User talk:Friday

Archives: /archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4

Put new stuff at the bottom.

Zereshk's user page

Gee, thanks ever so much for assuming good faith and unilaterally acting without discussion with the other involved admin. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It was just a protection- is there some reason it's a big deal? If I'd found any existant discussion of why it was protected, I'd certainly have read it and perhaps commented there instead of unprotecting. I guess one man's "unilateral" is another's "common sense". I don't see that anyone was acting in bad faith in any way at all- sorry if I gave that impression. Friday (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a big deal when a wheel war has the potential of breaking out when you undo an admin's actions without discussing it with her. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, it would be impossible for you and I to have a wheel war between the two of us - I use the 1 revert rule. I noticed you even commented at User_talk:Zereshk#Unprotected that you werre going to undo this yourself, which makes your reaction utterly puzzling to me. Why on earth would you get upset that someone did something you were going to do yourself? Is it possible you're trying to own your actions too much? And yeah, I know, ownership and 1RR are aimed at article edits, not admin actions, but I've put a lot of thought into this and so far I've concluded that it's best to apply the same principles to admin actions that we do to edits. Also, I'm very concerned that you feel you were owed an explanation here, yet you did not even bother to tell the editor who's page you protected that you did so, or why. Surely, of anyone involved, he was entitled to an explanation? Anyway, I'm not sure where you're coming from with this, but it'd be very easy for an outside observer to attribute your response here to an elitist attitude- the notion that admins deserve special deference not accorded to mere editors. This attitude is utterly poisonous and does much harm to the project. I really hope that's not how you see things. Friday (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am upset that action was taken without consulting me. This is how wheel wars break out. Admins do deserve special deference from other admins when it comes to undoing administrative actions. I'm not saying that your actions were wrong, just your failure to consult. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this may be getting more heavily into our individual wiki-philosophies than we need to, but first let me apologize. I still don't believe that undoing an action without prior consulting is automatically wrong, but I see that my doing so upset you in this case, and I'm sorry for that. If you're interested in not having wheel wars, the simplest most effective thing you could do is stop owning your actions. Do what you will, and let it go. If someone undoes something you did, don't just redo it. This will prevent you from ever wheel-warring. If someone disagrees strongly enough to undo something you'd done, maybe they have a good reason for doing so. I'm not saying we should run around undoing things lightly, but to say it should never be done is way overstating the case. And, if I must be prefectly frank- you frequently don't respond well when people do try to discuss things with you. Just because somebody did something once, we should not automatically assume it was the best thing to do. Saying we should never override another admin is basically saying that whatever happened to get done first is automatically the right thing, by definition. And that's insane. Friday (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Mccready

I've been receiving e-mails from editors who are concerned about User:Mccready's behavior on articles they are editing. I've taken a look, and it seems he's mostly reverting and using aggressive edit summaries. I recall that a couple of months ago you suggested all he needed was some time to establish a proper track record; would you mind looking into this further and seeing what you can do to help? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. It does seem at a glance that he's continuing with problematic behavior, so my hope that he could reform may well have been unrealistic. I'll help out however I can. Friday (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Acadame North

Do not threaten to delete me for I am not scarred, I will email a complaint so fast it will make you head spin--Acadamenorth 18:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hello Friday,

Re: "I think wikipedia articles should have some degree of encyclopedic quality. This means removing original research, unverifiable information, and (sometimes) cruft."

Just wondering why "I think wikipedia articles should have some degree of encyclopedic quality"? I was just curios. Feel free to ignore this. Thanks --Aminz 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean, why do I say "some degree" rather than, say "lots"? I'm an eventualist- having a mediocre but accurate stub is preferable to no article at all, as long as the subject is appropriate. I'd love for every single article to be FA quality but obviously this can't happen in real life unless we delete most of our content, which would be a silly thing to do. Friday (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond

Hi Friday. Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have been pleased to see that he has been contributing positively with little conflict since I unblocked him. I understand your initial skepticism, as it is often easier to think 'this person is a trouble-maker, let's just get rid of them'. However, in nearly all cases the person is actually doing what they think best/helpful and thus will view such treatment as extremely unfair and insulting... which tends to create something of a self-fulfilling prophecy as they complain about the 'unfair' treatment and others say 'see, I told you they were disruptive'. It is just a bad dynamic all around. Thus I feel that even in cases where it seems clear that a user will never 'get it' or has an 'inherently disruptive' personality scrupulous fairness and restraint in regards to blocks is the best policy... sometimes they will surprise you and turn out to be better than you thought, but even when they don't it causes less bad feelings and disruption all around. It's just difficult to always remember that when the obstinate #@$%^*! is messing in your playground. :] --CBD 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Davenet

Hey, I think these guys are up for deletion (not up to music standards) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eppiphane. I don't know how to do it so I thought you could. Cheers.

