User talk:Friday

Note: If you want to email me, the link does work, but it's generally going to be better to contact me here. I'll probably see it faster, and even if I don't (or if I'm away for a few days), perhaps someone else can deal with the issue. And, perhaps most importantly, transparency is part of what makes Wikipedia work. We very rarely need secrets. Do the simplest thing that works.

Older stuff: /archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4 /archive5 /archive6 /archive7 /archive8 /archive9

Put new stuff at the bottom. Use this link if you wish.

Common sense

Just to let you know, I've quoted you. Probably the best quote I've been able to find in a long time. Regards, Rudget 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! I'm famous..ish.  :-) Friday (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello agian. I know we've had some disagreements, but I think that you would want to know that I am no longer adopting. Now, I am the adoptee. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Friday (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Award Center stuff

First off, thanks for your comments and actions taken on behalf of WP:AWC. Although we may have slight differences of opinions for the page (and my private views of the page are much closer to yours than others may think), we can both agree that the page needs a good kick in the pants. Feel free to suggest other sections that you believe should be axed on the Award Center talk page. I'm dumping Adopt 200 users now. --Sharkface^T/_C 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

More Simptimes stuff for deletion

• Template:Infobox Simptimes character
• Template:Infobox Simptimes character/doc
• Template:Infobox Simptimes
• Template:Infobox Simptimes/doc --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted them. Do I get a prize? Friday (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NeXor Productions

OMG! I am sorry that I did not put any sources, I was getting to that, could you please put that article back?

--Yours Truly, Qmanjr5 (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You, my friend...

... have been quoted on my userpage. Congratulations on being the king of common sense. :) asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NeXor Productions

I need some help with my article about NeXor, if I am the owner, would I need to put sources? Answer on my talk page.

---

--Yours Truly, Qmanjr5 (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

I only offer adotption because someone asked me too. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I asked him, as I didn't notice the short time he'd been on Wikipedia. His intentions are good, but perhaps should focus on other things right now =). xenocidic (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseball uniform

At my admin coaching subpage (Note that I am not being coached anymore because I will not run anytime soon) you said "A casual glance at RyRy's language skills should be enough to tell us that he cannot possibly create a good article by himself", well I created the article baseball uniform all by myself with very little help from others, a DYK nom that passed, and I would like you opinions on the article and if that comment your said at my subpage changed.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I already looked at it. Tried to fix it up a bit. You put sentences in it that don't make any sense, like "Uniforms are also used to indicate the home and opposing team by their colors, and to watch and enjoy the game while the players play baseball on the playing field as it stands for the symbol emblem to their baseball uniform." Still, it's a useful start, and I'm sure it will improve over time. My opinion of your language skills has not changed. Probably it's best if stuff like this gets worked on for a while before going into article space, but it's no big deal. Our articles are works in progress. They're not usually high quality when they're so new. Friday (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep that in my mind. Also, I won't give out my true indentity, but I am not a kid as you mentioned in the AN discussion on May 5th. I am older than you think if that's the right phrase to say. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care how old you are, I care how old you act. In my experience you've been acting like a little kid. Friday (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel Economy

The discussion about fuel economy is being reopened on Infobox Automobile. You had an opinion once, are you still of the same mind? Skyemoor (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Automobile#no_obvious_reason_why_fuel_economy_is_not_included_in_the_infobox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User Page

Will I get in trouble for editing my own user page? If I put links to my sites and places and tell about myself will I get in trouble? Neutral777 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"If you're asking what will get you in trouble to have on your user page, you're still way off base. Instead, ask what will help you improve Wikipedia. As I said before, improving the encyclopedia is what it's about. If you're here for some other purpose, this isn't the right place for you. Specifically, no, you should not be promoting your websites on your user page. It's true that you have no freedom of speech here. If you want freedom of speech, you have it on your own website. Friday (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)"

The reason I was asking is because other users (maybe more notable?) have links posted on their main page and information about themselves. I do want to contribute and help the wikipedia but I feel that in order to do that I need to know what not to do because I'm confused as to what you can contribute without being flamed, banned, squished, and blotted out of existence. Neutral777 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:User:Redrocket

Thank you for doing that. It is much appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RyRy.

I've commented here (permalink) Although not necessary, I'd have liked to be told about the revoking, not to see it on my watchlist, but never mind, I found out anyway. And, well, if he's given rollback again in the near future, I'd be highly concerned. Wouldn't it be fair to wait until I think he's ready for it? Merely as I've adopted him, and I plan to do an intense teaching with him about vandalism. And I feel I know what I'm doing in that area, but, anyway commented on his talk page. Feel free to reply to this on mine. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Wasn't an obvious thing. I'm trying to teach him more closely how to differentiate between what is/not vandalism. Once I'm sure he can, and I've taught him closely, I'll let admins know that I feel he's ready, but at this time, I feel he shouldn't be given it again. Regards. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I dearly hope he doesn't do that, or, I may have to start a thread on AN myself. I'd feel bad, but it would have to be done. Please, if you get any word of him asking about it, please send me an email, or on my talk page. Thanks again. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My page

I Have specific authorisation from Jimbo Wales to say that I can advertise it. If there is a problem with this then you should ring him up and ask him. I have an email from his email address if you would like me to send it to you then I will. If you would like me to send you a link to my website which you can see that Jimbo Wales has signed up has endorsed it. Madman2008 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is avaliable on third parties websites would happily provide these for you unless that is counted as advertising? Madman2008 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It does have contributors and have members for it. I will write a concise article about the website. Madman2008 (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have written it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman2008 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You dick why did you delete it? Madman2008 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you have to ask such a question? If you really don't know read all the posts on your talk page again. Just repeating the same mistake again and again will get you no where. David D. (Talk) 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo has been informed and he will be removing you admin rights as you have been breaching the terms and conditions of adminship. If you would like me to reinstate them I suggest that you leave my website alone. Madman2008 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

L O Freekin L! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral777

Do you think we ought to blank-and-protect this character or just let him bore himself complaining? Incidentally, he's now taken his conspiracy-theories to a far more appropriate home. I give it an hour before they get fed up with him and block him. — iridescent 23:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually prefer the let-them-get-bored approach, unless the content is so egregiously offensive that we can't tolerate it at all. In this case, it's just a typical rant.. I won't get rid of it but I wouldn't object if someone else did either. I always hope Wikipedia doesn't look as bad to outsiders as many of the malcontents say it does. In cases this like this, with the rant still there, it should be pretty obvious who was being reasonable and who was acting like a kook. Friday (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Rollback

Hello, Friday. You have new messages at RyRy5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Secret Pages

If Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Secret_pages passed in favor of the secret pages, can all of the tags on secret pages be removed. Wanted some expert opinion Wiki Zorro 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert on secret pages.. You're asking if the MFD notice should still be there? If the MFD is over, no, it could go away. I believe it's customary to note the old MFD on the talk page, though. Friday (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Friction

"...But they're world-famous all over Shanghai!" --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the friction-gimp, Friday. Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You should be desysopped immediately! I mean, errr, congratulations and good luck! (Was just trying to prepare you for what you'll see when you start deleting articles.) Friday (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How did I know that you'd find your way

to my talkpage regarding our young friend?  :-) Thanks for your input. I whole heartedly agree with you. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee. I probably came off sounding very harsh, but no amount of guidance has had any effect I can see. There comes to a time when we need to prioritize: is the overall good of the project more important than giving specialized tutoring to one particular editor? By all means, let him get whatever tutoring he needs, but providing this kind of attention is not really within Wikipedia's mission. Friday (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Harsh is needed sometimes though. Rollback issues are frivolous and petty compared to copyvio. The irony of course, is that RyRy was pushed to contribute beyond the "spcial adoption" stuff that wasn't in anybody's way. I think I recall you writing somewhere that it is less damaging to just let em be (they'll get bored eventually), instead of releasing them on the mainspace where they need to be babysat. The difference betweeen annoying and dangerous. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I'm coming around. Joining the darkside.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Muahahahaha!! It's great that there are people who want to take time to mentor other editors. But, they should be careful to choose the best candidates they can find, rather than the worst. In the interest of making a shameless plug for my own opinions, I touched on this issue over at Wikipedia:Social networking. Friday (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read that (not sure how I stumbled into it, you must've shamelessly plugged it somewhere else I frequent...:-) Its a double edged sword for sure. The youngin's (and some of the more immature oldin's) will be here. Comes with the territory of being a top 10 website. Do we make the place boring so they leave (and jeopardize the popularity?), do we make them content editors, only to have to babysit? Or do we let them play harmlessly amongst themselves, barely a blip on the servers, in user-subspace oblivion. Call it "Barnstar Heaven." Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As with a many of the problems Wikipedia has, focus on harm reduction and the solution becomes (I think) pretty clear. It doesn't hurt much of anything for them to play in userspace. I wish we could get rid of things like admin coaching and adopt-a-user but there's probably not much practical way to make that happen. Friday (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We could MFD them on april fool's day. Or just delete em and let the wars begin. Before you do that though, please read WP:BEANS. I will not defend you at ANI.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Adrian Voyd

FYI the reason I was so quick to delete this article and warn the editor is that its been repeatedly recreated by various sock accounts. Dozens of sock accounts were blocked after a checkuser (see archive and, based on editing pattern and name, this user is almost certainly another sock. This individual has been asked to please present solid sources many times, but none have come up. Also see the history for the article Adrian Boyd for further info. Wickethewok (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I remembered that too. I don't see anything remotely wrong with quickly deleting an unsourced bio, myself. Friday (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

re. User talk:Francis Schonken#Please don't edit other people's comments

No, these weren't comments about my editing behaviour. I can answer to comments on my editing behaviour. If the comments describe something that is not my editing behaviour and associate my name with it, that is a PA. An extremely obnoxious PA. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're going to be the only person who sees it that way. If you think the substance of the complaint is wrong, by all means say so. But removing the complaint just looks bad. Friday (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings?

Eh, look, I may have savaged the view in your comment here [1] but.. well, this was because that reaction, which ignored what was actually in the evidence being pointed to, claiming it was a content dispute, is probably a pretty good reason why the problem I was detailing happened. But I don't mean it to attack you, just the view.

It must be said: Your comment was ignorant of the facts of the case, but it was also done when the problem was no longer an issue. This means that it was also harmless, and, indeed, gave me a useful springboard to discuss a problem. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no hard feelings. Anyone who thinks I'm way wrong can, and should, certainly say so. I see the problem you're pointing at, and I'm not saying we shouldn't find a way to make admins more useful in these cases. I'm just saying this is not an established role that admins are expected to play. Maybe Arbcom's idea will prove useful. Friday (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Darleane Hoffman

Actually, it's already here at Darleane C. Hoffman so we can just make the above a redirect. ... discospinster _talk 15:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good, that works out very nicely. Friday (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Switch

The switch is not my band. I noticed that they didn't have a page so I was going to create one for them. I don't understand why it was deleted 5 min into creating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbug1990 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because it had no content and no sources. Has this band gotten significant media coverage? If so, maybe we can have an article on them. I just saw no indication of any reason why we would cover this band. Friday (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes the Switch has gotten some media coverage. I've since updated the page can you take a look at it and tell me if it has any potential now. There are gaps in some of the information especially in the discography, but I'm hoping other people would see it and update it. I can do a little more on a couple of the albums when I figure out how. I'm still an amateur at this. Here's the page User:Greenbug1990/Sandbox
Greenbug1990 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't advertise your website here: Reply

I happen to be a member of the website that is why I am creating an article about it. Is that a problem? MillionaireMan (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Please don't advertise your website here. Friday (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Which wiki do you suggest I advertise on then? MillionaireMan (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Friday, go read the thread above yours on his talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it took me long enough to type it that I didn't see yours ahead of time. Friday (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time now...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I got fed up of my other account with Steward access on it. Wasnt really what I wanted it to be. So yes I am an experienced editor. My other account had over 25,000 edits. MillionaireMan (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you plan to edit usefully? Friday (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

wildcrafted

Hi there, Wildcrafted is a common term, and we have found it on wiki, but this definition takes it to another level of the care and attention that "should" go into wildcrafting. Hp lizzyb (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone else apparently saw it the same as me, and deleted the article for being blatant advertising. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Friday (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk

What are you supposed to post there? Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what trolling is. If you look at my contributions they've all been good. I've made 250 contributions now and as you can see on my talk page I haven't had any people replying negatively to them. I asked the question at the reference desk on the anatomy on the penis for a reason - to get an answer. I really what to know what it's called. I can assure that I am only here to do good and improve the knowledge of the world for future generations and it is a very strong belief of mine. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest all you want, I'm not changing it. I don't care how people "take" me. Your the first person to mention it. I can't see the problem with a bit of humour within Wikipedia. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

deleted article

my article, Sports Jam was deleted.

I put it up there for the general interest. I did not do the show, I am just a loyal listener..it is a worldwide broadcast. And yes, I am aware my username is a lot like the co-host thank you Jco613 (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(at the very least, can I get a copy of the deleted site)

Re:Adoption

If I delete mine then why not every other user on the wiki? Why am I not allowed to run my own program If I wish to help the project by helping new users?

Thank you,

BlueGoblin^7even 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what's "allowed"- that's a pretty hazy notion at Wikipedia anyway. It's certainly good to help new users, but I'm not remotely convinced this is what you're actually doing. Why not answer specific questions they have, say at the Wikipedia:Help desk? Or, do new pages patrol and when you see someone creating inappropriate content, help them understand what the problem is. There is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, but the idea there is that experienced editors help new ones. It doesn't look to me like you're an experienced editor at all. Your response here and your recent messages at User_talk:Steve_Crossin both suggest to me that you don't understand Wikipedia very much. So, I'm concerned that your kind of adoption really just leads newbies astray rather than helping them. Friday (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Erm... your last post tells me you may be a tad confused! I am operating under WP:ADOPT, as, contrary to your thoughts, I am an experienced and established user, and I know WP Policy very well thank you. My "programme" is merely my way of helping users get familar with Wikipedia via WP:ADOPT. It is entirely optional, if my adoptee wishes to get more familiar with WP.

Thank you,

BlueGoblin^7even 16:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, well.. did you notice anything odd about your latest adoptee? Such as, a username referring to penises, asking trollish questions about contributors' masturbation habits, and the link to a shock site on his user page? And you did nothing about this? Is this what you call helping new editors be constructive? Sorry, but I have no confidence in what you're doing. Friday (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, that's a serious issue, especially linking to a shock site. Friday, what would you suggest here? That's a serious issue, and also, I'd probably advise Bluegoblin to have a look at the person who they're adopting first, rather than adopting anyone. I'd also recommend that they not adopt multiple adoptees at once, as we know, it's quality over quantity. I have just the one adoptee, RyRy5. Thoughts, Friday?Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If there was some easy solution, I bet we'd already have it. The best I can think to do for now is what I'm trying to do here- deal with specific individual problems as I notice them. I'll admit I'm not sold on the entire concept of adoption, BUT: if reasonable people are doing it, and are doing a reasonably good job, there's certainly no compelling reason to go around saying "Let's get rid of adoption." We're all volunteers and we all contribute in which ever ways we prefer. We're not always going to agree on what is a good use of time, and in the end, if some volunteer chooses to contribute in some certain way, there's no reason to tell them "I don't think you should do that" unless what they're doing is actively harmful. I keep plugging this essay (Wikipedia:Social networking) I wrote not long ago- it touches on this problem too. Friday (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, i feel it does work, it did work for me anyway, I had no idea before my adoption, a few months ago. I've Tiptoety to thank for that. Anyway, I'm still unsure on all of this, as concerns you saw on my talk page. As always, drop me a message or reply here, I'm watching this page :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My username is the name of a sausage making company in the UK and that's where I got my name from, although I can see the similarities of it to penises. You weren't too helpful with the situation if I recall, so stop bad mouthing Blue Goblin. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What you call "not helpful" is what I call removing trolling when I see it. I have no plans to stop this. Friday (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What I call "not helpful" is not telling me what trolling is (you still haven't by the way) after it was made clear that I didn't know what you meant when you asked if I was trolling. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, to take both of your points in order:

1. I did not make the connection. It seemed innocent enough to me.
2. If you look here, you will see that I have been very infrequently online in the past week - due to GCSE exams. I don't have the time to be reviewing my adoptee's contributions. I have logged on when I have had new messages, and also when i saw something interesting on my watchlist. i also edited the Tramway Museum routemap, as I had just carried out a site visit.
3. I did not see the link - i haven't looked at the UP since adding the adopted template, and even then it was only briefly, so I wouldn't have noticed.
4. And what, may I ask, is wrong with multiple adoptees? And when was it ever about "quantity".
5. I'd prefer it if assumptions were not made about me.
6. Social Networking? So now i'm doing that am I? Good god. I think I will have a case to take further soon. As you say, we are volunteers - so why would we not want to help out? Perhaps article writing isn't my forte? But perhaps I can help other users. I think this is just being blown out of proportion. I have done nothing wrong.

Would you all be happier if I just left Wikipedia? It's certainly the vibes i've been getting recently. And what about simply gave up the maintaining on pages that I know about? Look at the Tramway Museum articles since i've joined.

BlueGoblin^7even 17:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would never want a constructive contributor to go away. I brought up the concern because there was one specific thing you were doing that I thought was harmful. I have no power to compel you to not do it. I almost always prefer convincing over compelling, anyway. One thing any editor needs to be able to do is give and take constructive criticism. If I'm doing something that does more harm than good, I certainly want people to tell me. And I won't take it as "everything you do is bad, please go away." Friday (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Chainsaws

Is this person you speak of with their waffle-cutting chainsaw related, perhaps, to the person with their hair-cutting lawnmower? :) Acalamari 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cousins, I think. Friday (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Acalamari 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Complaint

Please explain WHY you removed it? Lugnuts (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Where was the warning? Where was the exact line of policy that this warranted? Lugnuts (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you are not the only one that is rather sick and tired of all of this. Tiptoety ^talk 22:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I really, really don't understand this. The purpose of those fake messages, when they work as designed, is to waste the time of our volunteers. Sure, it wastes only a couple seconds at a time, but it still wastes time. I know one common objection is that there are other ways people waste their time too, but these are almost always things the editor chooses to do. If I choose to edit some fun page that doesn't really add anything useful, so be it. But encouraging people to waste volunteers' time without their consent? It's harmful. Only mildly harmful, sure, but with no useful benefit, the scale definitely tips toward "this practice should be discouraged."

I see this kind of issue as a tiny little example of one of Wikipedia's fundamental problems. When we choose to let people be (even mildly) disruptive for no reason other than to satisfy their whims, we've gone far off the track. Editors need to understand that to edit usefully here, they need to put down their own prejudices and preferences. When we let editors do stupid things for no reason other than "I like it", we're harming our collaborative environment. If someone's attitude is "Let me have MY user page the way I want it, or else I'm going to pout", we should lift not a single finger to help them. People with that attitude need to be shown the door, not coddled. Friday (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen. That post just won my vote for Arbcom if you ever run... — iridescent 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Friday, I also agree with you. I hate those stupid fake banners, I deplore guestbooks and I very much enjoy your Social Networking essay. However, what I don't agree with is the use of administrator "powers" to act condescending towards an established (or even new) editor. This particular user's page should never have been protected in a "preferred version". This particular editor is useful to this project, and has proven his/her loyalty to Wikipedia. I would hope that the "99% net positive" of what LN has given to Wikipedia as a volunteer vastly outweighs a stupid message bar on his userpage that you, or anyone else, does not have to visit. I think what you can do, as an editor with a strong opinion, is oppose LN if he runs for a position of authority, ie adminship based on your opinion. But to simply continue to revert him, causing stress no doubt, possibly at the risk of chasing away an editor that actually edits this f-ing place instead of his own subpages, is unproductive. You, and Nakon, need to get over this. I'm saying this as someone that highly respects, and agrees, with your opinions. Please don't take this as anything other than polite criticism. (And LN, if you're reading this, I will state again adamantly: that banner is stupid. It is harmful in its harmlessness, and it's not worth the trouble. Get rid of it.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right- this is not a problem that's worth spending a lot of time on. And don't worry about offending me. Heck, call me a bonehead if you think I'm being a bonehead. All editors should be expected to be able to give and take constructive criticism. Friday (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

---

False Accusations, please cease

Recently you visited our talk page and accused us of advertising. We do not advertise or sell on any site but our own to avoid paying the other sites ad fees. All we posted was a nominee for CNN heros who had 173292 requests for information. If you really feel that there was some sort of advertising, please show us where so we can rectify it. Otherwise, have a lovely day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashbackMedia (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FRIDAY: I do not appreciate your personal power trips because you were offended. The page in question for advertising was Natalia, Lorelei was not one of our clients, it was a well researched article about a politician/author/actress who had 19 sources yet you deleted it for being unsourced. You are very spiteful.

--FlashbackMedia (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also your quote "for one of out clients" was again for the wrong person. Please do some actual research. It'd be refreshing to have an unbiased person helping. Please if this is your standard, delete pages for Gerard Butler as his publicist added it, as well as Inu'Yasha whose show creater created it. Just seems convenient that you delete everything I write after I accidentally offend you--FlashbackMedia (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that 67.83.168.75 is Gerard Butler's publicist? (who is quite notable, I might add)

Friday, I would direct your attention to this statement, which seems to be an admission that "FlashbackMedia" is a shared account contrary to Wikipedia policy. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Been watching this. I would fully support an indef block. This particular user(s) does not have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, merely his/her own interests. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This diff is also telling ("one of our clients"). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that earlier. I just asked him again to not use wikipedia for advertising. I'm out though, probably for a day (or at least til tomorrow.) Do what you will. Friday (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Friday, please stop harrassing me. This person is not a client, I never tattooed her. She is my hero and many other peoples as well, I don't know her but from interviews on CNN Heros and such she seems fantastic. I admitted the other person who was tattooed by us was a mistake and even thanked you for pointing it out. Also please see my talk page, I have already explained that my brother verifies my research since he is a journlist and emails me to let me know if my info was up to date. . It is not a shared account, he I simply research, write, before posting email him to have him double check the facts, and then I post it from my account. I have spoke with other editors who state as long as I am the sould user there is not a violation. Also the Full name of the business was Flashback Dermagraphic Media so unlike what you may have thought I am not in the celebrity business, I tattoo, freelance write for some local publications and run a diner both called flashback. As for blanketing my page, I undid that edit, I was trying to remove certain things from it and even apologized to you yet you still will not drop it. Please stop being malicious, getting your friends to harrass me and so forth. I have referred this up to dispute resolution in an effort to diffuse this --GambinoManny (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Arb Case

Well, it isn't like I can remove it now. I guess it is also a review of the use of admin powers, hopefully...— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the input.21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Zemax

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zemax. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Srleffler (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

New article (pre)-review

I'm working on a new article at User:Frank/ReverbNation.com and would appreciate your comments. I do have a potential conflict of interest in that I am acquainted with some of the principals of the company that created the site, but I was not solicited and have not consulted with them in the creation of the article, and I think it is reasonably fair, balanced, and sourced. There are already a number of hits within WP that would link to it if it existed (although that is a bad argument to create a page). So, I'm interested in another editor's review of its appropriateness before moving further with it. Thanks in advance.  Frank  |  talk  18:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable article to me. If I saw this on new page patrol, I don't think I would see a reason to want to delete it. It does look like they've gotten some legitimate media attention. A couple of the sources are from the website itself.. independent is always better, but it's not only sourced from their own website. Obviously there are no guarantees, but I would expect this would be kept, if you put it in article space today, just like that. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  18:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman RfA

You are free to restore if you wish, but I do believe that falsified allegations of harassment and stalking are inappropriate, and should be dealt with by removal. In real life, such as allegation would be enough to lose the creator of the allegation his or her job. As I say, it's up to you, I won't revert over it, but it is something which should not said without any basis for the claim. Just my 2p. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD review for Benny Lava

hey Friday, I would like to ask you a favor, I nominated the page Benny Lava for deletion because it doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards, but I guess I might be wrong. I think that you, as an administrator, have the experience of understanding which article is suitable for Wikipedia or not, your opinions and comments would be really appreciated, the deletion log page link is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benny_Lava, thank you so much... Kotakkasut (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"it's no real loss"

Do you still believe this is the case? Please reply. 86.29.130.202 (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We should not tolerate trollish behavior just because the editor involved sometimes makes reasonable edits also. I thought I had already made my opinion on this clear. Friday (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope and you still haven't. Do you think that if I was unblocked for the next month Wikipedia would improve or dissimprove? (I'm looking for a one worded answer). 86.29.130.202 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems to me like a desire for attention may be behind your childish behavior. So, I'm not very inclined to give you the attention you want. I've already spent far more time on this than I intended to. Maybe try IRC? Friday (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, be that way. What's IRC? 86.29.130.202 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why my page was deleted Rdeluca03 (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a definition of a word that was created to describe a design experience in a store. Can you tell me what more you need so that the posting won't be deleted. Thx :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdeluca03 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Five pillars, and who is invited to participate

Hi Friday. I've replied at my talk. In a nutshell, I totally agree with what you wrote. However you seem to be arguing a point back to me that seems tenuous at best in relevance to the arguments I was making at the RfB. (all uses of the word argument are in the sense meaning discussion!!). Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  07:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's me confusing you by not making my definitions clear, and my apologies. Still, off topic rambling are what Wikipedia is built on (I think..... ) :) Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

TO friday

Our artical on Callum Rumboldt is an entireley factual therefore you have no right to dismmiss our artical as "nonsense".

Regards Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariokartmad (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiatt

Hello,

I just realized that I had posted it my entry a couple times. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not really great at navigating the site. I believe my posting is still flagged. Please let me know what I can do to avoid my entry being deleted.

Thanks so much for your help, and sorry for the inconveinence. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdeluca03 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you are referring to Elizabeth Wiatt. If so, the biggest problem I see with this article is that it does not establish (or even assert) her notability sufficiently. Please take a look at Wikipedia:BIO for more information on this point. Also, if she really is notable, the article (like all on Wikipedia) needs reliable sources in order to provide verifiability of the information in the article.  Frank  |  talk  18:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

and also Elizabeth wiatt which has been salted against re-creation. The thing of it is, Wiatt is probably notable if someone wanted to create a proper article rather than the same promo info. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this one seems borderline notability to me. If good sources exist, maybe it should be given a bit of time to develop. Friday (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd like to work on it but I'm not going to have time in the foreseeable future. This is one of the times where the jump to delete bothers me. Articles don't need to be perfect to exist. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Enchantress

Re [2] just thought I'd let you know, she's had many editors stopping in about her deprodding, including an ANI thread. she removes most warning-type comments left on her talk page, initially with uncivil edit summaries which she's now been warned about as well. cheers, xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear.. Hmm. I suppose my message won't do any good then. Friday (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to see how much you respect wp:agf in practice. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that Luna is prepared to block if she continues, so we can only hope the behaviour doesn't persist. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xasha&diff=215635466&oldid=215284111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudiuLine (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

look another editor about Xasha http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=216921094&oldid=216920990 --ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see problematic behavior now. But, I see problematic behavior from you also. Can this problem be solved by you simply ignoring Xasha? Friday (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

He trolls, edit wars and make personal attacks. Now, can you handle with such a person? ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to just take your word for that. Some of the things you are objecting to look perfectly reasonable to me. Also, it'd be best to keep this discussion in one place rather than spread all over. I'm sure there are others who (unlike me) know some of the history of this situation. Friday (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I step aside for a while. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your enlightening essay on ageism

Hello Friday, I've read your essay on ageism, and I'd like to say that it was very enlightening to me about your views on the issue, and the general views of those on the other side of this debate. I have a question though: where do you personally draw the line? You throw the word "teenager" around a fair bit, so, I ask you: is a 20 year old suitable? They are now widely considered to be an adult in the eyes of society, but, then again, they were just a teenager the year previous. Or perhaps the line isn't arbitrary, and after a certain age, you begin to let more and more factors come into play? What are your thoughts? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I try not to draw firm lines, because there are always exceptional individuals out there. I think you're the one that people have pointed out to me as a counterexample to my arguments- someone who is mature beyond their years. I don't know that we've interacted much so I don't necessarily have personal knowledge to go on, but I suspect people are probably right when they say that. And, yeah, maybe "teenager" is not the best term- as you say, nothing magical happens when someone turns 20. And, heck, we've all seen examples of adults who act more like typical 15-year-olds. As you say, age is one hazy indicator, not a hard and fast rule. In a recent RFA, the candidate I saw was kid who acted just like I expect kids to act. That's not something I can support. I've just seen way too much drama caused by bad admin behavior. When I suspect an admin behaves too emotionally and lacks sound judgment, I'm not going to support the candidate. Mistakes and lapses are allowed, of course- we're all only human. But if immature behavior is frequently evident, rather than being an occasional exception, I see this as a problem.

I realize this is tricky. Someone people (I think) entirely reject the notion of trying to use personality indicators in evaluating candidates. Some people say "I don't care if so-and-so behaves immaturely. This does not mean they'll misuse the tools. I want evidence that they'll misuse the tools." This sets the bar way too high- we can't know how someone will use the tools until we give them the tools. If I could read minds, candidates would be very easy to evaluate. Since I can't, I have to go on whatever evidence I can find. If I see someone who, for example, routinely blanks their talk page, or selectively removes comments they don't like, to me this is a bad sign. I realize people are allowed to do it per a guideline, but it's still a sign of someone who doesn't collaborate with others. There are other signs. They're often things that aren't necessarily harmful, but yet they give me these little niggling reservations about certain candidates. Sometimes I can't explain these reservations very well to others- which causes the occasional reaction of "You're opposing for that? How bizarre." I'll see if I can get better at explaining this- it might save time. :) Friday (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that I see what you are coming at here; because you, or anyone else, can't know certainly how a user will behave in the new position of adminship, you think that all factors must be considered, even age, in order that a full and thorough evaluation be made. Your comment above also suggests that we cannot be certain of how the tools will impact on a user—the 14 year old may be mature now, as an editor, but when placed under the pressure of adminship and all the stresses that inherently follow, he may not act so maturely, and, so, therefore, age is a relatively good indicator of whether the new admin will crack, or whether he will not? That's what I divined anyway, and it does make some sense to me, even if I am not entirely objective in relation to this particular matter. Thanks again for clarifying your ideas; it's just been something that's been niggling at me for a while, and you seem to be flamed and beaten down by anti-ageists any time you mention your views at RfA, so I guess I was just after your view of the whole issue, without the contesting of the RfA-goers. Best, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I get flamed by anti-ageists.. it's more like spirited discussion. :) It's probably just because I tend to talk too much, but I think discussion is healthy even when there is strong disagreement. Heck, we need discussion more when there is strong disagreement. I do think we need to get better collectively at evaluating candidates. I have noticed my expectations from candidates may be somewhat higher than is typical around here, but it's mainly because I've seen several instances of huge amounts of volunteer time being sucked up by bad admin behavior.

You mentioned stress and pressure- this touches on one of the reasons I'm skeptical of people who frequent the chat rooms or otherwise have coaches or other helpers guiding them. If we have a candidate who is not yet very experienced but is getting lots of help from someone who is, this candidate will look more capable than they really are, when judged only on their edits. I don't want candidates who can't act independently- they're just an effective meat puppet of whoever is guiding them, in this case. As tempting as it sounds to amass a collection of minions who would run around doing whatever I say, I can't see that this is good for the project. Any number of editors can do the right thing under good conditions with help from someone more experienced, but this doesn't mean they're ready to be thrown to the wolves yet. Certainly, there is a time for acting and a time for discussing with others, but part of the good judgment we need from our admins is knowing which times are which. Friday (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your view now; it seems to me that it is a lot more complex and developed than some give you credit for. Thanks again for your time here. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your inappropriate comments on my talk page

Please assume good faith and please do not post inaccurate descriptions of Wikipedia policy on my talk page, or anywhere else. The Wikipedia policy on proposed deletions states quite clearly that prod removal is appropriate if users "do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion." I note with great disgust the enthusiasm so many meanspirited Wikipedia administrators show in supporting the "rights" of a vile, dishonest troll with a long and undisputed track record of abusing the living and mocking the dead, and whose edits provide a road map for identifying misinformed and often malicious deletion proposals, intended mainly to demean the subjects of the articles. Perhaps you can provide a rational explanation as to why comments like those here [3] and here [4] and here [5] have not been met with anything like the flurry of (feigned, I suspect) outrage that my accurate (and quite understated) description of the malignant Qworty has been, and why those comments have not provoked any response from. But I do not believe you can. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Friday, although you didn't elect to !vote, I'm sure that your devil's advocacy of my tags at my RFA did assist in showing the other side of the story - the side ridden with unencyclopedic articles that had to go, one way or the other. Anyhow, I just thought I should let you know that I've conducted an analysis of the RFA and invite your comment on any of the issues I've identified, including the CSD one. thanks, xenocidic (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Arete band

Would you consider undeleting Arete band? I had moved some personal text off the mainpage and was putting them on the talkpage, when I received a call and was delayed in finishing my edit. The text that I deleted from Unisonman stated "Will be uploading significant external web links". In Good Faith, I was hoping that he would demonstrate notability with his edits. Click23 (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you think there's any chance it could be kept? With no records and no sources it seems quite unlikely. I have reservations about the author too- he appears to be here for self-promotion rather than to contribute to a neutral encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, but with the "significant external web links" he could also add some references. You also could consider sending him the original text, and let him make a subpage of his talk page to recreate it. He could then add the appropriate references, and then when you are happy with it, let him recreate the article. Click23 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, normally letting it live in user space would be a reasonable solution. I just have reservations about enabling anyone's misuse of Wikipedia. I'll ask the author about this. Friday (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note on Unisonmans talkpage directing him here, if you need anything else from me, please post it on my talkpage. Click23 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK.. And, if anyone really strongly thinks it should be undeleted, I won't object if anyone does that. But until then I think I'll see what the author says. Friday (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:

A netral point of view was given And that user choose to ignore it. ElectricalExperiment 21:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Err.. if he's giving his opinions about the WikiProject on the talk page of the WikiProject, this is certainly OK. What else would talk pages be for?? Friday (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No that link goes to the NPOV that was given. ElectricalExperiment

I don't understand what you're saying. The template message you left was for someone who was not neutral in an article edit. We're certainly allowed to state our opinions about Wikipedia in project space. I don't get how this could be a problem. Friday (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you got me confused. :) ElectricalExperiment 23:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Random Page

Sorry about the random page with pretty much nothing on it. I was just doing a little video about editing and creating wikipedia pages and needed to have an example of one being created. I was going to delete it anyway but at least someone is paying attention to all the random pages being created. --Some1neelse (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Rollback

Replied hereMr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Myspacing

Figured you might be a good person to handle this: User:Omghax111 and Special:Prefixindex/Omghax111/. xenocidic (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I certainly wouldn't have MFD'd them all but someone already did. I suppose it's not worth messing with now. Friday (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I guess we need to let the MFD run its course. xenocidic (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Galaxyangelnew

This user switched to another account User:Galaxyangelwork to continue his/her vandalism with the IP User:122.53.166.111. MythSearcher^talk 15:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To the doofus ...

who has my name linked to whatever attempt was made to create a Wordhawk site: Are you a living brain donor?

Next time, get some facts before creating a link that blames someone by name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.51.216 (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note after a reply: If you don't want to be criticized, then don't create a link that blames someone by name unless you have the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.51.216 (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue at all what you're talking about. Friday (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Friday. You have new messages at Dustihowe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2

How do I put this?

Without mentioning any names, I think your comments about a particular user and a particular mentoring situation were understatements. Having watched that user for some time, I have come to that conclusion that while they are enthusiastic and well-meaning, they are young and possibly have cognitive issues. It makes the current situation a little bit absurd, but I'm telling you this because you may want to moderate your comments accordingly. Of course, I may be entirely wrong, but that's my honest opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think we can generally get by just fine not caring why someone's editing behavior is problematic. I care about minimizing disruption a lot more than I care about delving into the mind or motivations of disruptive editors. We're not here to provide therapy. By being overly accommodating to problematic editors, we make Wikipedia worse for the good editors. The good editors are the ones we ought to be caring about. I could be way wrong, or I could be only making myself look like a grumpy old man, but I'm pretty sure I still have the same opinion on this that I did when I wrote what I wrote. If someone acts immature (regardless of actual age) this is a good reason to avoid mentoring them. Mentoring is only helpful when applied to editors with a proper temperament for a collaborative environment. We shouldn't be trying to create editors like this- we should merely create a welcoming environment for editors who already qualify. Not sure if this makes any sense or not. :) Friday (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, although I'm not sure I agree in all cases, and I'm not very familiar with the disruptive editor in this case. Note that my observations were about the mentor not the user being mentored. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood. Yeah, that's a big concern. Actually I suspect this is quite common- I remember seeing several cases of people saying "I'll adopt you" or "I'll mentor you" when the person making the offer was in no way qualified. It's generally the clueless who enjoy pretending they know more than they do. Friday (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth! The adoption program is just another one of of those wikihoops that prospective RfA candidates are expected to jump through IMO. At best it's relatively harmless, at worst it's downright misleading. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

the player's guide movie unfair deletion

thank you for your response. So wikipedia is a popularity contest! Only the most famous win.Sneakygreek (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

players guide

okay, its not quite there yet, thank you for your explanation!Sneakygreek (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

you're not quite right

You said that there's no way that an administrator can guarantee another's actions. But there is a way for the administrator to say that he will insure the person remains unblocked as long as there is civil discussion and an attempt to solve the problem. But I think there will not be civil discussion and just some administrator trying to ban and come up with an excuse, the easiest being calling someone a sock.

Do you have the courage to help with this discussion? I don't think so but here is your chance.Pachette (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Err.. You come here and accuse yourself of being a banned editor? And you wonder why people think you might be here to stir up trouble? I'm happy to help, and courage isn't really relevant, but I don't see where you need help with anything. So far you're just acting kooky and making nonspecific complaints, and you're capable of doing that just fine without my helping. Friday (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. You seem to be potentially reasonable. Jaysweet is not with his vague threats of getting a checkuser to say that I am a sock.

Are you open to civil discussion about the problem of whenever someone doesn't like someone else's rational discussion, they call them a sock and try to get them banned? Pachette (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Once there was even some IP's editing and they were from different continents. The troublemakers insisted the IP's were socks even though they were proven not to be open proxies. Finally, some of them created user names and were banned as socks even though it's impossible.

More examples exists. I can think of some possible solutions but judging from ANI, people seem to want to attack me and nobody wants to listen to the problem. Partly it may be because those people benefit from a flawed system since they can effectively ban anyone they want. Pachette (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big place, and mistakes get made all the time. Is there some ongoing problem, or are you just unhappy about things that happened in the past? If you're talking about your current situation, it sure looks to me like you started calling yourself a sock before others did. If you have old grudges, I encourage you to just let them go.

I don't believe people can effectively ban anyone they want. On the contrary, we have a number of users running around who I think should be banned, but aren't. Once someone has demonstrated a temperament that makes them unsuited for a collaborative project like Wikipedia, I think they need to be shown the door. However we have an unending supply of others who say things like "But he's a nice guy! You can't block him!" or "Wait, let me mentor him. I can magically change people!" or other similar foolishness. I'm not interested in reforming problem editors. I'm interested in limiting the damage that problem editors do, to make Wikipedia a better place for reasonable editors.

In short, I'm not really sure what you're after, here. Friday (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite to review a set of articles

Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Competence is required

I enjoyed your essay, I made one minor change, hope that's ok. xenocidic (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just commented on the talk page. Certainly I can't object if people go editing it. In fact I'd like nothing more than for this to gain some wide attention (and agreement) so it can be called a guideline one day. Friday (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance requested

I saw your ANI comments from yesterday. Then you wrote "I don't believe people can effectively ban anyone they want" above.

There is a situation where this is happening but first I would like to establish if you are a helpful and honest administrator or if you are a power hungry and nasty administration. I hope it's the former and not the later. If it's the former, then you can be of help to me and wikipedia.

Treat this like a RFA question. What is your opinion on someone who is blocked or banned wrongly? Appealing for unblock and/or asking ArbCom is met with stonewalling and silence. The person's edit history shows no controversial edits and no POV edits. The person asked some other experts who edit and have complete agreement. Then when the person makes an edit that POV pushers don't like so they get him banned. The ban is railroaded and closed early citing "snowball", which is an easy way to close debate before others can see it and debate. In the process, the POV pushers have evidence against the ban but destroy the evidence by deleting it and making accusations that the evidence clearly shows is a wrong accusation.

a) the person should let the POV pushers take over Wikipedia and do nothing.

b) the person may come back after a cooling off period and continue to edit normally. The rule about multiple accounts doesn't apply or can be IAR because of improper banning in the first place. Those that oppose b) may be thought of as wikilawyering because they insist on the sock rule while not looking at the bigger picture of Wikipedia growth and improvement.

c) the person has come back and edited a variety of different articles. That person has created maybe a hundred articles and brought in a lot of good facts to Wikipedia. When the POV pushers discover him or cast a wide checkuser and just establish that the person is from the same region, that person should be banned also. After all, it is more important to rid of 100% of socks even if it hurts innocent people and harms Wikipedia rather than to not harm innocent people and occasionally let a sock who edits productively go.

d) the pursuit of sock is the most important goal of Wikipedia, even more than article improvement. If you don't agree with someone's edit, even if they have reliable sources, you can run a checkuser. Even if it comes back as unlikely or just possible, not probable, you have every reason to ban/block the person. After all, if you have power or have a friend with power, you get to use it to rid of opponents. Even the suspicion of sockpuppetry is enough. Even the use of the sock excuse is ok since if you ban/block a lot of people, some may be socks.

e) some compassion is allowed in Wikipedia. If there was some doubt about the ban and some evidence of some people editing well, then it is acceptable for one administrator to be bold and have a trial unban, particularly if the ban is old and the administrator who called for the ban has resigned in disgrace after being confronted with evidence that he was using socks.

Which are acceptable, a, b, c, d and/or e? Model710 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Err.. I'm not real sure I'm understanding. Are you the editor called User:Pachette? I don't see where that account has been blocked, so I'm not sure why you'd use a new one. Also, you might not know, but we actually have specific mechanisms for allowing editors to contest blocks. An uninvolved admin is expected to review the situation and either uphold or overturn the block. I'm not overly aware of habitual misuse of checkuser, but I'm sure it's happened sometimes.

Nobody here is perfect, and plenty of mistakes get made. And, yes, we do have our share of editors who are more interested in being right than in doing what's best for the project. It's not a good thing, but that's life. When I see an attempted railroading, I do whatever I can to help prevent it. But, I'm just one editor with one editor's opinion, and if the tide is against me, I can't generally do much about it. I'm usually all in favor of looking the other way when a banned editor returns, if they're not causing trouble under the new username. If, on the other hand, someone comes in and stirs up old grudges, I'm likely to strongly disapprove. The minute I see someone demonstrate an unsuitability for a collaborative project like Wikipedia, I'm likely to lose patience and advocate banning them. I have no interest in reforming problem editors, only in getting them out of the way of useful editors. Friday (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not Pachette but saw the edit which prompted my edits. (If I were Pachette, I would just continue the conversation...see, you see things clearer while another admin would misunderstand and promptly block Pacette and me) You can turn the tide. You can examine the situation and if you see railroading, you can unban the wrongly banned person. This will end the community ban. Then the slate is wiped clean, whatever the editor edits from that point will serve as the new record, whether the editor is good or bad, depending on the edits. Otherwise, the POV pushers just say "there is this flimsy similarity in writing style, you are banned." Make sense? In other words, wipe the slate clean and then the excuse to ban must be based on bad edits, not sock accusations. Model710 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give my opinion when I have one- I've never been shy about this. But, if I were to go around unblocking people against consensus, this would do more harm than good, in the long term. The "clean slate" thing is a bit misleading, too. If an editor has been blocked, and has been given one last chance, he'll be under some real scrutiny from then on. This is generally a good thing, not a bad thing. I'm not sure I can offer more specific help without knowing what specific situation you're talking about. And, while you may see me as fair and reasonable at the moment, I have a fairly low tolerance for problem editors, to tell you the truth.

Another factor which makes thing worse- Wikipedia has tons of young people. Sometimes I say we've been overrun by them. Teenagers and other youngsters are generally quick to judgement, and quite emotional. They're not likely to look at things calmly and rationally. Sadly, there's a huge chunk of the community who, despite my efforts at browbeating sense into them, see no problem whatsoever with giving positions of responsibility to editors with demonstrated tendencies toward immature behavior. So, this sometimes contributes to the problems you point out above. Not sure I can say much else to try to help, without knowing what you're talking about more. Friday (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for continued dialogue. Most people are quick to judgement and would have blocked a long time ago with the troll or sock excuse.

I am not a problem editor. The POV pushers want total domination. In one article, the man's name is ---, Jr., just like Dale Earnhart, Jr. Except the POV pushers wanted total control so when an editor (not me) added Jr. they said "trolling, you are banned" then they said "you are a sock". Later there was overwhelming consensus so the Jr. part stayed. (If anyone is to be blocked, it should be those opposed to "Jr." because they are conceiling facts from Wikipedia. So that's an example of the person not being a problem editor. Make sense? Possible unblock? Model710 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough to have an opinion on the specific situation. But, I can tell you that frequently people get blocked or banned mostly for being obnoxious. Even if they were right about some particular content issue, being obnoxious is harmful in itself. But anyway, if I see someone who in my view has been blocked wrongly, I don't tend to keep quiet about it. Like I said, it doesn't mean I can magically single-handedly fix the problem, but I'll certainly give my opinion. I do the same when I see unblocks that I consider foolish. We have a bunch of editors running around trying to play the hero, and be the one who magically redeems some problem editor. This is as much of a problem as a wrongful block, in my view. Friday (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the originally banned person (who is not me). That person was not obnoxious. It seems that this person was trying to be very objective and the POV pushers would have none of that, only POV was acceptable. Several other people with technical expertise were consulted and they all agreed with the banned person but did not edit. The banned person even discussed it with the experts before editing. These other people were long time users, from various continents, and listed their technical expertise months or years before the editorial issue was raised.

I see that there are many people who have probably been accused of being this banned person. A few of them have even proven their real identity. This would disprove the POV pushers' sock claim because they say all are the same person but there are at least 2 people who have proven their identity so they can be the same person.

It seems that the kids of Wikipedia will not look beyond the "he's a sock of a banned user". Some of the users haven't even edited similar articles but I think the POV pushers get the checkuser to run massive sweeps and have, in essence, banned everyone that uses a particular ISP. Even the checkuser admits that over 1 million families use the ISP. Even users marked "unlikely" are banned on flimsy excuses ("their writing sounds the same"...well, your grammar and Carcharoth has similar grammar so why not ban you and him of being each others sock according to their logic).

What we need is someone with the ethics and courage to unban an editor that was banned over a year ago (ArbCom only bans people for a year). You can assign me to watch over them to guarantee that they edit productively. If they don't, then I will immediately report it to you for re-banning. Why am I doing this? Because I suspect that I use the same ISP and the POV pushers have friends that will ban anyone using that ISP. I guarantee you that once I start editing, even if innoculous stuff, the POV pushers will ban me. By ending the community ban, we end this manipulation of Wikipedia and attacks on innocent users. Without a community ban, they have to point to specific bad edits, not say "his grammar is like the banned user so sock of a banned user." If someone is accused of being a sock of a banned user on ANI, flocks of young administrators will rush to ban the person without looking at the original ban. You have no risk because I will closely watch the user once they are unblocked. Model710 (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a much simpler way to accomplish your goal. Just go about your business and edit, and if a gang of POV pushers starts picking on you for no reason, I'll try to help. I find it very hard to believe, though, that there's some gang that's effective at banning editors just because they are on some particular million-customer ISP. Also, remember that we can't really know who someone is. So, if some new account crops up and looks like a reincarnation of some previously banned editor, it is not necessary to have "proof" in order to block them again. If the new account gets up to the same bad behavior as the banned one, this is all we need to know. They call it the "duck test" and it's a reasonable standard. Friday (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of you but it doesn't solve the problem. Unbanning the originally banned person ends the excuse that the POV pushers can use for saying "sock of a banned user, I'm really blocking you because I dislike you, not because of true improper socking". The reason I know is that awhile ago, I was accused of being a sock and banned. By writing this, many will say "ha ha, now I can ban you because you just admitted that you were a sock". (To those, look again at the rules, re-starting or even having another account is permitted as long as you don't make it look like a 2 person consensus). The other reason is because others have been banned and they are not me.

Please answer the following: 1) About the duck test, what if edits are entirely reasonable, polite, and fair? POV pushers will say that the duct test is passed because the POV pushers were against the old user, they are against the new user, therefore both must be socks. Will you help if edits are reasonable, polite, fair, reliable sources?

2) Will you consider unbanning the originally banned person because the ban is old and because it is too easy for the POV pushers to accuse others of being a sock and banning them. If the originally banned person is unbanned, then they can't accuse the originally banned person as a sock but have to base it solely on the quality of edits.

You already have said to just edit and you may help if there is trouble. Not good enough because I have seen the POV pushers work already. Consider the following examples: 1) A user of 5-6 months edits without conflict about Minnesota and other stuff. He sees something on ANI and suspects that POV pushers are creating socks to complain about the banned sockmaster. A neutral and polite checkuser request is made, the POV pushers admin friend bans the 5-6 month user saying that he's the sock of the sockmaster.

2) A user with several thousand productive edits (none of them on the same articles as the POV pushers) and a track record of helping resolve conflicts between other parties makes a polite comment on ANI saying that the quality of edits should be considered more than accusing people of socks. The user hadn't edited any of the articles in question nor did he take sides in commenting. The user is banned after being accused of being a sock.

3) A doctor makes comments that a medical article can be improved (his comments were on article talk page) and then asks how to prove verification because I think he wants to write on medical topics. The user is banned even though a checkuser says socking is only possible, not probable or likely. The POV pushers may hate this person because they got the original ban because they claimed that the user was impersonating a doctor. The recent doctor user did not edit any of the articles that other accused socks have edited.

If you find it hard to believe, so did I until I saw these examples. This is injustice that must stop. A way to do it would be to unban the original ban (an unblock ends a community ban according to the rules). Then any further banning would have to be based just on bad editing or incivility. These examples also show that your advice to just edit and see what happens is not good enough. The problem stemming from the original ban must be solved. Model710 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

These examples are situations I'd have to see myself, and form my own opinions on. I've seen too many cases of people describing some "perfectly good editor making perfectly good edits", and then when I look, I see an editor acting like an ill-behaved child. Also, keep in mind.. the story you come to me with sounds exactly like the kind of thing someone might make up. I don't know whether you are the banned user, or whether you really are some innocent bystander who happens to be on the same ISP. But, here's the important point- it doesn't usually matter. I don't care if you're a previously banned editor or not. I'm in favor of letting you make good edits, if you want to make good edits. I'm not all that interested in delving into old history- if some banned editor wanted to come back and not engage in the same behavior that got them banned, they're probably already doing it. What help is needed with this? Again, I'd need some pretty good evidence to believe someone's been banned improperly. I've seen people who should be banned being repeatedly let off the hook, but I'm not sure I've ever seen the opposite problem. Friday (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the specifics: VK35 is the editor with thousands of edits, no conflicts, yet the POV pushers saw someone they didn't like and banned him because said, like you, that good editing is the most important thing in wikipedia bar nothing. I would love to say that I am the sock of VK35 and am VK35 because that editor is so good. Some of the articles created are serious, enjoyable reading, etc. VK35 was also one of the most polite editors in Wikipedia.

Polounit is another editor with several months of edits and a nice person. Another wrongly banned.

Doc United States is yet another editor. Conflicts with nobody. He did write a medical comment about Mrs. John Edwards cancer (before editing he confirmed that his proposed edits made sense with Topnife, Coryalo, Andrew73, DrOliver, all long standing wikipedians who are doctors).

There are more good example, maybe better examples, but I am pressed for time. Model710 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

These all look like socks of the same banned editor. This particular banned editor is well known to use many socks. In some cases, blocks were given and then overturned, and later reinstated. To me this indicates that at least some people were willing to give these people a fair shot- fair shots which were subsequently blown. Also, you've misrepresented the situation with the ISP- sure, there are large ISPs where potentially many many customers all come from the same very large address pool. It's another thing entirely to identify an editor as coming from the same IP address as another editor, as was confirmed in at least some of these cases. Now, granted, I have not done exhaustive research, and I cannot personally see the checkuser evidence, but in at least some of these cases, the duck test overwhelmingly passes. I'm not too inclined to look further into this, having already seen what I consider plenty of evidence.

If all you've got is this and more stuff like it, you should probably give up on this cause. These cases are hardly as you've described them. Nobody has banned "everyone who uses the same ISP", which would be as ridiculous as it sounds. Nor was there any gang which was so quickly effective at banning whoever they wanted- in same cases, these editors were unblocked a few times, and/or were around for months before finally being banned. And, finally, your description of those who have banned you as "POV pushers" is a good sign that the problem lies somewhere other than where you've suggested.

And, sure, we've had admins who have done their own share of bad things. Sometimes people who shouldn't be trusted end up being given positions of responsibility. Mistakes happen. But the "unclean hands" argument doesn't go very far with me. If someone who blocked you was later found guilty of douchebaggery and was pilloried, this doesn't automatically mean the block was unjustified. We very often, in conflicts, see bad behavior on both sides. This doesn't let anyone off the hook. