User talk:R. fiend

Here are my old discussions:

• User talk:R. fiend/Archive1: anything 2004
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive2: January - March 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive3: April - June 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive4: July - August 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive5: September 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive6: October 2005

Everything else is below.

My RfA

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

Jeopardy!

That's exactly what the problem was. The six months mentioned in the clue was not exact - Leslie answered assuming that the six months was exact, and successfully protested on that point. --OntarioQuizzer 12:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kirby move.

Please do NOT move an article without discussion. For one, I have to now go out of my way to get an admin to move it back to its original page, because you had made it unmovable. It can be considered vandalism for you to do that, so I would advise against it. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I was the one who reverted you...my reasoning is that consensus should be formed on the talk page and listed at WP:RM. Ral315 (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Your essay

Your essay has been added to the Wikipediology Institute at Wikipedia:Wikipediology/library/essays/R.fiend-1 If you would be willing to provide your first or last name, it would be helpful to alphabetize our list and to establish a more professional view of Wikipediology. Thanks - Pureblade | ^☼ 22:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The Three Ravens

You made some excellent edits to this article a while ago, so now I'm wondering if you could possibly look at the recent activity there. One user, variously anon or posting as User:Vvchatman3, found an article on it in some journal from 1963 and is insisting on including it there. Trouble is he seems to have little understanding of how to incorporate such information into an article in a useful way, and some of the conclusions he's presenting seem dodgy at best. ("Derrie" in the refrain refers to Derry?) You probably have a deeper folkloric background than I do, so in your Copious Spare Time I wonder if you might have a look and see if he's actually adding something informative and I'm completely off-base in my objections, or if perhaps you've seen this article yourself and can offer useful comment, or if you just plain know something I don't and can steer the edits one way or another. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You actually do seem to be better versed than I am in that you possess references. I'm speaking from nothing more than a general familiarity with the music that I've picked up from working Renaissance Faires and so forth. (TTR was transmitted to me orally though, long before I started with Faire. I was moderately surprised to see that the version I remembered conformed very well to older recorded versions.) Thanks for your information, since it means I can now argue along the lines I've been doing without undue guilt. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully support the reversion. The only reason I'd have attempted to keep some vestige of the edit is because I have a feeling this guy is not going away unless his article is mentioned somehow and I thought it might satsify him. I freely admit this was craven of me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:DRV idea

I think it's a good and reasonable idea, but my response must simply be {{sofixit}}. I think you should volunteer to create this log for the last couple of weeks, and keep it updated for the next month or so. This shouldn't be that much work to begin with, and it helps alleviate the fact that nobody really does DRV cleaning at the moment. And that way, it will stick. It would probably help if you listed a diff to each old discussion, so people can read up on it. Radiant_>|< 23:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Good call on The Blend

Hi! Just wanted to say: good call on The blend. It's always good to see people respect both the principle and the procedures the principle inspires. --William Pietri 22:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh. If it does turn up on deletion review, please let me know. I'd be glad to explain why I think common sense should be more common. :-) --William Pietri 22:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Knight Entertainment

I am curious at what point will Knight Entertainment be notable? Creating a prodcution company and setting up a distribution network on major retail sites is not a simple task, then providing this for flash animation series is something worth noting since it seems something as simplae as a flash animation web page is notable. Can you please let me know at what level you would consider Knight Entertainment notable? I have asked from every delete voter, but few are willing to explain thier position. Those who did, I adjusted the article accordingly. So now I am curious at what level would you consider action made by K.E. notable?--Rcknight 19:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

So R. fiend what is the point of this web site? What good does it do to bring fortha a case when no one will give you an answer? I have asked and asked and made may case, and no one have given me any reason as to why they vote the wway that they did. When someone did make a sugestion I made the adjustments, so I am at a lost for why it move forward?

