User talk:Friday/archive2

End of. WFCO

You know you're dealing with a new army of adults who know better when kids like you dare call them "kids", right? I'm 40 years of age, thank you very much.

Harry potter speculation is littered throughout the 100's of Potter pages. I thought it would make sense to collect them all under one page. Interesting about the original research magnet, but most of these ideas are not original. The Dumbledore is not dead theory is the only one I care about. Any first time reader of book six may wonder about this idea even long after book seven is written. I wanted to capture this wide spread speculation which may disappear ...or be proven once book seven is out. I think it is important for the same reason a plot summary should be listed. --Gearspring 04:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to you for advice on this, because I think I've blown my working relationship with Gavin. He really needs to request an advocate. Can you help him with AMA? Hipocrite 21:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah and hip blew her 'working relationship' with me too. In record time no less. Hmmm...there seems to be a pattern developing here...Big Daddy 04:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI {{nn-bio}} alias {{db-bio}} cites the exact language of WP:CSD A7, the non-notable real person criterion. You may find it helpful in cases like Rob Vincent. Thanks for tagging that article. DES ^(talk) 16:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks for the tip. Friday (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my adminship request. You must be careful with that cowbell tag- I've determined that "cowbell" must mean different things to different people. Anyhow, since I'm stopping by to thank you anyway, I thought I'd give you this. Sometimes, the fever needs medication. . . --Scimitar ^parley 15:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is in response to a note I left on a talk page, which was deleted.

Hi Friday. You should read and follow the Wikipedia:Civility policy. That includes not restoring personal attacks on my talk page that I removed as inappropriate (both per the policies that users can remove personal attacks at will and also because I can use my talk page as I see fit) and not making claims that removing discussion from a talk page is considered uncivil when it's more accurate to say that constantly putting comments on a talk page that you know are inappropriate and unwelcome is uncivil. Your claims to want to give advice would appear a lot more genuine if you were more -- gosh what's the word? -- civil about them. DreamGuy 22:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Removing other people's comments isn't really uncivil, it's just generally considered poor form. Anyway, I'm sorry you saw that comment as a personal attack. I'll refrain from putting things on your talk page since you obviously don't like getting feedback from other editors. Friday (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I like getting feedback, but it's nice if the feedback was intended to have a real purpose. Showing up to restore personal attacks against me that I had earlier removed and then suddenly telling me I should read the civility policy when you have already previously given me that link and by all appearances have not read it yourself both are quite without a legitimate purpose. Please do not try to misconstrue my preference for only having ongoing and genuine concerns on my talk page with being uncivil. DreamGuy 22:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my memory isn't that good. I didn't see the link to WP:CIVIL anywhere on your talk page, so I pointed you there. Editors may well be more aware of what's happened previously if it's still there to read. Friday (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, see, and there you are being uncivil again by pretending to be ignorant to try to justify your uncivil behavior. Whether you remember you put the link there previously or not, you also knew that some people were making complaints elsewhere about my supposed uncivility with prominent linkss there and that I had responded. You were fully aware that I know about the policy, and yet you purposefullystopped by to give a "friendly" tip. Apparently you seem to think that uncivil behavior is perfectly fine if you use polite words while taking actions obviously intended to annoy and harass. That's not really a position that can be defended. I only hope that you rethink your behavior here. DreamGuy 03:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I do not agree that cautioning other editors about policies (or even suggesting that they have violated a particular policy) is automatically uncivil. There are nice ways and not nice ways to do it. Friday (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was automatically uncivil. Please make a stronger effort to find the nice ways of doing it, because the examples I gave above are clear examples of the not nice ways. DreamGuy 22:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid we may simply have to agree to disagree on that last point. But, I will take the spirit of your advice to heart and seek nicer ways of interacting with other editors, even if I'm criticising an edit. I can see that the edit I made a couple weeks ago wasn't appreciated. I've already said I'm sorry, but I'll say it again and try to be very nice about it: I'm sorry for making an edit to your user talk page that you didn't like. Can we let bygones be bygones? I'll certainly agree to not restore deleted content on your talk page anymore. I still don't think you should remove comments by other editors, but I'll happily consider that your business rather than mine. I haven't been here all that long and I won't pretend I don't make mistakes. Looking to the future rather than dwelling on the past, I'll welcome any further comments you (or any other editor) have on my editing behavior. Friday (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The "does not assert importance" criterion is for people, not books. CanadianCaesar 03:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

hi. i'm curious how replacing the VfD template with boilerplate text (e.g., Ignite (U.S. band)) is "fixing" the VfD tag. mind filling me in? i can't see any difference in the result, except for adding more characters, and some remarks that shouldn't be necessary for anybody who reads the page. what's the payoff, and how was what i did broken (the implication of "fixing")? thanks. SaltyPig 08:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. I created the articles as stubs in hope that they will be expanded by other users. They are well-known brands within the UK, and I feel they could have worthy articles in time. --Daniel Lawrence 20:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

at User_talk:Bad_girl_1701 you've stated that "removing articles from Wikipedia has nothing to do with censorship." we've been so trained to recoil from "censorship" that the word is apparently losing its meaning. the problem at hand is not censorship, but rather the mistaken belief that censorship isn't supposed to occur at wikipedia (and that it's inherently evil).

the WP:NOT article is essentially censorship policy. that is good, because wikipedia couldn't function without censorship. deleting articles at wikipedia has everything to do with censorship. intelligent, proper censorship should be lauded, not denied. censorship, like discrimination (another necessary action practiced here intentionally), is usually not a bad thing, but we're programmed to recoil from even considering the possibility that we engage in either of those often worthy practices. wikipedia is private property, and speech restrictions are an essential right of property owners. User:Bad_girl_1701's attempt to invoke "constitutional" blah blah should fail immediately. it's irrelevant here, and is simply a fallacious attempt to put readers on the defensive. looks like it worked. SaltyPig 21:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Wiki is "private property" is exactly why I don't consider this remotely censorship. We're making no attempt to establish standards for other people's websites, we only worry about encyclopedic standards for this one. Perhaps this is purely semantics, but I still don't consider it at all censorship. Friday (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind. It is censorship, but it's the good kind. Being a libertarian type, I often jump to conclusions when I hear words like that. I usually assume censorship to mean one entity censoring another, which I usually don't like. But when an organization censors itself, that's ok. So actually, I agree with you, altho I have to admit, I think you perhaps bit the newbie a bit more than needed. On the other hand, the subsequent vandalism coming from there doesn't make me very sympathetic. Friday (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

i thought i was pretty nice to her. i welcomed her, and tried to get her situated despite her bad behavior. maybe if you can tell me what parts you think were too biting, i'll gradually become a nicer person. SaltyPig 04:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say I'm an authority on being nice or anything, I've probably bitten unneccessarily a few times myself. I just thought perhaps the new editor took offense to your calling the article "terrible". Altho, you were pretty right about that and I suppose that's not much of a bite, perhaps a light nip if anything. You user page rant, while understandable, is a bit biting in tone although I suppose that's a bit different as it's not aimed at a particular, named person. Anyway, thanks for your reasonable response! Friday (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the $.02. :) The original content was "Veda is a band from Kansas City, Missouri," which I axed under A1. Glad it's back as a real article, though. - Lucky 6.9 17:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Does this mean we're up to an even $.10? - Lucky 6.9 20:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

-You wrote: Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Specifically, this is in response to this edit. Friday (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

-Thanks anyways, I am somewhat flattered that you recognized it's a point made. We should talk some time and exchange our views regarding the series. I'm sure you are quite educated in this area. I welcome any other suggestions you will make. :) Soilguy6 05:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Friday, I V. Molotov - formerly known as "Dbraceyrules", hereby give you this Barnstar of Diligence for efforts on Wikipedia.

Take care, V. Molotov 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing, I was just trying to politeV. Molotov 21:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that! Thanks again. Friday (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would consider changing your vote on metroblogging. I see that you voted the way you did because policy deemed that a rank higher than 10k wasn't enough. Thats a silly policy with millions of pages on the net, the top 10% or better must be worthwhile. I have revised the policy page. Thanks! 12.111.139.2 01:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)--

And I've "revised" it back. The 10k number has resulted from discussion of that policy, and no, it's not silly. Wikipedia is not a web directory. (Sorry for intruding on your talk page, Friday.) android79 01:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, and no problem, android79. Also, for 12.111.139.2, WP:WEB isn't even a policy per se, it's a proposed guideline. I chose to use that guideline in considering this article. Another one to consider is WP:NOT. There are plenty of websites who've got articles in Wikipedia. However, there are millions that don't, and it's up to the articles to show why a particular website is more influential or important than millions of other sites. I've got a website, two bands, and a car, but you'll find none of them written about on Wikipedia. The deletion vote is not an attempt to judge the value of the website. It's an attempt to control what topics are covered in the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving that for me! Glad to know you enjoyed the comedy :)

I'm watching it with a sinking heart. Were the page not protected, I suspect we'd be giddy from the reverting. But it's not quite at a blockable level yet, IMO. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. And, yeah, I'm not saying he violated 3RR, or the case for a block would be obvious. I'm just disappointed that he continues to edit by brute force, in the very same content dispute that just got him blocked. Friday (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

theres no brute force, otherwiset here would be no discusssion.~!Gavin the Chosen

Look what is the meaning of all these letters and akrynms? Why cant you peak to all ths on my frequesst for reqiest for comment page maybe that might help you.Wiki brah 19:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am about to step out for a bit of a air now please do not post anything on my page ever agan thank you.Wiki brah 19:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If you mean your talk page, OK, I guess. If you mean another page, you may be out of luck. Friday (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Friday, thanks for your vote of confidance at my RfA. I'll try hard to make the soggy mop proud! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem on destubbing that--I've shot a number of wildcats and near-wildcats in my time; the .30 Herrett in particular is a fun one, and I've formed .221 Fireball brass from .223 cases (back when .221 Fireball brass was out of production). I've also greatly expanded the handloading page, if you want to have a look and check my admittedly flaky spelling... scot 19:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Friday, and thanks for your support of my RfA. I'm an administrator now, and I hope that I'll live up to the community's expectations as one. Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. - ulayiti (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

hello. did you send this to me via email? Man, if you want to edit wikipedia you're going to have to play nice with other editors. There are ways of resolving disputes without the animosity. If you keep it up, you could find yourself blocked from editing. Just trying to help. I know you can do useful things here, but not if you get yourself blocked. if so, why? based on what? for what purpose? if not, please ignore/delete. thanks. SaltyPig 00:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It was about this, actually, I just didn't want to be piling on. The purpose was already explained, but I'll try to explain it again. You're doing useful things, so I wouldn't like to see you get blocked or chased off the project. However, if you don't manage to play nicer with others, you're going to get static from people and possibly get blocked sometimes. Friday (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"manage to play nicer with others"? do you hear yourself say these things? somebody told you that's an effective way to communicate with adults? do whatever you want. if i can't reply with humor and disdain to somebody threatening me and then threatening to kick my ass, you can have this place. you might want to consider sometime, however, that intelligent adults respond better to short hand jabs (e.g., "bro, you're pushing it. lay off the guy a little. you know we can't go talking to newbies like that. c'mon."), not smarmy kindergarten talk. you're just making things worse. and i'm sure this comment here will be blamed on me having an attitude problem, not you being a condescending groper. yeah, thanks for your "advice". glad after my good record at wikipedia that it gets me "the speech for the snot-nosed". wannabe cops will kill this place if anything can. exactly how did you end up reading my talk page anyway? that's perhaps the key here. i didn't report the guy. interesting. SaltyPig 01:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I tried the subtle adult-style talk. You responded like you didn't know what I was talking about. I wasn't trying to be patronizing. Sorry I rubbed you the wrong way tho. I'll leave to you yourself and not give you "advice" anymore. Friday (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, Friday. Thanks for the support on my RfA; I was surprised at how widely supported it was. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I learn my way around the new buttons. Thanks again. -Splash 16:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Friday, I think there might be a small concensus. Please read the following prior posts from the oral sex discussion page Reynoldsrapture 19:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC) :

i realize there is a place for images here, and i personally do not support censoring such things - however, let me lay something out for you. i teach history at a public high school in the United States. i use wikipedia in my lessons. i have students use wikipedia for their research. the district has a very strict policy about image content, especially because we have elementary schools using the same network. the images on this article are putting at risk student access to wikipedia.

sure, sure, you'll say - well, fight the district. it isn't that easy. the district has elementary schools, middle schools and high schools, all under one umbrella. we all use the same network. in other words, currently, the elementary schools in my district also have access to wikipedia. in the case of children, it is not for you to decide whether they should see these images or not - it is up to the parents of each child.

the point of all this is: whatever websites are blocked for the elementary school are also blocked for the high school - because we only use one network.

yes, i agree, there should not be censorship. however, i really want you all to think of the complicated situation here. potentially, i could lose access to wikipedia from my high school - and that would be a tragedy. Kingturtle 07:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If students see swear words on Wikipedia used in legitimate sense (e.g. ass, shit, etc), would that count as risk for students in the elementary school using Wikipedia? --SuperDude 15:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC) I doubt it. The concern would be seeing explicit photos and drawings of sexual acts. I am fully opposed to censorship - but this situation calls for some serious thought. Kingturtle 16:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC) I must say that I am rather happy to see the question arising in a sensible and non-partisan tone. It is a legitimate question to consider, and I think that it would be very positive if it could at last be discussed calmly and with genuine intents to come to a reeasonable conclusion. Rama 16:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt here but, why would you be teaching oral sex in a history class?--Orgullomoore 21:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral comment: I think his point is that site-wide bans because of pages like oral sex will lead to pages a history teacher will have a legitimate interest in using, like Roman republic, being blocked by overzealous administrators. It's no secret that the commercial webblocking programs have employed heavy-handed techniques in the past. Wikipedia is no good if people can't get to us, but it's also no good if it becomes a censored community. That's why it's so vital to find a compromise. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) The images shouldn't be here. It's illegal to show sexually explicit images to children, without consent of parents, without making any attempt to prevent it. Like copyright law, it's irrelevant if you disagree with the law. It's irrelevant if the law is inneffective. Also, yes, people do read about topics they do not wish to "partake" in. There are also a number of other acts, that nobody wishes to see pictures of. I can think of countless articles (not this one) that describe an act (sexual and non-sexual), which most people would wish to read about, but would not engage in. At a minimum, wikipedia should "tag" this and other pages, so that "filter" software can exclude it. I don't beleive that is done. So, the pictures should go. --rob 07:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with the above statements, the photos really do have to go. There's no excuse for having what could be deemed hardcore pornographic content on an encyclopedia. Also, we seem to only be looking at it from our westernised point of view. In many theocratic countries pornography will get you flogged and worse in others. I'd rather ditch the eye candy than think some poor sap in Indonesia just got beaten within an inch of his life because he was trying to learn and clicked through to somewhere he shouldn't have. As there has been no complaints or "Keep the porn." attitudes demonstrated, not even by a vocal minority, I will be so bold as to make a move and remove the images in question. Jachin 09:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC) This image has been removed numerous times and has always been restored. Please do not remove information unless you have something better to replace it with. Rama 09:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC) I'm failing to see the advantage to an inline vs. linked image. No content is being removed, but Wikipedia is in real danger of violating obscenity law by providing no warning/disclaimer/age protection. Linking the image should satisfy this concern (yes, I've read the above arguments from April). Nae'blis 22:03:47, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my RfA. android79 15:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "Thanks for your response via email, but I'm afraid it just shows that you're not understanding the problem here"

Well, thank YOU for your response, but I assure you, I understand the REAL problem here much more than you think... Big Daddy 04:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. A bully, or better, a wannabe bully just up and DELETED my comments on the Karl Rove talk page. You can't do that can you? I returned the favor and then they whined that I was 4RR. It was an OBVIOUS set up....Sheesh, some people will do WHATEVER to try and silence the opinions of those they disagree with, huh? Big Daddy 05:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule, editors should not delete other editors' comments. Also as a general rule, editors should not break the one revert rule. I'm not picking sides here, just making general statements. Friday (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Friday. Just wanted to let you know that you should not redirect (or blank, or delete) an article whilst it is being discussed at Articles for deletion. Rather, indicate in its discussion page that you wish it to come to that end. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

To be frank, I am really not willing to engage in an extended discussion on deletion policy. I tend to stay away from Afd altogether because of the friction it causes and its often confrontational manner. Further, I am on Wikibreak. However, I'll attempt to briefly respond to your points.

Firstly, I think you're not completely understanding the Afd process or the concept of a consensus generally. Articles are submitted to Afd in an attempt to seek consensus on what to do with them - whether it be delete or keep, or even merge, redirect or transwiki. Once articles have entered the Afd process, they must be allowed to run their course - which, as stated on Afd, is usually 5 days. (The exception being if articles submitted should have been listed as candidate's for speedy deletion; this is done to avoid un-necessary backlog). And it is precisely because of this the {{afd}} notice states "You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Please take note of this in future.

If over the course of its listing - again, usually five days, but can also be either longer or shorter depending on whether consensus is overwhelming or lacking - a consensus is formed to redirect, then the closing admin may take that action. But only after, not during.

I placed the article on Afd because I sought consensus for deletion. However, if the consensus is against the proposed deletion, then I am equally happy because it will have been what the community decided. If you think an article proposed for deletion would be better replaced by a redirect, than indicate that in the discussion. Please do not unilaterally take it upon yourself to achieve that end. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermicula, perhaps no-one has objected because they are not as vigilant as I? I recommend you restore the article and wait for the discussion to finish.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Friday (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply to your message to me: First, the warning is clear. Obviously if "merge and re-direct" is not allowed "re-direct" alone isn't allowed either. But, I will make a suggestion that get spelled out clearer. The speedy delete is a special circumstance, when no *claim* of notability exists. The unilateral re-direct is allowed *before* the AFD is begun. In this case I think AFD was used because initially the baby's name wasn't verified. Sometimes an AFD can be withdrawn by the *nominator* if they think they made a mistake. You see, AFD's are for disputes. Sometimes speedy actions happen when there isn't a dispute, but just a misunderstanding. For instance, sometimes somebody creates a redundant article about a person, and the nominator didn't notice that. Generally, speedy actions are allowed, where there's no potential for contesting a decision. With articles about major celebs, there's always that potential. I felt, especially early on, there was potential for the decision to be contested, which is why the AFD must procede. There absolutely no harm whatsoever in waiting five days. However, great harm is caused if people start interfering with AFD process. Also, please note, I've also reverted attempts by article supporters, who try and remove the notice of the AFD. I try to be consistent on this, since I just don't beeleive decisions should be based on who the fast editor/re-director/reverter is. Also, I do appreciate the fact you didn't re-re-direct it. --rob 23:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your responses. If anyone's willing to entertain further discussion, I'm curious whether you think it's never appropriate to redirect an article on Afd, or whether it was just inappropriate in this case. My personal belief right now is that if a speedy or redirect can come along and solve the issue easily, there's no need to wait. In this case, the redirect was controversial and it was reverted. Is that a big deal? IMO, Afd is a clumsy and unwikilike process that is best used only when neccessary. I don't see the harm in trying to resolve issues by common sense and consensus, whether strictly by the letter of the rules or not. Friday (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

One thing to add: There is a very specific case, which I won't name (to avoid getting personal with somebody else), in which somebody re-directed a highly contested AFD process. I would have voted keep, and the person who did the re-direct knew that, and knew a re-direct would hide it from people who wanted to do a keep (since then I've learned to check history for AFDs). A "consensus" for re-direct then occured, which I discovered, to late. Frankly, I have no respect for that "consensus". So, I'm vary wary of letting a potential "precident" stand. The problem is that what is "obviously" non-notable to one person, is "obviously" famous to another. It's a mistake to make rules based on exceptions. AFD is actually a very "wiki-like" process, in that it builds concensus. Re-directs have no need to be "speedied" like certain speedy deletes. Speedy deletes, even contested ones, exist in part, to prevent massive vanity and link spam clogging up wikipedia, which isn't the case here. They're an unfortunate necessity. Speedy re-directs in an AFD are never necessary. I still don't understand what the problem with a five day wait is. --rob 02:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If a consensus has not yet been formed, it is not appropriate to redirect an article on Afd. However, if an overwhelming consensus to redirect is formed in under five days, then the discussion may be closed and the article redirected. In this case, you acted unilaterally - in good faith, I think - and redirected the article before a discussion, let alone consensus, had formed. You need to allow the Afd process to run its course (whatever length that may be), even if you disagree with it. And it seems most Wikipedians do have some quibble with it. But, at the moment, it's all we got. There is currently a major discussion on deletion policy/procedure taking place on WikiEN-1 (the mailing list) and elsewhere on Wikipedia that you may be interested joining. (I'm not, but am closely monitoring it). And to clarify, I reverted your redirect because it was unilateral and against procedure, not because it was in itself controversial. Happy editing, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for the response. I've thought about this more, and I can see why it's sometimes controversial. However, redirects are just as easy to undo as they are to do. But, in the interest of harmonious editing, I'll try to do it only in what I consider obvious cases. FWIW, I see some Afds being closed as a "speedy redirect", so it looks like (at least some) admins believe this is sometimes proper too. I think anything to help reduce the load on Afd is a good thing. I'll mark them as speedy redirects from now on and continue to encourage anyone who disagrees to revert the redirect and continue with Afd. Personally, I place greater value on making good content decisions than I do on following established procedure. That said, of course established policies and guidelines are very useful in most cases; that's how they got to be policies and guidelines. Friday (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Friday, you need to have some kind of a majority if you perform the redirect. Further, if you do perform the redirect, the Afd must be closed. Otherwise, an Afd is left active without the corresponding article - that isn't helping anyone. It defeats the purpose of an Afd. Please don't continue in this.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Closing would make it harder for anyone who disagreed to respond, would it not? I'm not sure I understand your objection. Friday (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

That's why you first need to achieve a majority. New voters cannot judge the article on its merits if it does not exist, ie, if it is a redirect. They shouldn't need to go digging through its history just to ascertain its worth.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to do anything against consensus. Which edit(s) did you object to? Friday (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there was any malintent on your part either. My point is that, in this case (Federline), you redirected the article before a consensus had yet even formed. You need to wait for a consensus to form, whether it be for delete, keep, merge, redirect or transwiki, before you can perform the supported action.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to close the Afd, I was trying to avoid the Afd. I see other unrelated things in Afd that get redirected or speedily deleted before consensus forms, so I don't see that this is automatically a Bad Thing. However since the Federline article, I'm attempting to do speedy redirects only in obvious cases, such as when an article on the same subject already exists, apparently unknown to the author of the second article. Do you think this is OK? Friday (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

PS. Here's an example of what I mean: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cestoidea. I made this a speedy redirect, even tho I don't believe I had "consensus". In this case I feel it was obviously the right thing to do. The Afd is left open so that if anyone disagrees with this, they have a place to easily say so. I make redirects in places where I think they're appropriate, without waiting for consensus. In cases where I'm not sure, I generally ask on the talk page what people would think about a redirect. Friday (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some things that get sent to Afd shouldn't be. Some should have been CSD'd, others have no valid reason for deletion. And I understand your logic of leaving an Afd open so the redirect can be objected to. However, I can't understand that you don't see as a problem the leaving open of an Afd where there isn't a corresponding article (because it has been redirected, merged or blanked) for voters to judge. And I'm curious if you really think unilateralism is appropriate - even if your opinion is the best, as in the above example, will it always be? Also, do you recognise that the backlog isn't being help by this action? That is to say, the Afd remains in the log even when it has been effectively resolved - an admin still has to close it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Anything that helps move Afds along is helpful. By "backlog" I don't just mean things waiting to be officially closed; some articles have been listed more than once due to inadequate participation. FWIW, I'm closing them sometimes, when I can, so if you're concerned with that aspect of the backlog, I'm helping out there as well. I do it only in noncontroversial cases that don't require a delete.

As for the speedy redirects, anyone who comes across the Afd can read it and see what's happening. You're right tho, a disadvantage is that if they want to see the previous content, they'll have to look in history. However, I've tried to make the reasoning clear in the Afd page so that anyone can tell why the redirect was done. I'll certainly admit that the redirect was a mistake on the Federline baby- even though that's how it ended up. The fact that someone reverted it shows that there wasn't entirely agreement with it. The redirect was undone as easily as it was done, without any fuss, so I don't see that any harm was done. However, I believe the speedy redirects I've done since then have been less controversial. I haven't noticed a single one being reverted, and no one has (to my knowledge) gotten confused by it.

We may have differing thoughts on "unilateralism". ANY edit made without explicit prior consensus could be considered unilateral, I suppose. Clearly, editors do not always "ask permission" before making an edit. Usually, this is OK. Sometimes, people disagree. I value your input, but I don't see any reason to refrain from speedy redirects when I thnk they're appropriate. It effectively "solves" the Afd (but anyone is still free to read it and disagree), which lets people concentrate on the Afds that still need attention. Friday (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with a redirect, but is it ok to do that while the afd is in progress? Joyous (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for promptly acknowledging my complaint on the 3RR page. I would welcome a discussion of these five examples with you or whatever admin is responsible for assessing my complaint.

I have carefully reviewed the 3RR rule, and each instance. I believe my complaint is warranted. Kind regards, paul klenk 04:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no admin, I was just hoping to help. I was hoping to see things resolved peaceably with no need for a block. Looks like the article was protected instead. And the issue appears to have been discussed, probably to much greater lengths than were needed. Everyone can try to help prevent such edit wars by following the one revert rule and encouraging others to do the same. Friday (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This dormitory and the videos made by it have relation to a valid Wikipedia article about Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia. This is an accredited college that has pumped out a great number of learned graduates. St. Kevin's is one of the dormitories of the college, and the videos were shown to the entire school. Your "custodial nature" needs to just lay off of this particular dormitory's entry. Other entries are planned in the future to give more information to the public about the student life at Christendom College. Far from being personal aggrandizement, these articles are valuable to potential students in their choice of whether to attend Christendom. 68.91.150.5 05:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC) J. Smith

My mistake about Pekin duck - I was checking Recent Changes for vandalism and noticed this edit, I took the new link and was here. I honestly thought it was a hoax against Peking duck, I should have checked. Thanks for closing, Alf ^melmac 00:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all, glad I could help. I've only closed a couple Afds but it sure seemed like that one was clear case. Mistakes are going to happen; as long as we can easily fix them in a civilized way, they're not much of a problem. Thanks for your contributions. Friday (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to expectations. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

hi thanks for the nice note on my talk page. I have a quick question, i have added some additional info onto the 'main' AfD page relating to Detroit Grand Pubahs, the page i'm referring to is the page you see in isolation if you follow the AfD link from the DGP article page but i have just found that you can see all of the AfD organised by date on a long page covering everything that has been nominated on that day; my question is why on this page can i not see the additional info i have posted up about the band which i think will be important for others to see when considering whether or not to delete it. Sorry if this seems like a dumb question but i just can't figure it out. Thanks again --MJW 01:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No offence taken. Even though I've been reading Wikipedia articles for a while, this is my first attempt on the contribution side of the process. I appreciate any advice I can get. The palantir 18:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I wondered why a comment I made on RfA got lost. Thanks for pointing out the misspelling, although I'll be go to heck if I knew how it happened. :) I think I've fixed it. - Lucky 6.9 23:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Friday. Thanks for your comments and advice. I can't say that I'm too eager (or qualified) to make a wikipedia entry for Jesus TM, and go through my own deletion discussion. But I appreciate your civility, and I look forward to becoming more immersed in the Wikipedian world. Muract 00:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Although you voted oppose on my RfA, I wanted to thank you for participating anyway. Molotov (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

...for your quick attention to the adolescent vandalism of my user page by McKillick. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page. If I'm a sockpuppet of Willy, I haven't felt his... um, never mind, this isn't going anywhere good. Have a cold one on me, for the reversion and the messages that made me chuckle. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mmmmm, beer. Thanks. Friday (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peters' Drive-in. Even though I still feel the same way, I'm not gonna mount a hopeless campaign. I still think an article on the Drive-in should exist, but the content there does't explain itself properly. Some time in the distant future, somebody needs to write a a well researched article . Most of the information won't be on web sites free on-line (like a lot of history), but could be referenced properly. If that's done, it would have a shot at an AFD. But, for this time, I'm following the rule, that one should rarely spend more time defending an article than was spent creating it. I actually respect/understand the reason for the deletes, since nobody has spent the time needed developing the article (including me), which could explain the signficance properly. --rob 02:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to analyze User:BigDaddy777's behavior in context, based on the RfC. This is very hard, because the RfC quotes him out of context; I can't fairly analyze a quote that way. Working through the threads to do post mortems is extremely time consuming.

