiving though. so its safe to assume that you do not wish to add your voice to the RfC on Imacomp? Zos 22:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

correct... I neither support nor condemn.Blueboar 23:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Suit yourself, but the next time he starts reverting Freemasonry pages, and wont discuss it, you'll wish you changed your mind. Zos 23:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity -- are Freemasons enjoined from taking legal action against each other? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. But then again, I don't think Blueboar is a mason (or last time i checked his user page), and I'm wanting tho know who made Imacomp a Freemason, if he is one as well. The way I look at it, I dont care who you are, theres no excuse for how Imacomp is acting...and not contributing, to me, is a way of supporting his actions. Zos 01:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, not supporting is going to get rough in the long run Blueboar, we usually vote on consensus here on Wikipedia. Zos 01:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just curious about whether such an enjoining exists, since it's one of the things forbidden to OTO initiates. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. I'm not joining them any time soon. Zos 04:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What's interesting about that is that the logic behind it is very similar to that of WP:NLT - the "no legal threats" rule on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's a collaborative effort; you're obviously not collaborating if you're threatening to sue. Similarly, OTO is supposed to be a fraternal organization with brotherly bonds and blah blah blah; if you've reached the point where legal action against a brother is necessary, then those bonds have already broken. Or something like that... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. I doubt the level of objectivity among "brothers". From what I remember there was supposed to be some rule about not talking about politics or personal beliefs in Masonic lodges. This, I'm assuming, is one of the reasons why there is the universal name for God (grand architect), so no one fights about beliefs. I would figure that this would lead people to actually do this outside lodges, something called respect (oh and tolerance). I don't know much about the OTO's way, only from third party disagreements, but I'd assume that there was no rule about discussing beliefs (political or otherwise philosophical/personal). But if legal matters are resorted to it shows a lack of communication and ignorance of setting aside emotions. And from an occult perspective, you have no reason to be above that of a neophyte. Zos 04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios

Please don't post copyrighted material at all. Try to modify it enough before saving that it isn't a copyright violation, and cite it as your source. Mak (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats what I said I was going to do. But I can in fact add it, if its a direct quote, or a block text, so I would say "at all". Zos 03:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to make sure we were clear. There's a limit to how much you can block quote though. Mak (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Florence Farr

I've started the article stub for Florence Farr. - JMax555 15:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "A Thought" on JMax555's talk page

I'd recommend against touching them prior to mediation. The fact that we are leaving them alone while FFL and his bunch have been essentially vandalizing them gives us the moral high ground in an obvious way. We lose that if you start editing them... The other issues might not be so clear to the mediators who may not have looked into it very deeply. Thus better to preserve the appearance which they can see. -999 (Talk) 21:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I had figured we might as well add the citations if we got em, so they dont get deleted, as per fiatlux wishing as a bullet point, the deletion of such. I do in fact have citations, and we were already working on the Cipher Manuscripts article, and I noticed he has put that one on for meditation as the last one.

I'm thinking that after all of the vandalism is documented, we should be able to secure the articles from being deleted. The people over at mediation wont be confused, its the only thing they do (actually depending on the mediator). 72.81.87.132 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC) oops forgot to sign Zos 21:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But further more, I'm not going to let Frater FiatLux get his way here. The articles shouldnt be deleted just because he wants them to. If sources are needed to keep them from deleted (and I should know, I've had two articles deleted already) then I'm adding them. 72.81.87.132 21:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) ok this is getting to be enough, forgot to sign yet again! Zos 21:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They won't be deleted. I'm sure the majority of votes in an AfD would be keep. Mediation won't lead to the deletion of the articles or the combining of them as the current solution is the best way to observe WP policies... -999 (Talk) 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If its a point to be addressed upon mediation, its more likely they will be deleted with only their web site as a source. And AfD can go either way, but wouldnt even be placed there if there were more citations. 72.81.87.132 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Zos 21:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're way too concerned about this. Having only a web-site as a source is and has always been acceptable for organization with a web-site. There are tons of articles that would have to be deleted if this were not allowable... -999 (Talk) 22:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said about you (being way too concerned). But nonetheless, I'm adding citations. Who is going to stop me? The page is not protected and I have yet to read where an article cant be worked on while under mediation (this is to say, it gets accepted, because it hasnt yet). Zos 22:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, do what you will. I've done what I think addresses the point more directly: brought up eliminating deletion as a viable option on the mediation request talk page. -999 (Talk) 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking sections

Thanks for that hint but I am not sure how to do that - can you point me to any guidance, please? BlueValour 22:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Theres a box that lists the headers. You first click on that box, in the section header where the comment was made. Then you go to the url address and copy only the area begining with the talk page, like this:

• • heres the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SynergeticMaggot
  • so I only want to copy everything from User_talk, on
• and heres a link to another section on my user page: User_talk:SynergeticMaggot#RfM

Hope this helps :p Zos 23:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed it for you. I forgot you were using an embedded link like this. It can be done both ways still though. Just click on the header on the talk page that you want to use. Zos 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I've fixed my other link the same way. Regards, BlueValour 23:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re Hiram Abif

Zos... sorry about the "lore"... that was not my edit. Anyway, if you are looking for a good source on the Hiram story, I would suggest John Robinson's "A Pilgrim's Path"... The book is mostly a defence of Freemasonry against the more outlandish claims of the Anti-Masonic religious right, but it has a very good chapter on Hiram. My "keep the secrets at all costs" brothers < ;) > will have a very hard time deleting anything Robinson says, since he is generally acknowleged as a solid historian with a pro-masonic bias. (can I have my 30 pieces of silver now?) Blueboar 23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I knew, there werent very many secrets in Freemasonry anymore. With the a Dc lodge inviting tv to watch a ritual, publication of almost all of the rituals (be it old or new), and the substitution word being published, I don't see what the fuss is about. And as for the "keep secrets at all costs" people, they should go after publishers. Any published source is aloud on Wikipedia. To contest it, you'd need another published source to say otherwise. So I'm not too worried about them. Zos 00:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

Have you read WP:CSD? Some articles can be speedy-deleted, including ones on non-notable people and copyright violations. Articles about things people simply don't care about are not necessarily candidates for speedy deletion. Mak (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said I didnt care about the article Dismal's Paradox. I just think that there is no future in it. You feel it can be expanded? A simple paragraph cannot even be called a stub, more like a mini stub. And with the article I created, mine had more notability than this one. So this is showing mere bias as to what can and what cant be deleted. Zos 04:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. There is a bias, since people tend to create articles on themselves and their bands. I'm sorry your article got deleted a bunch of times (I only deleted it when it was a copyvio, which I stand behind). Try creating it in your userspace and finishing it up before moving it to article space. Permanent stubbiness is just not a speedy deletion criterion. You could prod it or merge it or put it up for AfD though. Mak (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No no. I was talking about the David Allen Hulse article. Not the woodman article. Zos 04:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the policy I was referring to was WP:CSD. I'm not sure what the problem is, are you just cranky? If so, I'm sorry. I try not to delete things out of process unless they're really over the top. This is just a plain slightly-irritatingly-crufy article, which is actually better than most and can't be speedy deleted. Grrr! I see people having been using re-post for speedy deletions again. They're not supposed to do that. Well, geocities isn't a very good source. Try to find some better ones and try again. I can retrieve what you've already done and put it in your userspace if you'd like. Mak (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I have both on my user page. And yes I'm cranky. It makes no sense for WP:CSD to rely upon a guideline and not a policy. I may just be retarded, but it clearly states that you dont have to follow guidelines if you dont wish, but policies are law. And when someone deletes my article (not the copyvio I understood that one clearly) quoting a guideline, I get suspicious and angry. Zos 05:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand that. Maybe check out Wikipedia:Notability (people) or some such and make sure the claim of notability is really clear. Then they're really not supposed to speedy delete the article. Good luck, Mak (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I also made mention before it was deleted that my page did not meet the "criteria":

General criteria

• Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes.
• Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?").
• Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism.
• Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in user space or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject. In case of a speedily-deleted page, they must also determine that it met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place. Likewise, an article that was deleted as an uncontested prod and then re-created is not subject to this criterion, as the re-creation effectively amounts to contesting the proposed deletion. Such cases should be taken to Articles for deletion for discussion by the community.
• Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned.
• Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a disambig page that only points to a single article.
• Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author.
• Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article. This does not include subpages, nor archive pages, of unorphaned Talk pages.

As you can see, from the eight listed, none match with the David Allen Hulse article. Zos 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted under CSD A7- "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Then for repost, which it shouldn't have been. Mak (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

AfD is note a vote, the number of votes does not count, it is the quality of the arguments that determines an articles fate. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure. Viridae 02:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy in to the quality thing. And thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Zos 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It stops vote stacking. If one person makes some good arguments for an articles deletion following wikipedia policy, and 10 users vote keep without giving any reason why it should be kept, the article is likely to be deleted. Some people just vote without even looking at the article or may get their friends to vote for the deltion or keep of their favourite article.Viridae 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Heres an interesting tid-bit. I personally know the user who created the article, and I'm voting for its deletion. By the way, I think hes on wiki-break. Zos 02:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] surprised

Is there an issue about Freemasonry at the Golden Dawn page that I should know about? I will check it out and see. Thanks. Blueboar 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I only made mention of it because I figured you had singled out OTO. Zos 17:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

well... I suppose I did single out OTO. But that was really only due to the fact that I happened to come across it first. Anyway, I checked it out... Yeah, I may want to simply pop my UGLE quote in there somewhere (probably after the reference to the Blue Lodge)... but I am not quite as concerned after reading the GD article as I was after reading the OTO article. One difference is that the GD article already makes it fairly clear that there are major differences between GD and Freemasonry. Reading this article I simply do not get the impression that the article is trying to imply a stronger connection than there is - that GD is in some way "Masonic." Perhaps it is that it doesn't keep repeating the line "similar to Freemasonry" the way the OTO article does. The repeated reference to "noted Grand Lodge Freemason Kenneth MacKenzie, author of The Royal Masonic Encyclopedia" needs to go... but that is because it is repeated in two adjoining sentences, not because of what it says.

I will pop over and suggest a few small edits once the page lock is removed... and I'll make sure to discuss them first :>) so no one gets upset. Blueboar 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That might take a while. Its up for mediation. Zos 19:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

No apologies are necessary. Thanks are in order for your work in consolidating. So, thanks. OzLawyer 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. The only thing I did was cut and paste it to where I thought it should go. At that time, I actually had no sources for the article, or else I would have added to it. I now have a few small citations I may make in the future though. Zos 17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regardie