I feel like this site is a scam and if you are not a regualr ass kisser then your articles do not get posted. I feel like I have just as much reson to have my article posted then other things that are found on this site but no one will explan to my why mine is picked for deletion.--Rcknight 20:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems like to me that soneone just piced deleted,and everyone follows with no reason. --Rcknight 20:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

R. fiend Thanks for your comments. I think this site is great and I would hate to delete other peoples stuff out of spite or to make a point. I am a very positive person. The only time I would refference other peoples articles are to try to support mine for non-deletion. I recently came across articles of flash animations series I am about to do productions for. Then I came across an article for O3 Entertainment which is a small independant video game production company that released the video game Alien Hominid for Newgrounds.com which also has a site for their character named Pico (Newgrounds.com)which is also on one of my productions. I support all of these efforts and thought that it was neat that they were on your site. I then thought that I would expand upon these by noting on Pico and Newgrounds the production, then I created my article. I do not mind being deleted, but I want to know why with a reason so I then can strive to bring it up to par. I did make changes but I feel that by then everyone was going with the crowd for deletion. Then when you make the final call, you give no opinion, but just tell me you did it because of the votes.--Rcknight 21:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like an answer on what would be notable so that I can set that goal and try again. --Rcknight 21:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the company called The Behemoth has had an article for over a year with just one production that is Newgrounds.com related. Just another observation of just as notable articles that were not makred for deletion when mine was.--Rcknight 21:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would you suggest I have my case go to deletion review if your just going to delete it from deletion review? You seem to be a self serving ass.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Wetzler

Hi. Please check this AfD, as I've been accused of bias, and would like the result to hinge on more votes than my own. BDAbramson T 20:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dmitri Leybman

I see you've reverted vandalism on this page many times. The article looks to be a hoax (like almost everything else by the same posters) and if not is almost an A7 speedy anyway. Will be putting it up for Vfd later today. --JJay 21:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Have put Dmitri Leybman as well as Timothy Solon on afd. --JJay 00:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Airespace

"Advice for administrators...Check talk pages, page history, what links here (especially for potentially controversial user pages), etc. If there is a dispute over whether the page should be deleted, consider first listing it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." --BorgHunter (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, when going through dozens of CSDs, with more being added by the second, it's hard to give too much attention to any of them, if your goal is to actually process all that are listed, so, no, I didn't check the talk page. It was a borderline case, certainly, but a really bad article. If you or anyone else wants to write a half decent stub on it, it shouldn't be speedied. - R. fiend 06:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand; no problem. I know little about the company in question, but I'll create a short stub on the topic shortly. --BorgHunter (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbbies

Filiocht, of course, is one I believe in, and if Mindspillage is running she's a good pick. The only one I've encountered who I think isn't running but who seems to have the temperament for it is Sjakkalle. He's always been very law-abiding, careful, and even-handed in his dealings. Haeleth, too, but he's too new still and not yet an admin. Anyway, those are folks who have impressed me, and my mileage does tend to vary. Geogre 13:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

bananas from pluto

Sound goods. Perhaps it might have it's place in psychology. A move to my users sub page might be interesting. --CyclePat 18:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

However, so I could be informed on the process of deletion. What where the reasons behind the deletion. Should I be not be able to see this. Also, should I not be able to call for a redress on this? --CyclePat 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

ps.: the article in question was "bananas come from pluto" --CyclePat 18:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

B.t.w.: You are supposed to allow enough time for someone to write an article before deleting it. Adding the delete fast and then deleting the page while someone has just started the article is generally rude and against wiki policy. Also, why a speedy delete for this article bananas come from pluto, I don't believe there was any criteria for this? Is there a discussion on this subject? If you don't have an answer for this I motion that the page be undeleted. (Perhaps then you might attempt to have it deleted properly in the regular delete section) --CyclePat 18:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

non-sense? (*sarcastically) Oh come on! (LOL). It all made perfect sense, logically writen. (perhaps funny... which was explained in the article)(maybe some tipos). (Warning: As you may have noticed, my pleasure on wiki is to create conversation and debate) (actually I don't really care if it's deleted or not... I more or less behind finding out the process of why, (one reason I chose what might be considered a silly subject) (However clowns are a silly subject too!) Humm... --CyclePat 19:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: List of music videos by name

Done.  Denelson83  19:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

del. review

I agree that it should be flexible and please by all means change it if you have an idea on how to do it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Kirby move.

I am deeply disappointed with how you conducted yourself in this Kirby move. This statement, "Oh, someone got pised off because I moved kirby without discussion. So here's the discussion: I moved Kirby. Take care.", is highly antagonistic, and it underminds a valued process of Wikipedia, discussion. There was clear opposition to your move, and you merely shrugged them off. Please do work on improving your attitude. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipediology essay

Hi R. fiend, I saw that you weren't sure about how accurate your numbers were in your essay on the number of articles in Wikipedia, so I took the liberty of calculating a 95% confidence interval (fully explained on the talk page). Just thought I'd let you know! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you, R. fiend - your comment on my talk page means as much to me as any vote on the RfA page. As I've promised everyone else, I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BDAbramson T 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--note new "admin gold" sig :-D}

Forwarding articles

Can you please refrain from attempting to remove content from Wikipedia [1] [2] [3]. It is considered vandalism. If you feel the content should be removed, please discuss it on the relevant talk pages first. Thanks for your time. --SaltyWater 13:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

Please leave the Bfrian Chase article. The consensus was to keep, and a single editor cannot defy consensus, 14:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Desist in your personal attacks. Thankyou. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Editors like you make it unpleasant to edit here with your nasty personal attacks. Desist, SqueakBox 15:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR block

Hello, R. fiend. I saw this, a moment ago, and went to the block log. I then went to the history of John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. As far as I can see, you reverted three times, and the rules (while discouraging 3 reverts) actually prohibit four, not three. I'll have another look into it, and see if mention has been made at WP:AN/3RR. I'd unblock you immediately, but I'm a fairly new admin, and don't want to jump in without being absolutely sure. Please wait a few minutes, and I will get back to you. AnnH ^(talk) 22:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. Sorry for the confusion. [[Sam Korn]] 22:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

New J! Related Article

Hey -- some anonotwerp has created List of greatest Jeopardy! champions and it's rife with factual errors. What do you think -- do you think it's more appropriate to clean up or send to AFD? --OntarioQuizzer 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Tom Walsh, the very first person to exceed 5 games as per the original "5 game rule;" -- nope, Sean Ryan was. "Maria Wenglinsky, who aside from the above is the only person to exceed 5 consecutive games;" -- so did Kerry Breitenbach. Eddie Timanus - "but also for making the biggest comeback in Jeopardy! history up to that time" -- how can that be truly known? Frank Spangenberg, holder of the record for greatest earnings before the repeal of the "5 game rule." -- Wrong on both counts; Jerome Vered and Brian Weikle broke both before the rule was repealed. As I said, rife with factual errors. OntarioQuizzer 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

There was a 3RR violation, and I don't appreciate being overruled without so much as a word to me.

For those who can't count:

• R.fiend sets page to his preferred version. Strike one.

• Returns page to his preferred version. Strike two.

• Returns page to his preferred version, again. Strike three.

• Returns page to his preferred version, again, again. You're out.

As an administrator, you should know better. Further, using administrator powers like rollback in an edit war is inexcusable.

The block has been restored, and should stand. -- Essjay · Talk 03:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be kept in the loop, don't announce that you've left. Otherwise you'd have been the first to know. Friday (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Kept in the loop, indeed. How ("otherwise") very prudent of you, Friday. El_C 10:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR only applies if four actual reversions are committed. The item you list as "Strike one" is manifestly not a revert. User:R. fiend has only edited John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy a total of five times. The edit you list as "Strike one" was R. fiend's 2nd edit, total, of the page, and was simply a minor formatting change from the previous edit. (And the previous edit happened to be his 1st edit of the page, where he simply added Brian Chase's age.)

The edit you list as "Strike two" was the first actual reversion, in which a diff of two consecutive edits from R. fiend show no differences between them. The edit you list as "Strike three" was the second actual reversion, and the edit you list as "You're out" was the third actual reversion.

WP:3RR makes it fairly plain that there must be more than three reverts in a 24 hour period for a 3RR violation to have taken place. And they must be actual reversions, not mere edits. R. fiend did indeed perform three actual reversions within a 24 hour period, but he very clearly did not perform more than three reversions.

Of course, ideally, a dialogue at the talk page should be opened before the first reversion, and matters should be discussed there without resorting to petty back-and-forth editing in a game of "who can blink first". R. fiend, as an admin, is certainly aware of this, and I'm sure he simply allowed himself to be caught up in the moment, as happens to us all from time to time. I have no doubt that he has been suitably chastened, and given that no actual 3RR violation has occurred, I am taking the liberty of unblocking him (assuming he's still blocked at this point, which I haven't checked).

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)