Brutal Youth (band)

FYI: You pasted the salt notice but I think you forgot to actually salt the page. Cheers!--Kchase T 00:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I really dislike protecting things. Sometimes I use {{deletedpage|| and then just come back later and delete- I'm not crazy about leaving a potentially harmful protected page sitting there. But, thanks for the reminder, and feel free to protect and/or delete it yourself if you think that's best. Friday (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; I don't like those sitting there waiting to be linked from google searches, either. I'm not an admin, so by both necessity and desire I leave the decision to you.--Kchase T 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tndave (talk · contribs)

The kid just doesn't want to play nice. Fan-1967 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• And now he's created a new ID as Scott Preedy (talk · contribs). -- Fan-1967 16:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. But, it looks like it's already been taken care of. Hooray for ruthless efficiency! Friday (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascism

That's exactly what I'm talking about - ever move controlled by robot sysops. According to 'Pedia, you are violating my rights to blank my page. IPs cannot do that, but registered users can. I want my usertalkpageerased 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that it benefits the project to blank it- but, I don't see that dramatic conflict helps either (see Don't be a drama queen). I was actually interested in hearing what you had to say- I asked about it on your talk page, and you didn't reply. Constructive criticism can only be good for the project. However, ranting and raving and acting like a child are not good for the project. Friday (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3RR

The situation could be helped alot if he actually showed some remorse, he goes on about these rules yet he can not stick to them him self.

If he was sorry he violated it (three times!) it would be better. But as as he is a role model im compelled to be "annoyed and disgusted" at his behaviour towards the situation, he did call his block absurd. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Acadamenorth

I'm not sure if you've been getting my e-mails or not, but you really need to unblock User:Acadamenorth. I keep getting the autoblocked message because he is blocked. It's about the 952th time I've been autoblocked this year because either the IP or a user on that IP (Cogeco IP - shared, I guess) has been blocked Mad Jack 19:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the collateral damage- looks like the autoblocker strikes again. I have removed what it said was a remaining autoblock- this should fix you up. Sorry for the inconvenience. Friday (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mad Jack has just e-mailed me to say that, after nearly a full day of no problems, he's been hit with the autoblock notice again. He'd be much obliged if this one ever gets figured out ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It works at the moment, though it autoblocked me about half an hour ago. Thanks for passing on the message, RadioKirk. Mad Jack 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocate request

I am a Advocate for Justforasecond. I was wondering if you could give me an analysis of the block by Nandesuka. Especially your opinion on;

1. Is a one month block for vandalism more than usually would be inspected.

2. Is a admin who has a history of dislike of a user misusing their powers by conducting a block review of that user.

Geo. 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, dunno if it will help much, but sure. As for #1, certainly a month is a long block. I would expect a block of such duration only in particularly egregious cases, or if there has been a pattern of disruptive behavior. When people are persistantly disruptive, we generally apply blocks of increasing length in hopes of getting the message to sink in. As for #2, well, that's a tricky situation, isn't it? I'm in favor of admins stepping away from situations where there could be a reasonable suspicion of a conflict of interest. On the other hand, you can't say an admin is automatically tainted from getting involved in a situation if there's a past history there. Also, the "history of dislike" may be questionable- if I warn a vandal, perhaps even sternly, do I have a "history of dislike" with that editor? I dislike vandalism, sure, but I try to avoid disliking any particular editor. Of course, we're all human, and it happens. This is where plain old human judgment comes in, and this is why admins are checks on each other. Any good admin should always be ready to tell another admin if they think a mistake was made. Another comment I have on this particular case is that JFAS was given a few opportunities to change his tune- Nandesuka even offered to reduce the block signficantly given a show of good faith. Rather than taking that offer, JFAS chose another path- perhaps wisely, perhaps not. Friday (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: sysop

Well i've already crossed off AN/I and 3RR as its pretty clear i am not welcome there, however i will not just stand back and let people talk about me on a page and not at least defend my actions as i acted purely in good faith and find the accusations pretty silly tbh, no one has produced any evidence of uncivility yet or bad faith and i doubt they will. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the userbox has an relation to this RfC thing. Eitherway if the userbox is so precious why not make it so only admins could transclude it? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I used the word police because i couldnt think of any other word (thus why i quoated it); and where would i apoligise? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Friday

I like to know why you blocked me. You should have the courtesy to give the reason for blocking me. Did I do any illeagal edits? What? When? Where?--Nmj 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no indication that I or anyone else has blocked you. But if there are problems I'm willing to try to help sort them out. Friday (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Friday

I don't see why Zoe thinks {{user computer administrator}} is an impersonation of a WP admin, it's a generic UBX under the professions list. o_O

There's a completely separate UBX for a WP admin that has the WP logo, not a generic computer monitor logo and certainly doesn't link to article space about a generic computer administrator. {{User wikipedia/Administrator|English Wikipedia}} would have been completely inappropriate for me to use and would have justified a block, but that wasn't the UBX used.

Anyhoo, enough of that scenario. (I hope)

Thanks again.

Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 00:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Torinir

Torinir is not a good faith editor, but besides that, PLEASE stop undoing other admins' actions. It's turning into an edit war that I'm about to unleash. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If there are other issues going on here, please present them in the appropriate places. I have no opinion on Torinir as an editor. As for the rest, I already left you a message about that. If you're going to war, that's your choice, but I choose not to be involved. Friday (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel you have to make emergency reversions without first discussing things? If this were the first time, I would probably ignore it, but it's turning into a pattern with you. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There are very rarely emergencies here. I didn't see what I was doing as an emergency, I saw it as common sense. I think there's tangible harm done by blocking an editor unjustly. Of course, maybe you feel the block wasn't unjust- but, for what it's worth, I wasn't the only one who thought the block was inappropriate. All admins should act as a check on each other- that's an important part of what makes the system work. Friday (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And all admins should discuss things in a collegial manner instead of repeatedly seeking out attempts to undo others' actions behind their backs. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it appropriate for you to tell User:MatthewFenton not to claim to be an admin? I see more than a little irony there. Unless it's only me that you have a problem with. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No one should falsely claim to be an admin. And I have no problem with you at all- however I reserve the right to disagree with your actions. But, I promise I'll try to disagree in as civil a manner as I can. Friday (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility assumes discussion before action. So long as you are willing to try that, then I'll be happy. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have no opinion on Torninir as an editor, why did you characterize him as "a good faith editor"? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Absense of reason to believe otherwise, of course. Friday (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you are to be commended for If anyone disagrees with what I've done here, I invite them to adjust the situation as necessary. Zoe- I apologize for reverting your action. In my defense, I saw what looked to me like a compelling reason to do so, not only because it was altogether consistent with your user page profession that you are not infallible (and, of course, that no admin ought to think him/herself infallible) but also because it was rather inconsistent with that which often happens at WP:AN, a page on which those in whom the community has reposed some trust ought ostensibly to resolve issues civilly and with encyclopedic purposes in mind but where, as often as not, discussions over small issues devolve into grand fights.

Relative to the substantive issue, I'm not sure that I've much of an opinion—I'd likely say that your unblock was appropriate and that this wasn't a situation in which ex ante consultation would have been propitious, inasmuch as the issue is a simple one, but that I'd probably have left a note prior to my unblocking (or, at worst, concomitant to my unblocking)—but it should be said that you've handled the situation exceedingly well (as, on the whole, has Zoe). Joe 06:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record...

...I respect your opinion and appreciate your comments. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

TJ Block

I know that I have edited this page in excess but someone keeps posting wrong information. I explained under the talk section why it is wrong and still they come back and add the same misinformation. There was the floating criticism section which thankfully has not popped up again and someone keeps adding a sentence here or there in the middle of a paragraph that is a different subject. It makes the article look wierd and some of it is vandalism. I did another edit today because the information was wrong and the spelling was atrocious.Welsh4ever76 19:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Substance D and Cotter Ellis Deletion

For the record, I'm not Cotter Ellis. I'm Paul Klein. Also, I can see what you might disagree with about the page on Cotter, but what's wrong with the band page? Paulk6 17:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Paulk6

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Template:Db-band and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I'm no expert, but I think that new articles for bands are created many times per hour and most get deleted. This is not the place to list every band under the sun, every person who exists and every company that has a web site. --Brat32 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Rhodes Page

I got a message saying that I was creating a page on Wikipedia for myself instead of using the UserPage. This is not true whatsoever! The information that I researched hard and long for (just for Wikipedia to look good) has been deleted because someone assumed that I was writing about myself which is absolutely untrue. I want my information back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsr93 (talk • contribs)

That probably is not the reason. Many pages about people get deleted after being tagged with Template:Db-bio on the grounds that the person is not noteworthy enough to list. --Brat32 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You all did not give me a chance to continue editing the site. I was just putting about a paragraph out there so that I could one, make sure it worked and two, go back in 30 seconds and finish editing. But before I could, I get a deletion message.

List of people with natural breasts

Page recreated! - CobaltBlueTony 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NOT protected!?!??? - CobaltBlueTony 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What page? No idea what you mean ;-) Friday (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha! Thanks! But what prevents it from being recreated yet again? - CobaltBlueTony 19:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Midgets. Very angry midgets. Friday (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They prefer to be called "Wikipedians of smaller stature," thank you very much! - CobaltBlueTony 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Hess

Why not let the DRV run its course? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To save time? If notability is the question, a speedy isn't a good way to answer it. It's not advertizing to say who endorses what- Michael Jordan endorses Nike, but we don't delete his article because of it. If you're still not inclined to undelete, I won't argue over it, or undelete it or anything, but it seems silly to me to spend days in DRV on a case like this. Friday (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If the DRV gets a consensus for undeletion, I won't argue. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok. But- you do seem interested in following the letter of the rules here. I thought contested speedies didn't have to go to DRV, they could just be undeleted (and brought to Afd if deemed necessary). If you're interested in the letter of the rules, there is no criteria for speedy deletion that applied to this. If it were anyone else I'd have just undeleted this ;-) Friday (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there was mention of a tour in that article, which probably met the part of WP:MUSIC that says "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources." Friday (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, HolyHell - a band yet to release their debut album - are supporting Manowar. The band may fulfill the national/international criteria for WP:Music notability but that doesn't mean that the individual members do. Perhaps if there is verifiable evidence of Tom Hess touring (inter)nationally as a solo artist then this criteria would also apply to him. No such evidence was presented at the time of deletion.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites - Detroit Downtown

I didn't intend for Wikipedia to be a directory for anything, other than information. I just thought the hotel was of architectural interest, since i was adding tall buildings to Detroit's skyscrapers category. It was built in 1965...i thought it was old enough to be of interest. :) User:Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 23:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I'm just one guy with one guy's opinion. If you really want me to, I'll undelete this and if I still think it should go away later, I could take it to Afd. Friday (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure! that would be nice! i would like to submit a new possible policy of letting a page hang around for 72h before being nominated for deletion, unless an admin sees it's against policy, spam, vulgar, and so on. :) I'd love to at least see this building have a chance to be included. I didn't mean to spam Wikipedia...rather, as i stated earlier, i just wanted to include it for its history and structural/architectural profile, much like the Marriott, which runs the Renaissance Center. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see a reason for an article here, but I said I'd undelete, so I did. Giving it time won't hurt, I suppose. Note that I can't do much about it, should someone else decide to delete it. Friday (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

hey, that's ok! i just thank you for giving this building article a chance! :) Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping this newbie

You moved my sandbox, and I think that's *great*! I tried to understand from the wiki article how to do it correctly, and finally gave up. (And also, I didn't realize that stuff on my userpage was in the article namespace.)

It's actually becoming a minor gripe of mine, that I keep having trouble doing wiki things when I am *not* dumb with computer stuff. I don't think the help pages are actually helpful enough and I've been mulling over why - I think one reason is that they tend to have a single approach, but people learn in lots of different ways. And also, there isn't anything truly low-level. (That I have found, anyway. Hasn't anyone done the Dummies book yet?)

I have thought about creating some how-to pages but I'm not exactly swimming in time - first to do the learning thoroughly myself, and then to create the documents. (Does it sound like I do this for a living? [g] I do technical writing of various kinds, and I also do technical training. I get a kick out of working with frightened newcomers.)

Anyway, thank you for your help. I really appreciate it.

Jennifer Brooks 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching update

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Active' section of the coaching box.

• If the coaching has finished please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
• If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
• If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Petros471 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AfD duplicate

It appears that, in the process of fixing something about the Katie Blair nomination, you listed it on AfD twice. Was that intentional? If not, you might want to fix it. - Bootstoots 02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks for telling me, I'll check it out. Friday (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed it. - Bootstoots 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Acadame North

you pethetic fool I HAVE RETURNED your fascist remarks have not stopped me!

Rhodell Brewery

I've nominated your article, Rhodell Brewery, for deletion. I see nothing notable about a brew-pub that's less than eight years old. If there is something notable about it, I don't see it in the article. Perhaps this is something can fix. Rklawton 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Friday (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

List of YTMND fads

Thank you for keeping the history of List of YTMND fads. I wanted to look a fad up and since the history remained, I could find it. Anomo 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Worried

I'm a little concerned about the behavior of some users. As you've noted, MathStatWoman and Harisingh are trying to join ranks to vote for each other's pages. I really hope that doesn't happen. Their pages aren't very good for an encyclopedia. What should we do about this evolving coalition? Chris53516 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

With luck, they'll see from the feedback they get from other editors that this is a bad idea. Also, with luck, when Afds are closed, the closer will give less weight to people who didn't give a good reason for their "vote". I like to think that anyone who shows up and says "We must keep this article because the deletion attempt is undemocratic facist censorship!" will automatically lose credibility in the eyes of experienced editors. Honestly, out of all the coalitions editors have formed or may form, this one worries me very little. Friday (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good; I feel better. Have a happy day! Chris53516 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a «FREE» Encyclopedia

People need to know what these things are,so I just write them. P.S:I do not speek Englisk very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintei (talk • contribs)

What are you talking about? Chris53516 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Obelisk of Darkness which I'd deleted for being contextless and (IMO) somewhat trivial. Friday (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If a user can't provide more than a definition, it doesn't belong here. He didn't even provide a good definition. Chris53516 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with these issues, please

Thank you for contacting me.

(a) I have been accused of "sockpuppetry". This is totally unjust. I am not the same as any ot the Wikipedia-editors to whom I have been linked. I seek an arbiter who will listen to reason and logic. Contributors named Bioinformaticist, M&M Peace (i think), Philly Student...they are not I, at all --I do not know who they are, I vow as if in court! (b) Why are articles (bios of living people) on Marion Cohen, Roberta Wenocur, Elaine Zanutto, Linda Zhao, and other female mathematicians being held to standards different from male mathematicians like Herbert Wilf, Dennis DeTurck, &c .? (c) What is the problem with the corp, Daniel H. Wagner Associates? (d) All right, maybe articles need improvement, but deletion? and some with prompt deletion? (e) Wikipedia should be fun, not so contentious. Please help. I want to be nice, but it is difficult when being unjustly accused and bulliied. I hope you are understanding, and believe me. I am not lying. This is the truth. Wikipedia is not enjoyable for me under these circumstances. MathStatWoman 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of this has already been discussed. Have you been reading your talk page? It looks like there were a few confirmed sockpuppets a while back, but not with the usernames you're listing above. If you can provide a link showing where these other accounts were mentioned, that might help. As for the gender bias, people have already explained that this isn't the situation at all. I personally deleted Dennis DeTurck for having no indication of significance- all it said was he has a job. As for the Wagner article, it's on Afd- that's the right place to discuss deletion issues, but I'm guessing from the looks of it that it will be kept. I'm sorry you're having a bad experience here, but it does look like there has been some previous bad behavior on your part, and unfortunately many editors lose the ability to assume good faith as soon as they think someone is a problem editor. This isn't right, but sadly it does happen. My best advice to you right now is to calm down and keep making useful edits. Deletion upsets many people- nobody likes to hear someone they admire called "not notable". The best way to prevent article deletion is to make sure you use reliable sources, not your own personal knowlege. Friday (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Someone recreated the one I deleted, and there's more info there now. I have no idea how significant he is or whether he meets WP:BIO standards, but it doesn't look so clearly like a "delete on sight" article anymore. See, things do work fairly functionally here most of the time. Friday (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

ESP Guitars Page

Hi, there. I got your comment on my talk page and realized that you're probably right because that list was getting pretty big. I can create articles for each ESP series and describe all the models of each series in their respective series. That way, the list on the ESP page will only be about 15 to 20 items long. That way I can merge all the small articles into bigger ones. If this is a good idea I would like your answer on this matter so I can get started on it. QelDroma06 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable- I guess you already saw my comments on the talk page. It's best to keep discussion of this there, so other editors can give their thoughts as well. Friday (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Buildings

I don't create articles on random buildings. I pick the tallest buildings in an area, and i write articles on them. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on. you know what i mean. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Lately, i've been having a great deal of issues at wikipedia, from much older uses, ones that were here since it was founded in 2001... do you want me to just stop contributing? Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 20:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, not sure what you mean. But, no, I don't want you or anyone else to stop contributing- if there were no editors I suspect very little editing would get done. I do think you should make articles only on significant topics, tho- just having an address doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I think you're thinking of a directory, which wikipedia is not. Anyway, if there's something I can do to help out, let me know. Friday (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright... Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 20:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

List of buildings in Detroit

I just thought i could categorize/list the buildings by height, that's all. I know wikipedia's not a directory, but is it a database? Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 02:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Marion Cohen

An article that you have been involved in editing, Marion Cohen, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Cohen. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I'm relisting this on procedural grounds as the original AfD was closed early. Espresso Addict 03:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Detroit Buildings Wikiproject?

Should i start a Detroit Buildings Wikiproject? If so, would you be willing to join and assist me in it? Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 03:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think reaching some consensus on which buildings should be included would help- for starters, they'd need coverage in realiable sources. A phone book listing showing that it exists isn't nearly enough. 15 stories is objective, sure, but what makes a 15 story building significant compared to a shorter one? Getting a guideline for buildings might be helpful at this point. Friday (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use the national register of historic places? It's verifiable, and it'll save a lot of debate over inclusion. Rklawton 17:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me- and I suspect anything actually on the register would have no risk of deletion at all, with or without a guideline saying so. Friday (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability:Buildings

OK, any idea how I would go about proposing this as a guideline?--Isotope23 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Usually it's done on the project's talk page. Rklawton 05:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mccready's block

Hello Friday, See my comment on Mccready's talk page. Hope this helps. Take care, FloNight 19:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CSD

Hi Friday! No, quite the reverse... however, the two most common questions I get (I've even created an FAQ at the top of my talk page to head them off) are:

1. Why did you delete my article about me/my friend/my band/my friend's band?
2. Why didn't you delete the article I nominated for speedy deletion?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Both of these can be easily answered, of course, by pointing people firmly at policy. What is less easy to answer is a wikilawyer wanting root-and-branch, point-me-to-the-comma explanations for why things have been done. And both the deletionists and the inclusionists have lots of wikilawyers!

I think the important point here is that CAT:CSD has a backlog. So, why does it have a backlog?

Well, perhaps because admins are reluctant to get into fights with the authors or the taggers (and if you de-tag an article wrongly tagged, the tagger will just re-tag it... and some other admin will come along and delete it out of process. If you delete the article out of process, expect to get dragged onto the personal pillory of DRV or have the user go admin-shopping for an undelete).

Also, speedy deletions should be easy: a glance to say "does this meet the criterion stated?". If the criterion stated is "It's a bit nonsensical in the middle and I think the link is spam and perhaps it's a repost", and you know that if you de-tag it, it will be re-tagged... well, sod clearing CAT:CSD. Who needs the trouble?

If around a third of tagged articles have been tagged with the wrong tag, a non-existant tag, or an AfD argument wrapped-up in a tag, then the process is clearly broken! That's why I say we need better education of users in picking the right tags and sticking by the CSD, and more CSDs to fit user expectations. One system unbroken in two steps. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is blatantly obvious, but isn't the solution to get more reasonable people (preferably with the ability to actually delete) doing new pages patrol? I much prefer people using a written-out-in-English justification for deletion than something like "G12" or "A9". Lately I've come to the conclusions that I'd personally prefer we have no specific CSDs at all- what we actually use is the individual judgment of the editors doing the deletions, and having the CSDs written out like they're set in stone enables us to pretend otherwise. Friday (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, more reasonable people would be ideal. But how to recruit them? Currently we have the choice between:

• admins willing to act out of process
• editors who don't understand process
• admins and editors who don't care about process

But that leaves some 70% of the community out of the system - those who are unwilling to act out of process, those that understand the process and know it isn't working and those who care (to one degree or another) about the process.

And, of course, we would have no way of excluding those who aren't "reasonable" from the process in the first place. And the ones who aren't "reasonable" are the ones causing a third of the backlog of 350+ articles and 90% of the reluctance in admins to deal with the category... thus perpetuating the backlog.

I have, in my time at Wikipedia, been accused of both deletionism and inclusionism; of ignoring policy and over-following policy; of not understanding rules and not focusing on every dot and comma of rules. Nobody is prepared to say that you can do both. So here's the truth: I'm a deletionist. I want the CSD expanding so I can delete more crap from Wikipedia easier and with less argument about my choices. But, I'm an inclusionist. I want articles that will encourage new editors to expand Wikipedia and get involved with us: incomplete articles they can add to. I want to save those articles from deletion and not have to argue about it. I want those with the power to nominate to understand the power; I want those who create articles to understand what they are creating.

But above all, I want an easy life. And 350 articles to delete, of which a full third will require me to both stand naked of any rules and potentially strap myself to a pillory to defend the right of others to be wrong... well, after only six months as an admin, I can't do it any more. The general user thinks that adminship means either a magic wand that makes an article perfect or a magic wand that makes an article be gone. In fact, adminship just makes it a bit easier to do some stuff that users could do but it's worth delaying them the ability to so indulge... In other words, it's no big deal.

Asking admins to act out of process day in, day out - even under the cloak of WP:IAR - rather than making a better framework for us - is making adminship a big deal. And that's A Bad Thing. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

architectural value

Well, yes. I believe these buildings should stay becuase they look futuristic. The pages i create are not random, either. I simply added pages on the most prominent, most visible, and tallest buildings. These buildings lie on the riverfront, easily visible from Windsor, Ontario, AND Detroit, MI. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My house is visible to everyone who uses google maps, I suppose I should make an article on that? Sigh. I guess this shows why we might need some guidelines. You may want to look at User:Isotope23/Notability:Buildings. Friday (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure! What would the criteria be for a "notable" building? Height? architectural style (beaux-arts, art deco, chicago school, and so on...)? maybe even age, or number of floors? I'll gladly scale back my building pages if you and others want. i just need to know what guidelines to follow. :)

Pooh.

Good luck. I am not interested in involving myself further in what will obviously be little more than a tempest in a teapot, improving and helping nothing. JBKramer 18:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Grr. I sorta wish I'd never seen this either. I don't understand how such a tiny issue could turn into a major dispute with accusations being tossed around. Do people actually enjoy such wikidrama? I've always found it rather annoying, myself. Friday (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mccready reblocked

Hello Friday :-) I reblocked (5 days) after Mccready continued his highly uncivil and disruptive editing. If he does not respond with collaborative editing after this block the next step is a RFAr to ask for article bans. Thanks for being patient with me. I was hopeful that he might respond. FloNight 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised, and your plan seems reasonable to me. Thanks for giving it yet one more effort tho, even if it didn't work out this time. Friday (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

List of celebrities who have killed people

Greetings! I've restored this page, as it is not properly subject to speedy deletion. I've sent it to AfD instead. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that's a good idea? I see no useful purpose to the encyclopedia, and keeping content like this arouns is potentially a legal liability. Friday (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello. It seems you have deleted the article: List of transgender-rights organizations. Could you point me to the discussion where the deletion was agreed to? It is a great shame to lose this information. Can I access the old page? Thanks. ntennis 09:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Howdy. I discovered (and deleted) it due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transgender-support organizations. This wasn't a valid encyclopedia article so I'm not crazy about putting it back in article space, but I pasted the contents into User:Ntennis/list so you can see what was there. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think there is a good case for keeping and expanding this article, and I was a little shocked to see it deleted with no discussion or opportunity for discussion. I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says: "Even admins should mostly use the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion pages when they think a page should be deleted. There are a few, limited, exceptions, which are given at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion." "The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism."

Are you aware of these policies? Your deletion appears to be clearly in breach of them. Am I missing something elsewhere about deletion? Is there a new policy about "list of..." pages? ntennis 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

One could construe this list as an attack, and that fits the grounds for a speedy. Rklawton 23:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we are looking at different pages. You can see the article here. What article were you referring to? Attack pages are defined as "Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Citizen is an imbecile")". ntennis 23:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely I'm aware of them. Do you disagree that the page should have been deleted for a reason other than your interpretation of policy? I'm usually happy to restore things when there's disagreement, but I want to know if you're concerned about content or policy, because policy is way less important than improving the encyclopedia. Everything the Afd says equally applies here, so I think there's concensus for deletion. I'm open to suggestions, but I'm still not crazy about putting this back in article space. Still, if anyone wants to restore, I won't fight over it. Friday (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Articles that are just link farms are still speediable last I checked, if you want to find a way to consider this within policy rather than without. I don't personally see it as an attack unless I missed something, but Rklawton's suggestion would make it in policy also. Friday (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted the Afd closure, in case this helps. Friday (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There's two issues here. Firstly, there was certainly no consensus for deletion of this article. I urge you to be follow a democratic process that gives users the opportunity to defend or improve a page before it is deleted. This is precisely what AfD is for. Then you can make your case about the article being a "link farm", and we can discuss it there and on the article's talk page.

The other issue is whether the article is worth keeping and improving, or should be deleted. I'm concerned that you are misunderstanding your role as administrator. I shouldn't have to convince you of an article's worth on your personal talk page. If you are interested in this discussion, I welcome it! Let's have it at the appropriate place. ntennis 23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've restored it for now since you feel so strongly. I still don't think it should be in article space, but, you're right, we can have that conversation in another place and time. Friday (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ntennis 23:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put it up for Afd and explained my reasoning there. And I see where you're coming from, but saying you want to follow a democratic process is, well, quite at odds with how things work here. Afd is not a democracy but hopefully it will satisfy your objections. Friday (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, not a democratic process? ntennis 22:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are probably pages elsewhere that say it better, but see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy. We use discussion, not voting. I'm slightly dismayed that you continue to seem unhappy about the process here. I already undeleted and used Afd. Is there something different you'd prefer I'd have done? We usually try not to get too hung up on the letter of the law here, preferring instead to focus on the spirit. See the next section on the same page, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_rule_making. Friday (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're coming off sounding very confrontational and accusatory to me. I know you think I was wrong here- I disagree, but that's alright- but you're telling me over and over what I did wrong instead of focusing on what can be done now to improve the situation. Friday (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing democracy ("a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a body") with voting ("a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice"). What I meant was that decisions in wikipedia are made by the community. Administrators "have access to technical features that help with maintenance", and "perform essential housekeeping chores that require the extra access administrators are entrusted with. Among them are watching the Articles for deletion debates and carrying out the consensus of the community on keeping or deleting these articles." They are not autocrats, and should not have more power in determining content than other users. Please read the Administrators' reading list.

You are dismayed by my concern, and think I'm getting hung up on the letter of the law, but I'm trying to say just the opposite. The spirit of consensus and community-controlled decision-making is fundamental to wikipedia. I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop talking to me like I'm a newbie that needs explanation as to how wikipedia works. I've been registered since 2004, with thousands of edits to my name! ntennis 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S I posted this before seeing your comment immediately above. I've just reread my posts and can't really see that they are "very confrontational and accusatory". How should I have expressed my concerns? Can you rephrase something I've said above to show me what you mean? I will endeavor to follow suit. ntennis 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Aww, shit. Can we start over? I assumed from what you wrote that you were a newbie, and you apparently assumed the same of me. Sorry. I'll stop referring you to pages you've already read then, if you do the same. :-) But, to answer your concern, now that I understand it- is there something I did that you thought was contrary to the spirit of consensus and community decision-making? When there was disagreement, I looked for broader input. We do definitely rely on admin discretion in performing some actions, including deletions. The reason I felt you were overemphasizing the letter of the law was that you keep quoting things at me. I edited the best I know how here- there was disagreement (which has yet to convince me, but I'm only one editor) so I undid my change and brought it up in the proper forum. If this is wrong, I'm not seeing how yet. Friday (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. If I was in error here, the Afd I closed is suspect too. I'm opening it back up to see if anyone will oppose deletion- I closed it early thinking the result was obvious. Friday (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, let's start over. :) I didn't assume you were a newbie; it's evident that you are very active. That's why it's especially important to me that you understand the role of the administrator. I appreciate that you have engaged with me and restored the article for now, but the fact that you are unable to see how the speedy delete was wrong makes me worry you will continue to speedily delete articles on your own whim.

Please, don't stop referring me to pages that I may have already read, if you think I could benefit from reading them again. I'm sorry if giving you quotes and links seemed like a bombardment, but it appeared to me you missed the most basic guidelines here. What I'm really looking for is reassurance that in future you will only speedy delete articles that fit the criteria spelled out in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. ntennis 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I can understand anyone wanting me to be more careful here- it seems obvious from the Afd that there wasn't in fact consensus for deletion- so I'm glad you brought it up and I'm glad I undeleted. Maybe I should have even done so the minute you brought it up instead of trying to talk you out of it. I'm still rather amused at the vast difference between the two Afds on similiar articles- to me this is yet another data point in support of my hypothesis that Afd produces rather random results and is best avoided. But, to get to your point: I cannot in good conscience agree to only use the exact criteria spelled out in the CSDs- applying them without individual judgment can produce absurd results. I could probably go on and on about why I think this is true (and I'll happily discuss that point with you, if you're interested). I'm happy to accept that I made a mistake here and should take care to avoid making such a mistake again, but this mistake was easily corrected and I don't see that any harm was caused. I understand you're concerned about what else I might have deleted without an exact match to a CSD, but this is the first time in my recollection that this has happened. I have, a handful of times (some of them mentioned above) undeleted things when there's disagreement and sent it to Afd and this is the first time I ever remember seeing that the Afd did not produce an obvious consensus for deletion. So, I don't think this mistake was so drastic or harmful as to require a complete change of approach- in all honesty, the idea of people trying to apply the criteria for speedy deletion as though they were set in stone scares the hell out of me. Anyway, I value your input (as I do input from any good faith contributor) but I can't agree that exactly applying the criteria for speedy deletion as the sole basis for non-Afd deletion is best for the project. Friday (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dee Margo Article

Just wanted to ask why you removed the MFD from the Dee Margo article. Thanks in advance. Somnabot 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

it's an article, it goes to WP:AFD, not mfd. Friday (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Friday. Joe Friday is it? Somnabot 05:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI

In response to your question, a) He does have good knowledge and b) some admins have editcountitis and support him no matter what he does. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sounds like yet another instance of the classic problem: what to do with people who are simultaneously helpful and problematic. Do you know anything more about point b? Is it really just editcountitis? Some people also automatically support longtime contributors no matter how disruptive they are, and some people automatically support their chat room buddies no matter how disruptive they are. I'm personally of the opinion that even if you've done good work in the past, you should still be held to our normal standards of behavior. But, I have definitely seen a small number of disruptive editors (some of them admins, even) who appear to be beyond criticism for whatever reasons. I've been struggling to understand this better for months and months, and I've basically concluded that some people tend to stand by their friends, no matter how poor their behavior. Wish I had a clue what could be done about it. Friday (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at his block log- the same people keep unblocking him. But I think that the community's patience is running out. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My rollback

You asked me earlier if my rollback on WT:RfA was intentional. I can assure you it was not. I was simply scrolling through the comments by clicking "Newer edit," while dealing with three phone calls to the wikimedia office simultaneously. I did not see what I was clicking and had no intention to revert that comment. I realize that you may choose to believe that or not, but that is really what happened on a very hectic day when I was alone in the office. Danny 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)