You sure about that? Some sources I've seen imply rather the opposite. "Dammit, I’m a Golden Dawn man and not a Thelemite, and I wish people would realize it."[2] Not a good source, but it does seem consistant with what I've heard and read of Regardie. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Its straight out of "What you should know about the Golden Dawn" (by Regardie). I believe this is the 6th edition and was previously published as My Rosicrucian Adventure. There are documents in the book giving evidence of Regardie being a member of the AA and the OTO. This is the only reason I added him as members of both of the articles (Argenteum Astrum and Ordo Templi Orientis). ::shrugs:: Zos 05:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, that bio is copyrighted by Chic Cicero & Sandra Tabatha Cicero. In my opinion they are rejects, and I've heard they claim Golden Dawn status, yet regard Regardie as their source. To keep it short, Regardie was never a member of the Golden Dawn, but the Stella Matutina. And that order was B.S.! They changed a number of things and Regardie himself says it was a decaying order, hence his publishing of the Golden Dawn book, and then the Complete Golden Dawn system book. Zos 05:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To further my disgust, the Stella Matutina revisions were akin to Crowley running into the OTO main lodge and saying (figuratively speaking): "screw freemasonry, i'm re-writing these rituals. they wouldnt acknowledge me in freemasonry, i wont acknowledge them in my order!" feh. Zos 05:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem and sorry to vent like that! hah Zos 05:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is contradictory evidence on this, for example, here says "Israel Regardie didn't care that much about the 'Caliphate'. He was supportive and provided suggestions. McMurtry offered him the IX°, real and honorary and Regardie refused, saying he could do more good for them out of the Order than in the Order." and here, "Despite his association with, and admiration for, Aleister Crowley, Regardie never considered himself a Thelemite. It is telling that he joined an offshoot of the Golden Dawn in 1933, over thirty years after Crowley himself terminated his association with the G.D. In fact, Crowley was actively involved with the Ordo Templi Orientis during the 1920s and later, yet it appears that Regardie either had no interest, or Crowley did not invite him to participate therein." -999 (Talk) 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Him not concidering himself as a Thelemite and being a member are two different things here. There is documented proof of him claiming membership in both the AA and OTO, in his own books. His own printed books mind you, not web site sources. Either way, he was a known member and I added nothing more to the article other than him being a member at one point in time. Zos 16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then add a citation... I believe that if he was in the OTO, he was expelled by Crowley. He was never considered a member of the caliphate, and if he had been an active member in good standing under Germer, he would have been. -999 (Talk) 17:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel that there should be a citation for a known members section, but I have added a citation for both articles already. And when you are done disputing it, I will make a section or add to an already existing section on both articles, talking about Regardie as a member. Zos 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiram Abiff

Regarding the article Hiram Abiff, don't you think it's long enough for the stub tag to be removed? haz (user talk) 18:29, 27 June 2006

Nope. Most of the material on that article needs citations. There needs to be more information added before the stub can be removed. I'm not sure how many kilobytes is needed until it can be removed, but that standard size of an article is 32kb. Zos 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have you ever?

Hey, have you ever just gone over to the current WP:AfD page and just voted in various AfDs that you have an opinion on? I highly recommend it. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff people post :-) —Hanuman Das 02:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I havent had much time. I've been busy trying to add to some of the pages before they get deleted, but I will when I have more time. Zos 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus. I just went through some of the AfD pages. Who would create so many idiotic articles? Zos 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

He he! I find it quite therapeutic to go vote on some AfDs when I'm frustrated with other editors. Gives me some time to cool off when someone seems to be working at crosspurposes with me. —Hanuman Das 13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but I also feel kinda bad because some people work hard on these articles thinking everythings ok and then they wake up and Oh No! AfD. heh But others are just begging for deletion. Zos 15:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Shift (music)

I've rewritten the article... care to have another look? Oh, and - good to see your work on Stella Matutina, too... if you have any info that could be added to the Whare Ra page, it would be welcome! Grutness...wha? 04:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I still feel it needs alot more work, but I changed my vote to keep. Looks notable and what not now.

Yeah the Stella Matutina articles is slim but getting there. And as for the Whare Ra article, I'm getting to that soon :) Zos 15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I posted to the Whare Ra talk page. That whole article is cut and pasted from answers.com. Zos 03:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't! Answers.com often gets its information from Wikipedia - have a look at the bottom of the answers.com page and you'll see that they say that the information on Whare Ra came from the Wikipedia article. Grutness...wha? 06:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Helpful Advice

I STRONGLY suggest you change your username. "Maggot" can easily be mistaken for "Faggot" and that would cause much chaos hear on Wikipedia. You DONT want the Username police coming knocking on your "talk page" do you? NVid 23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review my user page. I'm not changing my nickname, user name, or anything else. And your not the first. Thanks. Zos 23:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. And you also have this,

This user is heterosexual.

so you have nothing to work about. NVid 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and anyone daft enough to misread a letter M for a letter F, should go back to school. Zos 23:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, if they can't read they have no business writing an encyclopedia! NVid 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Dawn

No, thank you! You did the real work, I've just been trying to improve the details. And I already caught FFL's change and fixed it. Next time it'll be back to "much more controversial"... ---Baba Louis 02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. Yeah I noticed after I posted to your talk page. And no, thank you. If it wasnt for you fixing my grammatical errors, they would be spread throughout the article! I lack this skill :/ Zos 02:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha et Omega

I've started a new article on the Alpha et Omega which desperately needs to be expanded. I know you've got the sources, so if you could add a little history, it'd be appreciated by most. ---Baba Louis 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the new Order is not continuous with the old Order. They are not the same organization. The old orgs should have their own articles without the possibly spurious claims to continuity of the new org. The new orgs have slightly different names and dubious claims mostly only backed up by their web sites and should be kept separate for that reason. Basically, the new orgs did not exist until they incorporated or got a DBA or whatever registration process they used to make themselves a legitimate business. ---Baba Louis 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I reached a simular understanding and began working on the Alpha et Omega, which you know by now. Zos 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, another matter to consider is whether the modern order's article would survive an AfD. I have a feeling that sooner or later, all the modern order articles may get nominated. Either FFL and his bunch will nominate all except theirs and then JMax or 999 will nominate theirs in retaliation, or vice versa. I think it essential to make sure that the articles which deserve to stay do, and I count Ordo Stella Matutina among them. I think OSOGD is able to stand on its own now, but HOGD, Inc. might need some expansion. I see that Hanuman Das has already expanded the SRC+SA a little, but it could use more... ---Baba Louis 23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned about the modern orders being deleted. They've been there for a bit now, and no one has bothered to find any book references for them. I myself cant seem to locate anything about them, so it will be difficult to obtain such. But then theres also deletion review and undelete, blah blah. Theres only so much info you can take from the main web sites. My main concerns are golden dawn bios, temples, and things that can be properly sourced and expanded. And AfD can go either way, if the voters are convinced that any of the pages are relevant. Zos 01:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thelema

Hey, I know we've had our differences, and I apologize for any rudeness I may have directed toward you, but I see that you and Baba Louis have worked toward a better understanding of the reasons to keep the historical and modern offshoots of G.D. separate. You've done some great work while I've been busy with real life matters.

I was wondering what your take is on the recent changes made by Dan on the Thelema article. In my opinion, the article had previous achieved a nice balance between Rabelaisian and Crowleyan Thelema, and Dan's edits are detrimental to this balance and reflect the denial of the existence or validity of Rabelaisian Thelema promoted by a certain single Thelemic organization. What do you think? —Hanuman Das 05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I try my best on the articles, and I'm not very good with grammar per say. With the articles name being Thelema, is should include anything germane to it of course. But we do need to get the editor who wrote that section and request a citation, since, the burden of proof lies with the contributor. Zos 05:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zered_Bassett

Hi, there have been new additions to the article that demonstrate Zered Bassett's notability, perhaps you might want to change your vote? Dionyseus 01:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I still don't feel its notable enough. If more sources are found to establish the articles notablility then I'll change my vote, but one citation in my opinion does not constitute notability. Zos 02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Please stop making comments about how to vote in AfD. I've been doing this for longer than you've been on WP. Some people assume that their nomination is a vote, some do not and add a separate vote line like I do explicitly mentioning my nom. Neither way is incorrect, so butt out. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 16:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

By simply placing Delete along side your nomination, you can save the space and time for nominating and voting on your own nom. Its helpful advice, and I won't stop giving it just because you disagree. Have a nice day :) SynergeticMaggot 16:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I consider that uncivil, since I've explained my position and I prefer to do it the way I do it... -999 (Talk) 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to do what you like, as long as it doesnt conflict with policy. And as far as I can tell, I'm remaining civil. Editors agree to disagree all the time. SynergeticMaggot 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The act of continuing to comment on it on AfD's after we've had this discussion would be uncivil. Please refrain from doing so. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made no further comments pertaining to the nomination you were referring to on WP:AfD. In an interest in fairness, I didn't get mad or upset because you striked out the comment (which was in no way uncivil in the first place), but I have let it go. So I'm asking you to please do the same, to end the matter. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then. Just FYI, the first line is supposed to be the reasons for nomination, not a vote. Some people just nominate but do not vote to delete. All votes are bulleted points, thus I am not voting twice. I am nominating once, and voting once. On occasion I nominate but do not vote. Please give the admins who process the AfDs credit for being able to count votes regardless of which variant of voting the nominator uses. If you look at any day's AfD page, you will see other Wikipedians doing it the way I do it. I don't see you commenting about it to them, so it seems you have singled me out for harassment, which is how I view your repeated comments on the matter. Perhaps I should bring up the topic of your Username/Signature mismatch everytime you comment on something? -999 (Talk) 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If I've given the impression that I singled you out, then I apologize. While strolling through AfD, I barely see other people doing the exact same thing you did, and if I did, I would have given the same advice. Maybe I confused my wording, but I'm very aware of nominations for deletion. It was in no way a matter of harassment, and I am again asking you nicely to let it go.

As for my signature, there is little room for comment. I've already stated on my userpage that its been changed, and I've only changed it once :) If you feel confused about it, please review my talk page history, as well as my user page info under the header "nickname". Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you fixed it! I didn't even notice. Drop. Roll. Clunk. Clunk. Clunk. (rolling down stairs). :p -999 (Talk) 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Well, I think nothing will happen with it until he slips and breaks some rule such as 3RR or civility. Then the RfC can be brought up with the admin who responds. If it's a formal 3RR complaint it could be mentioned that there is an RfC to which the subject has not responded. I suspect that will count seriously against him wrt the length of a block... -999 (Talk) 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I just wasnt sure about the actual purpose of an RfC. As in the conclusion to a long and drawn out movie :p SynergeticMaggot 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've only observed one other RfC, and nothing was ever done... but the result was that the subject realized that they had to play nicer and they allowed a neutral article to replace the biased promotional article they were trying to create and then simply faded away... That's about what I expect to happen in this case... -999 (Talk) 19:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've checked out this one RfC (actually 4 I believe) on Tony Sideaway (sp?). Hes an admin that everyone loves to hate appearently. SynergeticMaggot 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hubbard

Resolved. See my latest update to the OTO talk page.... -999 (Talk) 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Zero (2nd nomination)

Hi! I was wondering if the references that I added to the High Zero discussion, and later to the article, help significantly with respect to notability. If so, could you lend your support? (is asking this appropriate in trying to establish consensus?) best, --Ravelite 01:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD closes

Hi,

After the five day period is over, non-admins may close AfDs ONLY IF 1.) The result is a unanimous or near-unanimous keep and 2) the closing user has not participated in the debate he closes. "Deletes" and "No consensus" closures must be left to admins. No one, even an admin, should close a debate he/she has been involved in. After closing, remove the AfD notice from the article, and post the result to the article's talk page. Why do you ask? Need a debate closed? Best wishes, Xoloz 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just wondering because I like to keep busy on Wikipedia. I'm also thinking about trying out for adminship. Thanks again for the advice. SynergeticMaggot 02:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

*pokes nose in* It's a two edged-sword that one. I was known to close complicated (i.e. other than near-unanimous) nominations as a non-admin and got a little pat on the back now and then for having done so. Then I've seen people excoriated in their RfA for doing the same thing. Dive deep into Wikipedia:Deletion policy and read Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-Administrators_closing_discussions. *pokes nose back out*

brenneman ^{L} 03:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do just that. SynergeticMaggot 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that one for me. I didn't realise it had been listed (edit conflict perhaps?) Anyway, thank you, you did fine. Mak (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! SynergeticMaggot 05:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fortis Inc.

I have expanded the article somewhat. I would be grateful if you could have a look and see what you think. There are more sources available for further expansion if necessary. Capitalistroadster 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)