Would you please send me one or two links to a discussion of some length, representing BDs worst behavior? It should include more than just one or two isolated remarks.

Please leave it at my talk page under User talk:Paul Klenk#BG777 Worst-Of Threads, trying not duplicate a thread submitted someone else. I will continue to sort through the RfC, but one or two links would be a great help. Thanks.

paul klenk ^talk 07:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Notied your comments re deletion of the entry on Richard Rose. You mentioned the words spirituality and skeptism in your profile, which also caught my attention. Richard Rose dedicated his life to examining various "spiritual" cults and movements, and his first book contained many guidelines on how to evaluate them (money aspect, dogmatism, emotional appeals, etc). He wrote critically about trends in psychology, psychiatry, academia, and the legal system when such critism was not popular, and his insights then have proven largely correct over time. I notice you have a conscientious attitude to keeping WP content at high standards. I'm a newbie here and don't exactly know the protocol, so I don't want to annoy you, but I'm responding to your link that says "leave me a message". Feel free to delete this page if you wish. If your mind is not fully set on deletion, I could tell you some more about the notability of the man and his place in spiritual research, which might affect your vote. You can reach me at sharnish@att.net Thanks for reading this. Steve Harnish, Miami, FL.

<< Your best bet to keep the article is to work on improving it. It needs to be more encyclopedic in its tone, for one thing...>>

Hi Friday, thanks for your comments. As a newbie I'm not sure abvout the process. I saw a remark that said the page shouldn't be changed while discussion is underway. Do you recommend that the changes be made immediately? (I'm not the author, but I know how to reach him/them). Sharnish 16:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Comments on Davien Crow

I have posted this, I hope that some of you will consider looking for my information and reconsider your vote for now. A lot of people are simply responding to the rudeness of user:sin-thetik and some things I said are being misconstrude as threats. I am simply upset because of all the time it took to write these 3 articles, knowing they fit the guidelines, only to have somone delete them with the proof and verifiable facts right in front of them .. just their un-willingness to read them. Please think it over, I appreciate your time. I'm just a fan girl trying to be the first to get an article up about them since I have been running a fan site about them for almost 2 years now.

Look the point summarized is I am willing to work with you guys on why these were deleted but until now noone has given us any feedback and has even lied about stuff trying to get it deleted. All 3 of them meet the sufficient amount of requirements for WP:MUSIC, the guidelines in WP:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, Wikipedia:Importance, Wikipedia:Notability (the fact that suicide girls, gidget gein, and marilyn manson are involved and can be verified in those links should proove that) , Wikipedia:Fame_and_importance mainly the part stating "There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)" If you can't tell the community of Myspace.com and Livejournal.com alone are enough to meet this criterea you are blind. If you do google searches, go to forums and search their names, or visit internet archives you can find un-disputable information on the band from reputable sources, first hand accounts that are years older than these discussions, and intangible archives kept by internet archives. IF you want more detail read my above rant, your right I do sound mad about this, because I can't see how you can say they do not meet criterea or that this is a vanity page. Please accept my apologies for anything you have taken to be rude and please re-consider changing your vote. What Harm could it do ? BTW I am not trying to bully anyone, I can show you the location of the people threatening to come here and vandalize the hell out of Wikipedia. But I do not want that to be part of your decision at all. PLEASE THINK IT OVER G4DGET 04:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been contributing minor things to wiki for a while now, but only recently made an account. I will probably not be as dedicated as you certainly seem to be, but I will try to make my contributions good ones. kifftopher 05:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Friday, I have just blocked LaLa for 48 hours for violation of WP:NPA for incivility on his talk page, but I was not sure if your comments on his page was related to the same incident , or something else I am unaware of. Please let me know what your beef was with him, and if you have any further trouble with this user or his sockpuppets. Regards, Fawcett5 11:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Responded to your comments on my talk page. Thanks! Kurt Weber 21:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

And again. Kurt Weber 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet again. Kurt Weber 18:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks. care to list me here? Nateji77 17:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

probably a litte more time to read through the docs. thanks. Nateji77 12:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

it's on my todo list. i hadnt been too worried about it, since the only time i edit my own talkpage is when i remove the clutter, so anyone can look in the page history at the edit just before one of mine to see whats missing. i didnt realize until a few days it was frowned upon. Nateji77 00:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

You have the image Image:Cowbell2.gif on your user page; this image is copyrighted and used in the Will Ferrell article under Wikipedia:Fair use. The use on your user page of that image is unlikely to be covered by use however, and as such is probably a Copyright violation. Could you remove the image from your user page? Thanks. --fvw * 23:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Perhaps a quick visit to cowbell.com's preview page would help cheer you up? :-) FreplySpang (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well it did me a world of good anyway, thanks. --fvw * 21:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

MMm, that's good cowbell. Thanks :) Friday (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Friday - by the time I got your message I'd already reverted the merge and put the article up for deletion. I figured that at least this would ensure there was wider input into the process. I guess I was a bit put out by the rather blunt (inflammatory?) reason given for the merge and wanted more input. Is putting it up for deletion likely to cause problems? Regards, CLW 21:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll sleep on it and see how I feel. I probably would have just dropped the whole thing in the first place had the comment left in the edit history been more constructive, but hey I guess it's the human element which makes the way Wikipedia works so special... CLW 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Since you endorsed the original RfC , I thought you might be interested to know that since the dispute resolution process has stalled due to BigDaddy's refusal to respond to this RfC, some are now questioning whether an RfAr should be filed. Your comments on this new issue would be appreciated. 69.121.133.154 05:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out - he didn't seem to be listening to other peoples suggestions. --Kiand 19:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my recent nomination on RfA. By the way, I noticed there's a missing word on your user page - I assume it should read, "It's possible that sometimes I tend toward being a verifiability-nazi." :-) Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 10:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's possible that I do not tend toward being a proofreading-nazi. ;-) Thanks. Friday (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for listing Otherkin on AfD. That's been on my watchlist for ages but I could never really figure out how to salvage what's there, so I'd sort of written it off as a lost cause, but now that I think about it there's a lot to be said for blowing away what's there to send the current regular editors a message and then start over with whatever few secondary sources exist. — mendel ☎ 14:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

To their credit, I'd say the majority of AfD debates are about the merits of the subject these days, so this is new to many. If nothing else the AfD might raise awareness of the problem enough that it's stubbed out even without being deleted, with a sufficient number of non-otherkin watchers to keep it from growing back to what it was. — mendel ☎ 15:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello sir, I belive the Gorilla Operation page derves a fair go, it isnt fair to delete a band's page just because they arn't famous just yet. If you had heard some of their work you might be quite impressed.

Cheers, Daniel

Just so you know, I've left the lad a very gentle message about why the band doesn't qualify yet, and also suggesting that he register. If/when he does register, I think it would encourage him to receive a note on his talk page in addition to the usual canned welcome message. DS 13:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Author of GO: Thanks for the whole speech on why my article doesn't deserve to be on the site. I agree with you to an extent. I know about all the rules and such and agree my article may not fit in with the rules. I still think its a great article and should be allowd somewhere. If you become an administrator, maybe you could put forward the idea of having a "new and upcomming band" segment of the site devoted to these sorts of articles. cheers.

Do you really see any evidence whatsoever that Zizban is going to stop harassing Kiand? Just look at Kiand's talk page! --Golbez 00:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert and the aid! --Dvyost 20:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I know we havent really spoken that much before, but Ive seen you many times and after reviewing your work I was very impressived and I see some valuable edits especially on AFD, and a very civilized user who dont really get into conflects which is very important in my opinion . I belive u deserve the mop to help clear out those speedy junk. Would you like me to nominate you to become an Administrator? --JAranda | yeah 20:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: I've removed your nomination from the WP:RfA page per the new policy. Once (and if) you accept and have answered the questions, then make sure to add {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Friday}} ---- to the WP:RfA page. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh there is a new policy opps Yeah I got d/c while nominating so I couldn't Finish the nomination . U could accept it now --JAranda | yeah 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully everything is squared away now. Thanks to both of you for your help. Friday (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, all I know about Bornscar is that he/she/they exist and have charted on the Billboard R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart. I think Bornscar is a male rapper, however. I'm hoping people with knowledge of these artists will begin to add as much as they know. Xinger 17:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar - I've been feeling rather wikiburnedout lately, so it's much appreciated. Cheers! FreplySpang (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

On my talk page. Agriculture 14:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, does look like I need some help with policies after all. Unfortunately the otherkin discussion appears to be getting quiet uncivil. I think this is actually getting kind of bad and to a degree more than I am willing to express in the discussion itself at the moment in an effort to not elevate it more. So I was looking for some help dealing with this, possibly by more official means if it does not work out on its own. Also, I would like to think that this is not caused in part by me, but that may be a possibility. Since I would like to hold WP’s policy’s and goals highly around here, any actually constructive suggestions on my own actions would be greatly welcome. Honestly in my opinion though, it looks like this situation won’t be easy to solve, as your and other’s comments (including one on a user’s talk page with many other comments about being uncivil) have not seem to fixed the situation yet.AtomicDragon 20:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on being an adm. (you are going to win). Thank you for your support on mine, I am a little upset with you, but hopefully we can build a better relationship in the future. Molotov (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright - have another barnstar on me. I am going crazy.

Take care,Molotov (talk)

01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

So you are an addict. Watch out for spies!!! Are you really agnostic? Douglas douglasehall@yahoo.com

Hi Fiday,

I am the drummer for a 1960's rock band Children of the Mushroom. Im also ADD I think I do alright at my age getting around on the net etc. Our group is listed int the 1968 offical records chart for making a 45 rpm record. I tried to place a simple photo and a very small article in Wikipedia. Mostly for all my grand kids and a lot of fans from the time. I did my best and it was edited which I greatly appreaciated. Im not an english student nor am I a rocket scientist. The historical article I placed was a small humble one. I see now the entry was taken down. It was located under our band name at the Garage Rock location. The original photo I placed there is in my home. I gave my permission to use it. Is there any way a small article can stand without someone coming along and taking it down.

Thanks Friday

you can read a small article interview of the bqand at www.60sgaragebands.com

Dennis Christensen Swanson

Hi, you left me a message but since you're not logged in, it's difficult to me to reply. I recommend you sign up for an account to make things easier. Anyway, the problem was probably not that the article was small (altho that is generally undesirable, by itself it's not grounds for deletion.) Due to an abundance of editors wanting to create articles on their bands, we have guidelines at WP:MUSIC for what makes a band suitable for inclusion. There are no hard and fast rules, but generally a band that doesn't meet the criteria there isn't going to survive long. If you sign up for an account, you'd be welcome to talk about your band on your user page, whether or not it was considered suitable for a page in article space. Hope this helps. I've replied on your page and mine in hopes of improving the chances of you seeing the response. (If you sign up for an account, you get your own user talk page, and things get easier). Friday (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my RfA. Your trust in me is well appreciated. Owen× ☎ 21:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Friday: I would like to thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I am most honoured by the trust that has been placed in me by yourself and other members of the Wikipedia community, especially since I did not conform to the standard edit-count criteria usually expected of administrator candidates. I promise to only use my administrative privileges to assist the community in doing good work, and also to be calm, considerate and careful in working to make Wikipedia a better place. I look forward to working with you on Wikipedia in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 04:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you say you are leaning towards a Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system. The proposal has now been moved to en(from meta) and is looking for supporters to add their names to it - as well as help make it specific and acceptable to as many wikipedians as possible. I would encourage you to go to the page and add your name if you feel so moved; and let anyone else who might be interested know as well. Thanks! (And good luck on your RfA!) JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Friday (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks For The Support!

It's slipped my mind, but one good turn deserves another. I'm supporting yours right now. Karmafist 16:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Friday: It looks like you accidentally added your user page to the Candidates for speedy deletion category. I changed it to link to the category. Hope you don't mind! Pburka 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

A big thank you for your help and support, I look forward to meeting you in more productive contexts, Yours, Trollderella 23:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | Talk 03:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Congrats! :) android79 03:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Congrats on being Wikipedia newest admin knew I made a good choice. --JAranda | yeah 03:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Congrats as per all above Dlyons493 Talk 09:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Richly deserved. Best wishes in the future.--Craigkbryant 13:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

- Thanks!! Friday (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Any chance of you certifying/endorsing/commenting on this VfD? You attempted to mediate, which, unfortunately, failed - as the flying puppet attacks have returned. --Kiand 09:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. I'll take a look. It's unfortunate this is neccessary, but if the harassment has not stopped it's definitely understandable. Friday (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized it when I hit the button and tried to stop the window, and went back and edited it manually so as not to use to roll-back, but I got distracted and forgot to make sure in the edit history. Definitely didn't mean to roll-back you, sorry bout that. Keep up the good work! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

On my Request for Comments page, I proposed a compromise with Kiand that I thought was reasonable, namely I wouldn't even visit his page if he stopped visiting SkyOS and my page. I suggested you as the third party moderator, because I think you are fair. Kiand roundly rejected the compromise and has launched personal attacks on me via the RFC. I don't know what to do. Can you help? ---User:Zizban

I was wondering if you could take a peek at mine and agree. Molotov (talk)
23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't neccessarily agree with all of them, but that's why mine are different than yours. BTW I think there's a typo in the edit count, looks like an extra 0. Friday (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, H e rmione1980 23:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Friday! Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. Congrats on your own recent success. Happy editing, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and introductory information. I appreciate your feedback on the article cleanup. ERcheck 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've changed my vote - but the article needs alot of work. Thanks for the heads up! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Friday, thanks for your support on my RFA. I very much appreciate it. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. See you around! —thames 18:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Friday, thanks for your guide and welcome. sorry took so long to answer, I was just playing in sandbox! Qoqnous 16:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Friday/archive2/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried my best, article should be kept My action was out of anger and despararity. But I am not a vandal, nor was I looking for praise particularly. BUt I am very sick of debating all the time - I have tried my best on everything here, so naturally I am sick of tug-of-war.Molotov (talk)
04:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, I should have never added the tag - although I think the Caucasian Jesus image should stay on the article. I am also a little pissed because a damn storm is is headed straight for me - and I have to get the hell out of here. But thanks. Molotov (talk)
04:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK.. I closed the Afd as an apparent mistake. Sorry about the storm. Friday (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I am going to move away from Florida, I guess a hurricane is the reason I am in such a bad mood. Molotov (talk)
04:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't ask me why - but something about you reminds me of a cafe...so here is some coffee Are you going to post the gold barnstar yet? Molotov (talk)
19:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Relax, man! You gotta get over this "everyone at Wikipedia is against me" stuff. With a few unfortunate exceptions, editors don't tend to be "against" anybody. We're all just trying to improve articles as we see fit. If you can't handle other people editing your words, post your writings on a personal website where the words only belong to you. I know you probably feel strongly about some subjects, but you gotta keep in mind, no article belongs to any one editor- even one they created themselves. Friday (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Friday - I have to remember this at the bottom of the box If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, please don't submit it. But this hurricane, boy - and me and my brother probably will evacuate - but we aren't in the center of danger. I am sorry about my anger, I reformatted my page to make me stay calm. I don't think you are a bad guy, but you sort of treat vandals better than editors at times. Are going to post the stuff? Molotov (talk)
21:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing on the beer project...and why is your name Friday? Molotov (talk)
21:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I was hoping you'd take it in the spirit it was intended. I'm not sure on putting up barnstars and whatnot, I'm not very into having awards on my user page. I try to treat everyone nicely (except perhaps obvious vandals, who may get harsh words if they don't respond to the nice ones) but whenever you see room for improvement, certainly let me know. I must sheepishly admit I've not done much on the beer project. I think I started a stub on Goose Island Brewery way back a long time ago. As for "Friday", that's what everyone calls me. Friday (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you were born on that day of the week - I was born on a Friday morning come to think of it. I will probably stop editting on those articles because it is not my place - unless I think something is wrong. Bye, sorry about asking so many questions. Molotov (talk)
00:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how you think it's "not your place"- anyone can and should edit any article they want, right? Friday (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

De facto yes de jure' I think not...but I gotta go. Molotov (talk)
00:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I for one say that the race of Jesus is obviously contested, I don't see why a specific "cite" needs to say so. Molotov (talk)
00:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a pick...it is pretty obvious . Take care, Molotov (talk)
00:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a bit on the talk page on this topic: Talk:Race of Jesus#NOR. I still think a source would be good, but we should dicuss it on the article talk page. Friday (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Friday, could you do a favor and verify this? As a non-admin, I probably shouldn't be closing AfDs (namely, if the article winds up deleted). Ac e tic '^Acid 04:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

All right, thanks. Just wanting to make sure. Take care! Ac e tic '^Acid 18:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Im not sure if this Cry softly is a speedy canditate. Could it be or no so I can take off the tag and place it on AFD. --JAranda | watz sup 03:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am looking for help on an admn right abuse/misuse. On 15 October 2005 User:Timwi deleted Template:Arab_subdivision without giving note anywhere nor contacting me, as the one who created it on 4 June 2005. This affected three other pages, among them Muhafazah a page with a merge-tag. He turned into a redirect to Governorate and while doing so deleted content that was not on Governorate, thus he did not merge. Furthermore on governorate there was a merge-tag but the merge was rejected on Talk:Governorate.

As a simple user I could not revert his deletion. I tried to figure out how the templete was before and recreated it. I left a message at his page resulting that he responded with telling me how to behave and doubting in my credibility

Later on I filed a RfC, but it seems no Admin cares about admin rights abuse or misuse as it is called on other pages. He still did not say anything that he would not do it again or that this was an error.

This is really bad! He could happy run away with this 48 h threshold. Now the RfC is deleted. He still did not say anything in regretting what he has done. I would like some sanctions against this behaviour. Admin right abuse is a serious thing. Admins get special power, but this is not there to create a two-class society on deleting pages and they are not given for to be abused. 48h - that's really bad. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

At first glance, you seem fairly quick to be accusatory. This may cause other editors to react defensively. Perhaps the template was deleted erroneously, but was any real harm done? I see that it's back now. It looks like the deletions and merges are being discussed in appropriate places. Is there something that's still not resolved to your satisfaction? Friday (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. He did not say he won't delete templates without process in the future. Was any real harm done? Any "real" harm is never done in WP. Harm is done to my confidence in admine right usage. And harm was done in that he was stealing time and deleting content. He did use powers that only an admin has. What do you mean by "Perhaps the template was deleted erroneously"? Did he say this anywhere? No. He did not regret nothing about the direct-admin-deletion nor did he say he won't do it again. This could also be taken as it would be common for him. Even in the RfC, there was a summary, he signed this, with the exception of one minor part, and this minor part exactly was the deletion. Yes, the deletions and merge are now discussed in the appropriate place, as the merge was before and was already voted keep. But to me it now seems admins can go around, abuse/misuse the rights and if it is discovered, well no problem. If so they have an incentive to do so. If not discovered they can go away happily, if discovered the un-do-work is up to the discoverer. I started User:Tobias Conradi/Admin right abuse . It's not only about Timwi, for me this is a general question of admin ethics / proper user of admin rights and defense mechanism of this proper use. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't say I see that this is all that big a deal. I've seen some things that I thought were mistaken admin actions. I've also seen some things that I thought were admin mistakes and the admin in question should have known better. I've even seen (rarely) admins do things that possibly were abuses of administrative abilities. My best guess is that this incident was in the first category- a simple mistake. Maybe Timwi didn't respond as kindly as you'd hoped, but honestly, your initial message wasn't very nice either. You may find that politely asking for a restoration or explanation for the deletion produces better results than accusations of abuse. Friday (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I absolutly do not understand how it can be a mistake. As admin you get special rights and you know you should only use them under certain rules. Timwi is a mass editor, I assume he knew that there is a deletion process. On the - now deleted - RfC page Timwi signed a summary written by User:Lomn - with the exception to the part where Lomn said he might take more care with the deletion policy in the future. He did explicitly not sign this, that means he did not see deleting as an error. Second, I was not hoping he would respond kindly to my posting, but I thought he would respond apropriate and not start questioning my credibility, while in the same moment he wrote "I do not think a deleted anything significant" It seems, that in his opinion it is absolutly apropriate to delete templates/articles that are insignificant by his individual judgement. Thus he is not respecting WP deletion policy. That's the part about Timwi. The other story is admin right abuse control. 48h for an RfC is not much and first I posted it in the wrong place. I am not the RfC-freak who knows how to do it all, luckily Lomn helped me but then 24h where allready past. After Lomn, me and Timwi were was the 2-person limit not satisfied? Before Timwi was there I tried to find someone from AMA who is online but this is hard. After Timwi edited the RfC I did not thought it would get deleted. I asked the deleter to give me a copy of the page but he said he would not undelete the page for me and after talk with some admin he said I could go for Vf undel. I asked him why he would not like to do it because it seems to be allowed. No response yet. So I have a (little) wall of admins against me / my point of view. Two-class society? Admins hiding admin rights mis/abuses? Once more: It seems, that in his opinion it is absolutly apropriate to delete templates/articles that are insignificant by his individual judgement. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in to your discussion page, but I figured I'd keep the talk in one area. Tobias, the RfC failed the 48 hour period as only you certified the basis for dispute. Timwi was the subject of RfC (and unlikely to certify himself) and I weighed in as a third party. I was not involved in the original dispute, nor did I attempt prior resolution, so I didn't certify. Additionally, I feel that Friday is correct in diagnosing this as an admin mistake rather than malicious behavior or abuse. However, I was extremely disappointed at Timwi's refusal to admit error when I pointed out that no speedy deletion criteria exist for templates, and that the template in question clearly did not fall into any general criteria. I have no problem with an admin who errs; I certainly do have a problem with any user who will justify his actions despite WP policy to the contrary. Should another RfC arise regarding Timwi's use of speedy deletion, I would likely certify it. All that said, I still think the best course of action is for Tobias to leave this be unless it's repeated. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No problems with errors! We are all capable of doing so :-). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been really selfish with the Race of Jesus article, and I want you to know that I am sorry. IN the end I know that you are only doing what you feel is right - and you are doing one hell of a job. I must come off as crazy with the coffee mugs and crap, but I am going through personal crap now. I am sorry, though.

Take care,V/M
19:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks, I appreciate your confidence. And you're right, I'm just trying to do what I think is right. It doesn't mean that my own opinions are always right or anything. Everyone has their own way of looking at things, and hopefully somehow between them all, a neutral, verifiable article emerges. Friday (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Friday, things in and out of Wikipedia are bearing down on me, but that does not give me the right to get so angry - just today I was ready to leave but I am constantly attracted to something here. DON'T EVER MOVE TO FLORIDA, though - just polite advice ; ) It is pretty windy now but the hurricane did not hit where I live. Also, I just hope that I can be a positive editor and I don't wind up like you know who, that is, banned from the wiki. Molotov (talk)

21:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Friday, I was looking in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles to find the correct categories for some items I wish to request. I see that some don't fit into any of the categories -- for example skateboarders, figure skaters, and extreme sports. I may be missing something, but I didn't see how to correctly add a new category. Is it acceptable for me to just edit the main page to add my own category? (Doesn't seem right.) ERcheck 05:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, my rationale for adding the {{delete}} template to the article was because the information had been cut and paste from the main The Onion article. I would agree with you it should be merged, but the case of The Onion versus the Bush Administration already exists as a subsection in the Onion article. Also, the sheer number of links that would potentially be merged violates what wikipedia is not specifically in that wikipedia is not "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories." Redirect isn't really an option either I would think, as this would just go to a small section that has since been renamed anyway. In any case, please reconsider the delete and let me know. --Easter Monkey 06:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that anyone can just put anything on there is what bothered me the most, aside from the lack of encylopedic value. There are plenty of sites that give these kind of lists, Wikipedia, and encyclopedia need not be one of them.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, when an IP only has one edit, and does not else to prove his/her knowledge of Wikipedia policy(such as make a coherent argument using it), then such votes are hard to take seriously.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

From my reading of the vote for deletion dialogue, not to mention the fact that I came to yoism (and yes, please check my ip, you'll find that I'm on an air force base in illinois.) through wikipedia, and I have to say, its assinine and really undermining my love of wikipedia that you guys are choosing to delete the yoism article for no good reason. There are a number of people who have come to yoism via wikipedia, and its newness does not change its validity as an idea. It does have its own webpage, I have been there, and you are being completely unfair. [user:qkslvrwolf] 0929 central, 25 Oct 2005

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 18:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

look its a free online encyclopedia. if people do not want to read about me they dont have to search for me. its up to them to decide whether i am "important" or not. this is pure censorship. do you censor everything including points of view or facts that dont fit into your narrow world view. how can you expect wikipedia to be objective with the deletion nazis running around. thats what you all are.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.185.198 (talk • contribs) 08:20, October 27, 2005

I re-deleted the page and applied {{deletedpage}}. The anon re-created the page after I deleted it and posted a copyvio from an obscure historical site, which I then deleted. I blocked the anon for disruption. Cheers! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, to the creator of the article, if you're reading this: We have a very important policy here called verifiability. This is what allows Wikipedia to be objective and neutral in our articles. Because nothing in the article was verifiable, there's no way for such an article to be objective. Our articles also are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, so we definitely do not run around removing different points of view simply because we find them disagreeable. If you wish to contribute or learn more, I suggest you create an account and read through a few of the policies. The rules aren't hard, but they're here to ensure that what we produce is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not betting on my self-nomination making it. But I am betting on someone seeing it and uncovering the extensive absuses of power of a clique of administrators and take action. So I can take the heat and keep up the nomination. Cognition 18:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I agree with you, but apparently you feel you have a good reason for doing it. Someone's already removed it, but since you appear to want it there, I'll try putting it back. Friday (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a reminder: If you haven't already done so, you have until November 1st (00:00 UTC) to vote in the Counter Vandalism Unit Elections! Fir e Fo x 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi there Friday! I made a comment on that nomination - I think it should be merged - I'm not in favor of keeping things that can't be verified, and I think it's pretty unlikely that anyone can write an article that wouldn't be better as part of the school article that is not original research. Let me know what you think, Trollderella 20:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Linking to the wikicities site from the school article as an external link would be ok - I, too, hate to tread on peoples enthusiastic work like this. Maybe we could userfy it as a temporary measure, and encourage them to move it over to an external site? Trollderella 20:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA! Rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the class acts section, but I completely rewrote it, removed the POV and reduced its size, tell me what you think. PRueda29 23:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to take off the Class of 2002 portion when I reposted. I was trying to work it in, but it doesn't seem it'll work. I wonder what the original author will think. PRueda29 23:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm for having High School Articles, as long as they have enough school information so as not to be stubs, but I'm not for elementary and middle school articles (this is after some consideration). I actually got involved in this school fight when I created the district's page Miami-Dade County Public Schools and then began working on schools. I quickly discovered the whole school controversy within two days. I then decided to stop making the school articles, even though all them survived AfD. I don't really think Autumn Capers should be included at all in Wikipedia, since all high schools have talent shows like this. I went to one of Hialeah High's rival schools, and we had a similar talent show, but my sister having gone to HHS, I know Autumn Capers is huge at the school so I guess if it'll expand the Hialeah High Article a bit more, it's worth mentioning at least there. PRueda29 23:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be responding to each other at the same time... PRueda29 23:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I agree we should trim it down to only the basic information and place on the talk page that any unverfied information on Autumn Capers may be reverted, but try not to trim too much because I don't want to author to get discouraged from editing in Wikipedia. He or she has the potential once they've learned the rules. I know that if most of my edits had been reverted back when I was just an IP address, I'd probably have left and never come back. I do agree with the editor probably being one of those people who say "Hey, I know all about this topic, so I can write whatever I want!"... Wikipedia tends to be very misunderstood. Have you heard that comment where someone was telling a friend about Wikipedia and the friend commented "Isn't that the site where you can write anything you want about any subject whether its true or not" (or something like that). I'm guessing many "vandals" might think this way and not realize it until they've been banned. PRueda29 00:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice welcome, Friday. I appreciated it then and I appreciate it now that I've carried out your suggestions. I'm responding in one month, which is fast for me, it sometimes seems. I just took a look at your User page, found it useful and interesting, and thank you for it too. Time to put up an article myself, today if all goes well. For7thGen 16:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Well, I actually got it up today, 29 Oct. I'm a little curious, Friday, was it your turn to welcome the next newcomer, when your welcomed me? My article is Golden Rule (ethics) and related changes of other pages. I had fun pursuing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 link (I'll have to improve it a little, related to my article using it), and especially the external link that I then added to my article (about the exciting events of Summer 1963, the speechs that day in Washington ...). The kind of thing I do just before publishing so as to avoid afterward wishing I had done them before publishing. Thanks again. For7thGen 02:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I only put a stub entry in because there was already a link to me in a couple of places; I figured I'd fill in the gap. I don't much care if it's in user space.

tskirvin 06:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Success!!! Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree with pretty much everything you say. What I fear about relying on incorrect speedies to produce the correct result is that people who dislike A7 (and other speedies, and deletion generally) are provided ammunition to demonstrate how damaging it could be to the Project. It doesn't take much to invent a hyperbolic Armageddon scenario based on this kind of thing. By quickly repairing the process we can demonstrate that such awful things won't happen (usually), and that is really my underlying reason. There's a proposal somewhere about accelerating uncontested deletions, but I can't find it quickly. I think it might be off a link from User:Doc glasgow. -Splash^talk 17:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Friday, I've requested a user check for this. I can't promise we'll get one because David Gerard is often inundated with requests, and this might be low priority as Gimmiet is under a ban anyway, but I'll let you know if I hear anything back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Friday, I just heard back from David. It's unlikely to be Gabriel, as it resolves to Florida. I'll let Nick know. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Could I just throw in two cents on this? It must be either Gabriel or someone out to frame Gabriel. Please note the following review of "Saiyuki" on gabrielsimon.com: .The contents of his web site similarly linked him to the names Ketrovin and Gavin the Chosen. So if it ain't him, someone who's familiar with the whole sordid history took the trouble of pulling an appropriate name off his website. I've heard of copycat killers--are there such things as copycat sockpuppeteers? Or is the IP check somehow subject to spoofing?--Craigkbryant 16:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Most definitely. This was no accident- if it wasn't Gabriel, it was an intentional impersonation. Friday (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The IP data cannot prove it wasn't him- it could have been him, being technically sneaky, with something more sophisticated than a simple open proxy. My own personal opinion is that it wasn't, it was somebody trying to get him in trouble. Friday (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted myself because I was suddenly overcome by uncertainty over whether to make a fresh listing, or re-open the old. The problem with reopening the old is that it is now >5 days old. I then had to leave my computer for a while, and didn't want to get nailed for getting it wrong! I suppose the right thing to do is relist it, including the current debate on today's AfD page for a further 5 days. But I think I will let someone else do it. -Splash^talk 00:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep thinking about it. Perhaps simpler and more functional than Afd is to just merge some of it, and then (at some point) redirect. If it becomes neccessary to argue over the redirect, I guess the talk page is a good place for it. Friday (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm reluctant to let the obvious process-abuse stand. -Splash^talk 00:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I respectfully decline. I am of the opinion that AfD is working just fine and the XD methods sound like glorified page blanking to me. No offense, of course. Thanks for apprising me of XD, though. H e rmione1980 01:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, contrariwise, the idea of a distributed deletion system appeals to me. Mostly because this current system is hopelessly unwieldy. I only know about this deletion because I checked back on the article page, and it was me who set the ball rolling. Life is too short to read lists of meaningless article titles every day, and those lists are just going to grow and grow and grow. Sandpiper 01:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw you blocked User:Pablo Agosto for an hour. Just want to let you know thats spanish for User:Paul August and it should be a permanent block intead. Just want to let you know --JAranda | watz sup 04:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, I wondered why it sounded familiar. Thanks for the tip. Friday (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I was worried about POV and verifiabilty for this comment. And so I copied virtually word for word the text from another source in Wikipedia, which was also not verified. Since it was there, it must agree with Wikipedia policy. No one seems to care about the verifiabilty of negative comments about Paris Hilton. Everyone also seems to be supporting this Golbez character, and his filthy mouth. Also there is some pornographic materal, or links to it, in this article. Is it Wikipedia policy to allow this kind of thing in an article?

I am just trying to be cooperative and present a balanced POV. However, I am being forced into a confrontational attitude by Mr Golbez who is playing politics. Can you advise me please. Wallie 12:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the history enough to comment on everything, but there's a couple things you should know. Wikipedia is not censored, so your own ideas on what's pornographic are probably not going to go far with other editors. Also, just because something was in another article, that doesn't mean it's neccessarily neutral. Content that is against policy gets into articles all the time. If something gets into an article that is unverifiable or not presented neutrally, it should be fixed or removed. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on Paris Hilton and see if I can help out. Friday (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Re: Animal rights etc. I should have put in the text first and then the category. I have done it now. I think it is fair enough. Whatever people say about Miss Hilton, I think it is clear that she is genuine and concerned about animal issues. Kind regards. Wallie 20:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This was in my private user space. I can speedy delete whatever I want in my userspace. There is no value in the history of the subpage, it's just a waste of storage space. --Thivierr 05:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my unconditional apology for being rude to you previously. --Rob 16:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries! Friday (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a requirement, but as with everything else on Wikipedia, that's open to interpretation. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thx for pasting this business. Annoyed that I could never access it. Marskell 22:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually censored from seeing it (UAE); anything with fuck I can't look at. I do agree tho, votes for undeletion doesn't make sense if anyone stopping by can't look at the material. Marskell 22:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many things I am learning, fast. Unfortunately, I have to prepare for an enormous workload that is encroaching and I couldn't ignore a VfU that is ongoing and where I responded to the issue of creating a page about myself. I just didn't have the energy to do it twice. But I'm learning. Kriegman 21:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That was entirely out of line. An AfD close at 15 delete/8 keep/various others is a no consensus by most reasonable definitions, and with your heavy involvement it's just as biased for you to overturn as it is for me to close. Phil Sandifer 23:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that it was out of line at all, but you can probably tell from my discussion on the talk page. You had an opportunity to undo your closure. You didn't do it, so I did it for you. Any editor is well within reason to undo an edit they strongly disagree with. Friday (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like this is up at Deletion Review...(SIGH).Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 19:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Friday, I've searched Wikipedia about reporting Vandalism, including the page Wikipedia:Vandalism, and how to ask an administrator to undo a vandal's deletions does NOT jump out at me like it should. The assumption is that I know who the vandal is and the info provided is all for that situation. My actual situation is that a particular article, American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), has been vandalized many times during the last month, and for the last 3 days has been missing two sections that I know of, 10 The March on Washington and 11 Mississippi Freedom Summer. I believe Italo Svevo or similar is an author thereof, so maybe this should be passed on to him/her. Or pass it on to whomever -- I can imagine you have got to be overloaded.

1. I want the article reverted, and the only way I've seen is to report the vandalism on the article's talk page. I did this today, in passing, along with my other info, but will do it now as a single-purpose comment, to increase the chances it will be seen by an administrator.
2. Could someone also tell me where to read enough to know what the administrators see, how they know when an article has been vandalized? I know enough to look thru the article's history to make sure those two sections were not removed legally. And I've seen the same thing already at least four times, those two sections removed and usually a line of junk substituted, "poopoopoo" say 10-15 times, and something like "yiur" is also there. In fact Fri or Sat or Sunday evening that was the case, but when I looked for that line, a minute or an hour later, the line was gone but the two sections were NOT back and haven't been back yet. I do NOT want to become expert in this area. So I don't really want to learn who the vandal is either. I just want to do my own editing.
3. But in self-defence I need a little more big-picture information, if you or someone else can suggest where it is, or someone can take time to write it and then tell me where it then is. For7thGen 01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Friday. Your reply was a big help. I'm shorting myself on sleep because it's more fun to try to follow thru on your help. The vandal's IP address is 70.177.98.5 and I followed WP directions in Wikipedia:Revert (sort of) to find out he only has 3 contributions, all on 7Nov05 over a span of 20 minutes.
Bottom line: a lot of bona fide changes have been made to the article since those two sections were removed. My own changes I can repeat all right, but I hardly think I should revert to the Nov 7 article. Probably an administrator will do a rollback, and I guess my next step is to understand what a rollback is, in that same Revert article above. I suppose that in general, I should revert when no one else has done any bona fide edit since the vandal's garbage; but should not revert and lose someone else's edit. I apologize for the length of my previous plea for help; and perhaps for the length of this thank you. I'm NOT asking for help this time. And I assure you I do NOT feel free to call on you with any real frequency. Hopefully twice a year wouldn't be unliveable for you. Please don't reply. Many thanks. For7thGen 07:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a (grateful) report to you, Friday. I did experimental reverting in my own user subpage, and then did change Wikipedia:Revert accordingly, now maybe 2 hours ago. Please look at my changes, changing them as needed. If you do have to change them, please help my understanding with a note on my talk page. And I did accordingly re-insert the two deleted sections, above, which you can check also if you like. As far as I'm concerned you need not look at the Am C R Movement (1955-1968) article at all. Gratefully, For7thGen 00:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think guitar looks fine. Are there any obvious flaws in it that need to be worked on? I'm sure there is a Wikiproject somewhere to help improve the article, if that is what it needs. Best regards, Эрон Кинней 07:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC).

Thanks for the resolution. I'd previously seen this user adding their article to other media players pages as a subnote which is why I noticed the article in the first place. Someone had already lifted the spam links and marked the article up for deletion, and since id voted in agreement id been checking the page which is why id seen the clear attempts to reverse the procedure. I'm fairly unknowledgable to wikipedia policies. Had I have known that userfication was there as a solution i'd have definately made recommendation for that. Definately the best response, so thanks. CraigF 17:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Friday. Today the user Zoe had deleted my page User:Andrew O. Shadoura. How can I restore it? Zoe said:advertising by this User, whose only other behavior has been blatant vandalism. There was not any vandalism or advertisement. I thought that just adding a link to my page at "See Also" part of Winamp page is not any kinda vandalism or advertisement. And I think that if this page is placed at my user page, this will not be a violation of Wikipedia rules. Why Zoe is so strong with me? Can I restore that page? --WBR, Andrew O. Shadoura 19:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

See my explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Andrew O. Shadoura. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to volunteer for such a team, though I'm not sure that everyone would agree with you that I'm the best person. Closing controversial AFD discussions is like being a judge. Someone always disagrees with you. My personal measure of success is getting roughly equal hate mail accusing me of being an "inclusionist" and accusing me of being a "deletionist". It's a high burn-out task.

The second problem you will have is getting the participants in the discussion to agree to keep their hands off the discussion until one of your "approved" closers has time to do it. That is a philosophical change from our traditional wiki-volunteerism. I think it makes some sense and could be modeled off the Wikipedia:Mediators idea, perhaps. Let me know if you decide to move forward. I'll try to help you sell the idea.

My third caveat is that I don't have as much time to close discussions as I used to.

Other people who I respect when closing discussions include Joyous and Sjakkalle. I also respect SimonP's judgement though we have agreed to disagree on the amount of documentation that is best when closing difficult discussions. I'm sure there are many others with the same temperment and discretion. Over time, I've seen many excellent participants who pay attention to detail and do careful research. I'll try to remember to add them to the list as they come to mind. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'd really, really love to delete that article, but do you think someone would be upset and maybe slap me with an RfC if I change the final decision to delete? While those users may collaborate on AfD debates, they still do other tasks (Adamn does RC patrol, etc.) Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 02:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's been redirected, so either way, the AFD really didn't matter. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 23:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering the user was immediate and unequivocally clear in her negativity toward the article in question, it is clear the placement of such a link is to simply be a pain in the rear. If the user doesn't believe the article should exist, they should have no business in providing content anyway. The link she provided is not of any worth to the article. if we post her link, we will need to post 2000 others. Regardless, in light of her clear position, it is clearly vandalism. CentrOS 18:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How are you? Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I'm surprised you think I'm never going to convince people that deletion for lack of notability runs contrary to the deletion policy. Simply reading it should be enough to convince most people that it is not in there. I agree on verifiability, which has the advantage of being in the policy! Have you checked out the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Cite sources? I don't really think we're drowning under the kind of article you mention - hope to see you around, Trollderella 16:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for moving those two pages (the Phase 7 and the personal page). I just discovered Wikipedia and I too am very excited about its potential!

Thanks again and have a blessed Thanksgiving,

Brett

It's a sad day when the influx of garbage outstrips the influx of useable information on this site. Worse still when registered users get bent out of shape over the deletion of their single sentences. I have been here too damned long. Time for another hobby. - Lucky 6.9 02:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Lucky, if you're reading this... Deleting a new article with a stub created by an editor with a history here one minute after it was created is a mistake. Twice is a problem. From the look of your Talk: page it is apparent that I am far from the only editor here whose work you have carelessly deleted. --AStanhope 03:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't work what way? --AStanhope 03:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

People don't lose adminship just because they say they're leaving. People go on breaks all the time. Presently, arbitration is probably the only way anyone's going to lose adminship non-voluntarily. Historically, even in arbitration, it doesn't seem to happen except in rare cases, but I suppose this could change. Friday (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeez. I contribute six featured articles, 15,000 edits, plenty of good work and hours upon hours of volunteer work and this guy gets bent out of shape over his single sentence. I don't believe this. I really have overstayed my welcome. - Lucky 6.9 03:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you certainly have the right to leave for whatever period if you feel it's the right thing for you to do, but just for the record, I don't think you should leave. I simply think you should be a bit more reserved in which things you delete. Don't get me wrong- you delete a bunch of stuff that's definitely worthless and needs to go away. Sometimes, you also nail things that (IMO) don't need to go away. Maybe my message was ill-timed; Sorry, I didn't intend for it to be a big deal. I personally think the suggestion that your adminship be revoked is going quite overboard. Friday (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeez. I contribute six featured articles, 15,000 edits, plenty of good work and hours upon hours of volunteer work and this guy gets bent out of shape over his single sentence. I don't believe this. I really have overstayed my welcome. - Lucky 6.9 03:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Lucky... I started an article, got up to take a piss and came back and it was gone - deleted after being alive for 1 minute. This is the SECOND TIME you've done this to me, and a glance at your Talk page shows that you're constantly stepping on other peoples' toes. Finally, when I pointed this out to you you threatened by block me...

Lucky, please voluntarily give up your Adminship. It is clearly a responsibility that you are incapable of handling properly and you are causing harm to the Wikipedia. --AStanhope 03:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

And Friday, no, your comment his his Talk: page wasn't ill-timed. He needs to get the message. --AStanhope 03:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I got the message. Cooling off somewhat; I've replaced my e-mail address. The one I listed would have been invalid as of Monday anyway. - Lucky 6.9 03:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I disabled that because some troll was using it to spam me. I should think that if you do have evidence of any abuse, you should simply tell me on my talk page because if it were actionable I would make it public anyway. And if you do not have evidence then I don't think we have much to discuss. R adiant _>|< 11:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right. And, for what it's worth, everything I have to say on this matter right now, I've already said publically. Friday (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there Friday, Im Moe Epsilon. I saw your name to the list of drug-free Wikipedians. I created a template and category for it at Template:Drug-free. You can add it to your babel if you want. Hope you use it! — Moe ε 23:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been getting into some discussion with an anonymous user on both of these articles, and would appreciate some involvement from other editors. If you'd care to help, do check out the Talk pages for both. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It was not me!!! I just put something about B In The Mix!!! Some other person did that to Britney's page!!! I wouldn't do that, I'm a huge fan of her!!!!!

Alright, hehehe!

I would like to compliment you on your "block" template. It gets the point across without actually doing the deed. It defused my anger at Ed, and it saves the community the trauma of fighting over whether to block Ed or not (although, of course, I've just seen Dunc's page, Ed's page and yours - I haven't looks at AN or AN/I yet). Guettarda 21:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was afraid it might be too harsh, but I think it worked out alright. Friday (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm a n00b at this... is this page:Aesir(DnL) sufficiently cited?

XD'ing a page (assuming you leave a template there) is no more "page blanking" than is applying a redirect. And it's a heck of a lot less extreme than actual deletions, which occur all the time, sometimes with unfortunately little scrunity. In bad cases, XD can do harm, sure, but so can any other edit. Your objections don't seem to be against XD- they seem to be against allowing anyone to edit. Friday (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, this is the best summary of my similar thoughts on the matter I've seen yet. Rather than fight the edit conflicts, I'm watching patiently for now, but I think you hit the nail on the head here. ∴ here…♠ 04:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Some things seem so obvious to me that I fear I can't explain them well to other people, but I'm glad it made sense to at least one other person. Perhaps I should have "quit while I was ahead" after that comment, I'm not sure I can make my case any better than that. Friday (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It would have been nice if someone had actually looked at the facts, instead of just looking at "Oh no, he accused my friend of this..." Assume good faith when there's evidence that it is not true? I don't think so! Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Err, not sure what you mean. I was talking about the deletion review on Shollom Keller, specifically. Friday (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was a case where it was a clear case of steam rolling. WP:AGF was not met by Zoe when she made a false accusation of sock puppetry. Ergo, your accusation that I did not meet WP:AGF when I accused Zoe of sock puppetry is wrong. She did so purely so as to steamroll the vote towards delete - and it worked too, as evidence proved. Because of her, the final vote was 6/6. And because of her, the closing admin made the incorrect decision to delete the article. That is steamrolling. If anyone has failed to adhere to WP:AGF it is Zoe, by not adhering to Wikipedia:sock puppet rules in making false accusations. It is the very definition of steamrolling. I have never in my time here seen a more obvious example of a vote which, if correct process had been followed, would have resulted in delete. It is the very epitomy of an example of the wrong process being followed. Anyway, its so obvious that I don't see any point in going any further with it. I am sorry that you and everyone else got tied up with it. Hopefully next time you can look at things from a WP:POV neutral point of view. I was very much neutral with the article, and with the people concerned. Had no prior dealings with them. It is a great pity that it resulted in the way that it did. Hopefully at least the discussion leads to an improvement in the process such that steamrolling like that can be prevented in the future. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and so you know, I only got interested in the article when Splash made a false accusation of vandalism against me in relation to my clarifying some of the newbie votes as "keep" when they were listed as "Do not delete", "No don't delete this" and "I agree with the above". Whilst I was able to assume good faith that Splash didn't intend to do this so as to steamroll the votes, it had the result of doing precisely that. That was what got my ears pricked up about the whole thing, and why I nominated it for undeletion. Had Splash not made the false accusations against me, in which he failed to adhere to WP:AGF, I wouldn't have realised that the deletion was steam rolled. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

All this has been brought up on WP:DRV, and frankly, your arguments are not convincing. Many people (uninvolved in the original issue) have stated opinions that the Afd was proper. Friday (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have given up on it. I've been bullied, pushed around and abused by people who have no concept of civility or correct processes. My arguments are 100% bulletproof and there is no dispute that correct processes were not even remotely followed. If you could step back, forget who is saying things, and look at the arguments, I am sure that you would see this. Its the most obvious example of steamrolling that you will ever find in your entire life. If you use this thing for 10 years you will never find a more obvious, more blatant example of ballot stuffing. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. And, I don't think the over-the-top rhetoric is making your arguments any more convincing. I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. Friday (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Friday. I hope you won't mind, but I replied to your talk pgae message at XD talk. I think we're talking about things still of interest to the experiment and (judging from Here's reply to you) there is at least one other editor reading the discussion there. Thanks. We're not so far apart as it sounds. -Splash^talk 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't mind at all, I suppose it was still relevant to the issue at hand. Friday (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Friday, thank you for your message. It's okay, I'm sticking around. Your support helped a lot, and I really appreciate it. Onwards and upwards. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There is vandalism...can you not see the article? I can only think that these admins are either the vandals or the are stupid. Chooserr

Friday please look here and tell me it isn't vandalism. Please click one of those links...Chooserr

That's not vandalism. Look at the edits make immediately after- the editor fixed their mistakes. Please stop reporting this as vandalism. Also, you should cut back on the reverting, someone could report you for a WP:3RR violation. Talk about content disputes on the talk page. Friday (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I get it, Quinlivitarianism isn't worth including until we get some outside sources. Fine. For the love of Quinlivit, though, will you fellows leave me be now? —preceding unsigned comment by 136.176.98.92 (talk • contribs)

Since you handled the deletion of the Raft_hollingsworth page so promptly you may not have seen that I did not go through all the deletion steps, because I got stuck on the second step. IMHO the AfD instructions in step 2 are less than clear, can you clarify what they mean? Thanks, SailorfromNH 01:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Man, they are quick around here, but I think I get it, next one I do hopefully won't be a speedy delete, but you never know what I might stumble upon. Mostly I do linkrot, though SailorfromNH 02:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have looked into it, and have found out that Chooserr was unblocked today. I am still here, editing and contributing. I have recently expanded the Rudyard Kipling article if you don't believe me. Thawa

Comes from your apparent uncertainty here. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what you say, except in that vandalism is one of the very few, carefully enumerated, exceptions to the counter in 3RR, and if what Larryau has written on his user page is indicative of the deleted content, it is very clearly something other than vandalism. I see that Shreshth91 has said he thought it was vandalism, that would indicate for me misuse, rather than abuse of admin powers.

I should also say that I think that there are rare circumstances where I think 1RR is overly restrictive, though I admire the discipline of the 1RR crowd. --- Charles Stewart 16:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You wrote:

I've seen several editors (myself included) express dismay at your apparent POV pushing.

Accusing me, without presenting evidence, hurts my reputation. The number of people who express "dismay" is not proof of wrongdoing on my part. Perhaps it shows the effectiveness of the attack on my reputation by repeating the accusation.

I left a request for you on my talk page. Uncle Ed 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Examples needed

You wrote:

My main point is that explanations have already been given of things you've done that others didn't consider neutral. Obviously you don't find the explanations convincing, but I can't agree with your assertions that no examples have been provided.

After you have given an example of a POV-pushing edit in the wolf hunting controversy spin-off article and explained which POV you feel I was pushing in it, I will reply further. Uncle Ed 17:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Unanswered question

I hate to fragment a discussion, but this is a special case.

I have asked you repeatedly what point of view you feel I pushed, and you cited the wolf hunting controversy spin-off article. You mentioned the phrase "hardly sporting" in your answer.

My question is: what point of view do you feel I was pushing with this phrase? Your answer was that the phrase was "POV" - but I don't know whether you meant:

it expresses the point of view of one side in the controversy (fulfills NPOV guidelines)
it expresses my point of view (not true, I actually have no feelings one way or another about wolf hunting)
it is biased writing
it is an unattributed point of view - i.e., it wasn't clear which side of the controversy advocates the POV that shooting wolves at close range violates sporting ethics.

Sorry to belabor the point, but the article you picked is an excellent example of me adhering to NPOV policy while doing my best to clarify opposing points of view in a controversy. The only fix needed was to attribute "hardly sporting" to the side which opposes the practice. Or to re-word it along the lines of wolf hunting opponents regard the close-range shooting of exhausted wolves as unethical - which AFAIR is what we all eventually settled on.

Are we understanding each other?

Do you feel that Wikipedia should explain each side of a controversy?

Is there any instance in which you feel I could have done this better? Uncle Ed 17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really my words

Wasn't it user:Lao Wai who introduced the point of view about how "sporting" aerial wolf hunting was?

"Less sporting, as some view it, is aerial hunting via helicopter. After chasing an entire pack into the ground, hunters land, walk up to the exhausted wolves and shoot them at close range. This is widely seen as not very sporting."

No one else objected

The wording Lao Wai put in - possibly a rephrasing of my "hardly sporting" contribution - has remained unchanged since July 2005, about half a year. Who's pushing a POV? Him or me? I say neither.

Rather, LW and I were describing a point of view which is widely held. I think Wikipedia needs a clarification on its policy on describing a point of view. Uncle Ed 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcoming message. I'll be sure to contact you in case I need assistence with the rules and requirements of Wikipedia. Cheers, Phaedriel 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought I was losing my mind when I saw that reappear. I reblocked it because I thought it was a glitch in the system. It's link spam, pure and simple. - Lucky 6.9 01:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Guess I might not have been. OK, let's let it ride. Why this user can't find better things to write about is beyond me. - Lucky 6.9 01:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you save a mesaage accidentally, or was this all you meant to say? Friday (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes that is all there is to say, have a happy holiday. I am through with the war on DCV RfC. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you too. Friday (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose somoeone will add an RfC on me because of my "rhetoric." on the RfC. lol. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. I disagree with what you're saying and how you're saying it, though. Frankly, I'm surprised to see you defending someone who has made racist remarks. Friday (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am defending someone who is one who has convinced me that they are one of the strongest people I know. A veces, tiene que luchar! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Having trouble with the Net on this end; I was trying to revert it but couldn't. Thanks for getting me through this with a shred of sanity. - Lucky 6.9 02:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Caught your comment on Zoe's page. I didn't mean for my comment to come off heated. Sorry. :) - Lucky 6.9 07:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 04:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Please vote to keep my image on Wikipedia. You may voice your opinion on whether or not to have the image deleted at [Dec 10th images]. I also wanted to let you know that it looks like my WBC personal subpage will remain on Wikipedia.--JuanMuslim ^1m 22:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I would appreciate if you would consider changing your vote on this as this was likely a bad faith nomination, with the user having a history of using multiple accounts to try and force the deletion of Jewish lists (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting). Thanks Arniep 02:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

130.85.246.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) can't seem to leave Vagina alone. Maybe 15 minutes wasn't enough? Jasmol 05:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: forget it, somebody already blocked 'em. Cheers! Jasmol 05:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

By what authority/policy/guideline did you decide to do this? --JWSchmidt 14:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It was the right thing to do. As with any edit, if you disagree strongly enough to revert, you're certainly free to do so. Do you really think the Afd is likely to produce a useful result? Friday (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I trust the Afd process as a way to explore the views of the community. I agree that doing the right thing can trump community consensus if that consensus goes against policy. I also think that doing the right thing means explaining your actions when you try to avoid community consensus. In this case, that means explaining why you think Afd will not produce a useful result. --JWSchmidt 15:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't really expect such opposition. Actually, I was trying to encourage consensus to take over. As I've noted on the talk page, I have no intentions of revert warring over this if someone disagrees. I thought it was obvious why the Afd is a mess, but apparently not. I'll explain more on the talk page, I guess. Friday (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

New little note there. Just in case you hadn't seen it. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

While I applaud your interest in civility, if an anon tells someone non-white that they should venture into stormfront... I honestly think her response was appropriate. No one should have to tolerate neo-nazi trolls. That's all there is to it. The anon IP is the one who needs to be blocked. Guettarda 23:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. One thing, tho- the troll made only one edit. There's a big difference between doing one bad thing, and a pattern of ill behavior. In all honestly, if she blasts back at rude anonymous racist trolls all day long, I won't take exception; they deserve it. I don't personally think that's what Wikipedia is for, but it's not a huge deal. If she treats an actual editor that way, that's another story, of course. Friday (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Coming off the RFC - which, justified or not turned into a bash-deeceevoice affair - and coming back to a neo-nazi on your talk page can't be fun for anyone. And however you meant your comment, it sounded like you were threatening her. Having something like that happen can't be fun - RFCs aren't, for the most part, constructive criticism. They're just criticism. IMO, having people tell you what's wrong with you is a devastating experience. Coming back and having people lay into her once again (the neonazi, and then you) seems to me like the kind of thing that would make a person dig their heels in. It would for me. I'm not saying you're wrong to hold her accountable for incivility. I'm just saying that I don't believe that your choice of words helped the situation very much. She's a valuable editor here, I would be very sad to lose her. Guettarda 23:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I believe you. It was probably very poor choice of timing and words. But I do feel that contributing to an environment of flame wars and racism is a very bad thing and there's no excuse for it, ever. So, I guess it was a threat- I fully intend to do my part to encourage civility. That means gentle reminders when they're adequate, and blocking as a last resort, if neccessary. I'll admit I'm quite dismayed at her apparent intention to continue making rude remarks and treat Wikipedia like a racial battleground. But, you make some good points; apparently I need to chill out. If continued incivility is an actual problem, perhaps someone else can deal with it. Thanks for taking the time to respond, and for being nice about it. Friday (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Friday, it is against Wikipedia policy to block someone as you are threatening to do to Deeceevoice. The Blocking policy is explicit in stating that only personal attacks which threaten someone can lead to a block. If you attempt to block Deeceevoice over something like this, especially when she was responding to a threateningly racist post on her talk page, I will report you for abuse of admin powers. As an admin myself, I guess I could respond to your threat by threatening to also block you back but that, as I said, is not what blocks are supposed to be used for. Anyway, I'm getting involved in this because there appears to be an organized drive to force Deeceevoice out of Wikipedia. I'm not saying you are taking part in this, but this is the perception in regards to recent actions against her. Anyway, you seem like a good editor and I just wanted to bring this to your attention.--Alabamaboy 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking for repeated personal attacks is certainly within policy. However, point taken; I see no reason to discuss civility with that editor again, despite (or perhaps because of) my strong disapproval of her actions. Friday (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. A user can be banned for a pattern of behavior but there are a lot of procedures that must be gone through for that. Blocks, though, are not the tool for this and could cause other problems. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As a point of information, it would appear that admins can now block users on their own initiative if there is a widespread pattern of personal attacks, under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy. Regarding the incident mentioned above, I don't think it matters a great deal if Deeceevoice lashes out at obvious trolls and vandals. However, if she frequently does the same to editors in good standing, that's a problem. — Matt Crypto 09:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the RFC amply showed that she does frequently abuse editors in good standing, and (more importantly) that she refuses to see this as a problem. I personally still don't see that there's an excuse for incivility. However, if the community wishes to tolerate such behavior, I can't do much about that other than express my disapproval. This issue may now be too sensitive for anything sensible to be done. I think there was unfortunate backlash in both directions on the RFC. On the one hand, she gets way more than her share of abuse. On the other, apparently as of late, she is not expected to uphold the same standards of civilized behavior as any other editor. I don't mind her insulting me on her own talk page (I expected no less), but other editors might take offense to such things, if aimed at them. Friday (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Note:this is mostly a rant, so treat it as such. I've just been reading over the Wikipedia talk:Experimental Deletion page, and the crazyness of treating some edits different than all other edits does piss me off. Thinking about this, I had a idea I wanted to share with you. When I (or you) find an article with bad contents, we should replace it with a few words, more or less on the subject. It's not deletion, so none of the deletion policy folks can complain to us; it's just fixing bad content. If the title is bad, replace it with a few words on why the title is bad. Examples(culled from RC): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Nb_ridaz&timestamp=20051216021119 will do more later. Thoughts? JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm about to leave, but I'll most certainly get back to you on this. Friday (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You've seen the same key problem that I see: treating deletion as a special case instead of "just another edit". Our current notion of "deletion" is just a side effect of how the software happens to work, and we've built strange processes around it instead of just simplifying the software. What you're describing seems to be more or less what some of the XD methods do. See Willie wumpa cheeks for an example. I like having some kind of box there that explains that the article was "deleted", with a short explanation of why. Extended discussion goes on the talk page, of course. I'm not sure I like the "it's not deletion, so people won't complain" idea. I'm not saying it's a bad argument, I just wish it wasn't neccessary. Some people do seem to be very opposed to anything new that hasn't been officially "blessed" somehow. I may have more thoughts on this over time. Friday (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think hypocracy only goes so far. If Matthew McLauchlin has an article, she should to. IMHO they are both just as notable (or there lackof.) --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Friday, thanks for your welcome. I'll try to do my best to write articles in the areas of my interest. Cheers. Ljubob

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia! Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you! This is really an outrage. You have repeatedly redirected this page, which has been commented upon and edited by at least 200 persons, after being told not to do so. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sam Sloan (talk • contribs)

I redirected it a few days ago, and again today. An explanation supporting the merge has been on the talk page for a couple days. I don't see how my edit was unreasonable at all. Friday (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing pages. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. What you call a "merger" is actually a deletion, and you did this after a VFD discussion had ended in which the decision had been made to keep. You have already done this several times before after being told by several users not to do that. More than 150 people had either edited or discussed this article and yet you feel that you, one person, can undo the work of all the others.

Sam Sloan 16:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I follow the WP:1RR, so I'm certainly not going to edit war over it, if that's your concern. But, there's civilized discussion of the merger happening on the talk page, as I explained to you. I wish you wouldn't call my edits vandalism, don't you think that's a bit over-the-top? Friday (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As a party to her RfC, you might be interested to know a request for arbitration has been filed towards deeceevoice Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice.

-Justforasecond 18:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not touching that one with a 10 foot pole. My involvement in that situation wasn't helpful the first time, so I see no reason to get involved again. Friday (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A complete shame that another excellent Wikipedian has encountered that little pile of incivility. Thought I'd return from my break to remind you that sometimes bending the rules is permissible...might want to think on that next time, eh? Rob Church ^Talk 21:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Friday,

Not sure what Rob is talking about, but if you have evidence it would be appreciated. I am sure there will be a couple of pot-shots but in the end it should be a good thing for wikipedia. The user in question has been "uncivil" for a loooonng time.

-Justforasecond 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The solution seems clear to me. Block for repeated incivility. Users who aren't willing to observe common decency are not helpful or welcome. Friday (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My god, it's frustrating... I'm in need of some assistance here, and not sure where I can turn to. I guess I'll start from the beginning.

There was an ongoing dispute between user GoldDragon and user Brazil4Linux that raged in the Sony Computer Entertainment article. Apparently Brazil was still mad, because he began to go into the Ken Kutaragi article and make [reverts] to it, deleting large chunks. A revert war broke out, and Brian0918 Had to [protect the article ] numerous times. Eventually, a group consensus was reached that favored GoldDragon. The article was fine until Brazil once again began [reverting ]. These massive reverts involved large deletions of [chunks of edits], including the loss of contributions from Jacoplane and Jedi6. I saw this wild reverting going on on Brazil's part and took GoldDragon's side. During this period of time, Brazil made the statement that the US and Microsoft [all needed to "be hated"], which brought into direct question his ability to be impartial. He shortly therafter stopped posting, and instead, began relying on "anonymous" nonlogged in IP address postings, addresses such as 200.147.104.218, 200.147.140.213 and 200.147.97.92, which were all traced right back to Brazil, where he lived.

When it was brought to the group's attention of his utilizing these IP sockpuppets, he stopped using them, and immediately a user named quackshot, which had been created just a few days earlier, began to resume the [same edits. ] The Kutaragi article was once again locked due to the edit wars.

I quickly called him out as a sockpuppet, at which time he began to enter numerous articles I had previously contributed to and began to make massive reverts under the guise of "reverting Doom127 vandalism", making numerous personal attacks regarding myself and attempting to re-ignite debates that were months old. Oftentimes his reverts altered things that [had never even touched in any of my contributions at all!] He violated the 3RR rule, and was banned for 24 hours from Wikipedia. Almost immediately, anonymous IP addresses from Brazil (which finally at last have given me hard proof that Quackshot was Brazil4Linux) began popping up and [|repeatedly putting back the edits.]

So now here we are. I can't violate the 3RR and restore the numerous articles he's damaged, so I ask you, as an experienced Wikimaster, to give me some assistance or advice to my next course of action. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Doom127 (talk • contribs)

Sorry but I disagree. IMO redirecting is a form of deletion which is why I oppose it. I did make clear my reasons either on the Afd or the talk page (I can't remember which), SqueakBox 16:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, he's been doing the same at several animal-rights pages: lots of reverting and a bizarre use of sources. He's deleted my post to him about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

lol. well, i thought perhaps it was a topic worth discussing, and , well, im thinking of making an article like that. Godess knows i need more decent edits around here. ... by the by, i happen to know who my daddies are. lolGimmiet 05:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

please respect my talk page, and dpo not add meterial to it that i have deleted, as for the other editors words, im sorry, but ,assive more or less destructive edits rto articles are not welcome here, are they? thats what hes up to.Gimmiet 17:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you see the reply I posted to his message? I put his original one back so the reply would have context. You really really should drop the anti-DG campaign. :-( Friday (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

i have no campaign., see what i said over there.Gimmiet 17:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've only stated in the article this: Reporting a Bigfoot(section title) If you have had a encounter with this thing/creature, go to a reputable Bigfoot website, data site. The organizations that own and run these site will send out investigators to investigate thie incident similar in manner to a police investigation, only this is NOT a crime." No more, no less. The section is repeatedly removed, for "nonsense". Millions of people read Wikipedia. How many read this online site, seeking info. to report this creature ? Already, one Wikipedian has reported encountering this thing.Martial Law 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What he or she had found may also improve this article: Bigfoot.Martial Law 23:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're not about doing original research on bigfoot or anything else. In fact, original research is specifically prohibited. We use reliable sources instead. Friday (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I had indicated only for the readers to go to a website/link to go to to report these things, no more, no less. The reader may be looking for a place to report these things and got referred to Wikipedia by other people As persuant to find websites, datasites to report these things. Wikipedia unintentionally provides this service to people.Martial Law 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You yourself may hold the solution to the mystery, should you see one of these yourself.Martial Law 23:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How do we settle this ? Can you ask User:Dreamguy to join in this effort ? I may have been caught in a crossfire between User:Beckjord, who says these things are alien, and User:Dreamguy, who appears to be a skeptic. How do I mediate this matter, and it looks I may have to do it. Need help. May provide experience in dispute resolution. My own E-mail is out of service, maybe my E-mail account has expired.Martial Law 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Critics and skeptics are correct that a zoological Bigfoot does not exist. There is NO proof. Beckjord, Ambrosini, and others "suggest" that a interdimensional explanation may work, but they do not say this is a proven fact.

The issue is NOT if there is or is not a zoological Bigfoot. The issue is what is the Bigfoot phenomenon?

You need to 100% reorient the article.

Get past 1968.

Dump the old stuff.

BF editors coop.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wikipedia is, as stated, is read by millions of people. Some read it to find a place to report a paranormal related incident without someone abusing, ridiculing them. In the Bigfoot artcle, I had stated that IF the readers has had an encounter with this creature, they are to find and use a reputable website, data site to do so, since some of these are already listed in the "External Links" section, thus the section stated and the abvove title stating Wikipedia's unintentional services. I did NOT intend to get caught up in someone else's personal war. Now that I am, what is the protocol for this ?Martial Law 01:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the core of MY complaint, NOT trying to verify the existance of the creature known as Bigfoot, no more, no less.Martial Law 01:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Seen the Wiki regs. on reporting these things. consider this complaint settled.Martial Law 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you are recieving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries, and consider noting it on the main list of members on WP:AMA. If you are, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) (please direct any responses to my talk page) --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ytrewqt (talk · contribs) has just removed his "Keep" vote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Poor, after I had made a standard notation that his edit history consisted of just twenty-three edits, and that they were unusually bunched up into two very short periods of activity. To clarify, he hasn't struck out his vote or disavowed it, but rather removed it altogether. Since Wikipedia practice is generally against "let's pretend this never happened" (to put it mildly) I was about to restore the removed material, but since Ytrewqt has already alleged that it was a "personal attack" on him to note his limited history, I thought it would be best to leave it to the judgement of another whether it should be restored so that all can see that this vote was made and then commented on, or left alone so that only those who check the history see it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Given equal care in circuit design(transistors and valves are part of circuit topology), there is really little difference in sound between a valve or solid state audio amplifier when operated within the parameters of the design. SS amps do not have to use negative feedback nor do valve amps. The advantage of valve amplifiers lies in the area where they are driven into clipping. SS amps throw out a heavy, dissonant third harmonic, valves emphasize even order harmonics when they approach clipping. The distortion of a valve sounds better than the distortion a bipolar transistor. I don't have enough experience with MOSFET output stages to comment on them. A major problem for valve amplifiers is that they must use output transformers to be efficient and tramsformers limit band width. In the early days of SS amps the transistors had to be isolated from speaker reactance by transformers, a practice that's being experimented with again. The point is: if an amplifier of any type has ample headroom and does not distort there should be no noticible difference between the two; the problem is many builders of tube amps design a small amount of distortion into their products to take advantage of the pleasing sound.

Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my user page. I appreciate it. Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Friday. While it is heartening to know that not all admins agree with the mess that's been going on in the userbox community, I'm still bothered that (a) nothing is really being done about it, (b) that such departures from stated policy can somehow start in irc (a service I refuse to use, and shouldn't be part of a site with documented procedures in the first place!), and (c) nobody seems to want to back down. The actions of the various admins in question tell me that people with admin privs don't give a dingo's kidneys about my opinion, unless they happen to match their own. That is a position I cannot and will not tolerate. Until and unless Jimbo himself blocks these people and issues an apology, I'm taking this as a note that I'm no longer wanted here.

Since I have edits, my account won't be deleted. I may watch my talk page for a while, but just in case, you can always go to my user page and email me there. --Joe Sewell 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... sorry I didn't. :-) --D e ath phoenix 17:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Robinsoe Crusoe were eavesdropping on two flies sitting on his shoulder. One said to the other, "No this guy doesn't have enough nutrition on him, I'll see you on Friday!"

Axezz 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock. The template in question, prior to being re-created (by, let us not forget, God of War himself) had been speedied as a personal attack eleven times at seven different administrators at three other titles that I know of; there were probably more. The TFD discussions of the template - which God of War participated in and where he acknowledged that it is an attack - contain numerous condemnations of this as a personal attack, including several threats by multiple administrators to block users and/or re-creators of the template. God of War's repost of the contents of the template itself were a brazen try at further disruption, and his attempts to paint it as a "content dispute" or the block to be unwarned are ludicrous. —Cryptic (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's sad when my attempts to find a compromise to a dispute are singled out as a Personal Attack by an Admin who disagrees with me. An almost identical copy of the template is undergoing a tfd right now at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_2006_New_Year_Day_Participate. Selina did exactly what I did, she posted the box in the discussion so that everyone could see what it looked like. However while I removed the stalin image to try and find a compromise userbox, she did not. Now I was blocked and she was not. There is no way for me to appeal my block and now I will forever be known as a troll and a trouble maker for taking a POV opposite to that of an admin in a debate.

With the current state of things, anyone criticising an admins actions is cited with a WP:NPA. There can be no consensus when critical speech is censored and taking the opposite view of an admin in a debate is incivil. With no checks on admin power, I am forced to wonder why I stick around this project at all. Someday all the disallusioned editors who believe in true consensus and debate over everyone feeling happy about themselves will make a mirror of this site and the editors from wikipedia will see that it is better and slowly start to move there. I am sure that within a few minutes a block will be re-instated against me even though I have taken pains to follow all of the Wiki-ettiquite laws I know of, in this message. If I am blocked for this post then everything I think to be true of wikipedia censorship will be confirmed--God of War 05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not censorship, it's people responding to what they see as disruption. I don't agree that there was disruption deserving a block in this case, but we don't always get what we want. You're not going to "forever be known as a troll", if you establish a history of good editing. Any number of editors in good standing have been blocked before. I'm sorry about all this, but the best I can suggest is to just go on about your normal editing business, and maybe stay away from hornet's nests for a while. Friday (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please vote on the AFD. I hope the people who say "cleanup" really want to kill the list.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Friday. Given your comments on DreamGuy's talk page, would you support an amendment to the blocking policy that would require talk page notification except in circumstances where it obviously isn't needed (i.e. WoW blocks)? I thought for sure that was policy, but surprisingly it's not. android 79 01:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I'd assumed it was there too; it's definitely a good practice. Friday (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your input is welcome here. android 79 02:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you would have to be pretty careful with an idea like this, as the vast majority of deleted material is stuff that we do not want the general public accessing under the Wikipedia name, period (copyvio, attack pages, actual nonsense articles). On the whole, I think there are enough admins willing to undelete a history so people can look at it when the article is under consideration, as you did. Because of this, the current system works alright, and I'm not sure creating an extra process for transparent deletion would be worth it, for the developers or for the admins who would face more complexity in their jobs. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In the end, this is the insult of last resort, isn't it? Well, I say revel in your abstractions, especially when supported by the good sense I have always seen you display. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Aww, shucks. The irony is, I'm relatively anti-process myself. Well, not anti, but I'll choose product over process every time without reservation. Funny thing tho, I still frequently find myself strongly disagreeing with some of the most visible IAR advocates. I do see quite a difference in ignoring rules versus ignoring good-faith concerns of other editors. Friday (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, I also view myself as being about the content first, despite what I'm often told about how my mind works. To me "process" is just shorthand for "this is the way we do it most of the time, stick with that so we have to think about it less in order to be able to think about it more when we need to." And throw in a little bit of "if we all agree that that's how we'll do it and stick to that then we'll fight about it less." No wonder I usually say "process". - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm here

There's a really terrible article I've cleaned up a little... like really terrible. I'd like to pass the buck to someone to finish the job. It's short, but it's badness makes all previous version of bad look good. Keen? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. But, if it's the article I think it is, it's not a great choice for me. I use wikipedia from work a lot (I often have a couple minutes downtime during a build or a server restart), and so I'm not crazy about editing porn star articles or putting them on my watchlist. You never know when someone may get the wrong idea. Friday (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Heck, it's up to me then. I am going to need the longest, hottest shower ever known to man to get clean after some of this stuff.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 17:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In recent days I have grown disgusted with Deeceevoice's comments and actions. As a result, I am withdrawing my support of her. That said, Justforasecond has behaved very poorly throughout this entire affair but more so in recent days, placing comments on DCV's talk page merely to stir up trouble. As such, I am proposing that both DCV and JFAS be placed on personal attack parole for a year at Perhaps this is a compromise that a majority of the parties involved could agree to. Please check it out and see what you think. Several people from opposing sides in this issue think they might be able to live with it. In addition, as a side note to this, I am apologizing for my use of "lynching" to describe this RfAr. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not too inclined to get involved in the Rfar- I could easily be seen as biased due to my previous dealings with her, and I don't see how I would accomplish anything useful. Friday (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in speculating about deeceevoice's departure. -- Jim Apple 05:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?!? You look like you're trolling with this stuff.. what's the point? Friday (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to your possible intrusion into the dispute Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice notice is being given you regarding possible findings of fact or remedies being considered at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Proposed_decision#Jurisdiction_over_users_who_inject_themselves_into_the_conflict. You may make a statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice. Evidence may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop. Fred Bauder 16:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone is up to his old tricks again. I was previously unaware of GS's latest sockpuppetry attempt this month; was there any reason he wasn't blocked for a long, long time for that? android 79 01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And, one more thing, while I'm here: what do you think of an RfC for Beckjord at this point? I have a pretty clear idea of how it will end up, but I think it may be necessary at this point. Bigfoot can't stay semi-protected forever. android 79 01:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an obvious connection with that diff, is it right? What did I miss? The previous puppetry sure looked likely to me, but I don't remember hearing that technical evidence confirmed it. As for Beckjord, he needs some taking care of. His disruptive editing seems fairly obvious to me, as does his utter lack of getting what Wikipedia is about. RFC might be useful, but I'd like to know what the desired outcome was, going into it. Perhaps we could use an RFC to encourage admins to apply blocks as needed for disruption. Given the widespread controversial blocking lately, I'd like to get some kind of agreement before the fact that blocking for general "disruption" is alright for Beckjord. I don't think it should be hard to make that argument in this case. Friday (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Jebus, I copied the wrong diff. Sorry. I'll find the right one here somewhere... android 79 06:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This was intended to illustrate that GS is picking fights with DreamGuy again, which you are fully aware of now, obviously. android 79 06:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As for Beckjord... he is incapable of adding anything meaningful to Bigfoot without a serious wake-up call. Seeing just how many people think he's in the wrong will have one of three outcomes, in order of decreasing desirability:

He honors the policies we've been asking him to read and contributes a small amount of meaningful content on fringe theories to various articles (not likely, but one can hope);
He gives up on Wikipedia entirely, writes a few rants about it on his website, and leaves us alone for the most part; or
He goes ballistic, continues on with his sockpuppet/AOL parade of blind reverts, and he ends up at ArbCom, where the outcome should be obvious (or just ends up as block-and-revert on sight, by admin fiat).

I'd rather not have it come to #3, but if he is allowed to run free, he will become a serious problem. I don't think blocks for disruption are particularly controversial; I mean, the guy flat out denounced WP:V on his talk page. Even to the most casual of observers, he's not interested in improving Wikipedia, he's just pushing his agenda. I'd rather do this "the right way", though, and get some sort of official sanction of stopping his activities, be it either from community consensus on RfC or from the ArbCom. android 79 06:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I'm sure enough people will endorse the RFC. If you don't make one, I may have time tomorrow to write one up, but I'm not sure. Either way I'll help however I can. It shouldn't be hard to get people to agree that he's got to edit differently or not at all. Rehabilitation would be nice but harm reduction is more important. Friday (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead of you... User:Android79/RFC. I need policy links for #7 and #8, and a metric buttload of diffs, but otherwise it's finished. ;-) android 79 06:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll grab a few diffs and slap them into the talk page for now. Friday (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind the RfC, it's ArbCom time. Unless you have serious objections to that, of course. android 79 17:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The request is up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Beckjord. Feel free to add a statement, or to remove your name if you no longer wish to participate. Thanks. android 79 22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for all the time you've put in (and others, too, I see). I haven't been editing much the past few days but I'll definitely keep an eye on this. Friday (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Got another POV attack controversy I'd appreciate your comments on the talk page with... some religious folks want to try to redfine myth to mean "religions that are false" and of course take their own religion (Christianity) out of it (and occasionally make reference to maybe possibly doing the same for one or two other major current religions). It went up for RFC but that only means now that a number of people are showing up not understanding the academic definition and not even bothering to read earlier comments and raving about how it's awful to insult their religion. The whole point is that academic study of mythology doesn;t make any comment whatsoever on whether the stories are actually true or not, just that the culture believes they are and hold supernatural and philosophical meaning. To separate Christianity (and other huge mainstream religions) out not only messes up the academic definition but is highly POV by stating outright that, say, Pagan mythology is false. Your help would be appreciated. DreamGuy 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is a total mess. Just dump it.

Jock

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I noticed that you redirect to Sexual slurs, so I compressed the Sexual Slang subsection and added a main article link on it. I merged that stuff into Sexual slurs. Lets see how long this arrangement holds. The vague "no consensus, ignorant of all comments, as if this was never AfDed" is just what I predicted. That leads us right back to were we where before.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I have little faith in Afd. It's not very good for resolving tricky issues, and it shouldn't be neccessary for resolving obvious things. Sometimes legit concerns (quite often regarding verifiability) are raised in an Afd, and since they're on the Afd page instead of the article talk page, it all gets forgotten the minute it's over. Deciding at an arbitrary time to end the discussion and slap a "no consensus" on it is fairly unhelpful. Friday (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Its the admin's haste, not AFD itself. Whenever I am the closing admin of a non-consensus debate, with a majoriy set of ideas, I pick between them(eg 3 keep/7 delete/7 merge). If it is spil down the middle, other than delete, I will pick one (eg. keep 5/delete 7/merge 5/redirect 2). This discretion will be based mainly off arguments mentioned on the AfD, and what ideas people seem to have in common, even if some voted merge, and others delete. Many admins don't do this, some don't even sock check; they just tally and say "no consensus" and move on. I am sure that they mean no harm, but all the debate becomes worthless, and no progress is made.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right; individual admins could choose to do a more thorough job. Still, I think there could be improvement at the process level to help fix this issue. I personally strongly advocate pure wiki deletion, which would remove arbitrary time limits, and get the discussion onto the talk page where it's more useful. Pure wiki also nicely facilitates the bold/revert/discuss cycle, which currently can't really be used with deletion. I'd been kicking around the idea of using Afd talk pages and input from multiple editors to help close tricky Afds, see Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Deletion_pre-review for comments on this. Friday (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Comments on Davien Crow

Examples needed

Unanswered question

Not really my words

No one else objected

While I'm here

Your Comments on Davien Crow

Examples needed

Unanswered question

Not really my words

No one else objected

While I'm here

STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND WIKIPEDIA=

Your silly reverts

Harry Potter speculation

Gavin

speedy template

Scimitar's RfA

Your lack of civility

Speedy deletions

VfD template

Re: Short articles

Censorship

Veda

Point made

Wow

your vote on metroblogging

The Salty Kids

Yes

huh?

Thanks for your support!

Wildcat cartridge

ulayiti's RfA

wikipedia email

Thanks!

Oral Sex

My RFA

Android79's RfA

Bmicomp's RfA

Big Daddy

Sean Federline

Glavin

Ryan's 5RR

St. Kevin's Reality TV and St. Kevin's

Thanks

Thank you for your vote.

AfD's and the Detroit Grand Pubahs

I understand... I think

Weird!

Jesus TM

Thanks anyway

Many thanks...

If the sock fits...?

Peters' Drive-in

Request for a link

Your comments on Richard Rose

Thank you!

LaLa

User talk:Kmweber

Very nice/Crow

Your user page needs less Image:Cowbell2.gif

AfD

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

Zizban resolution

Thank you for your support

Otherkin

Gorilla Operation

Zizban

Much obliged

Adminship?

Bornscar

Thanks for the thanks!

Otherkin

Thanks for your support

Question/Help about civility

Congratulations

hello

Deleation of Page - Need Help

My RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA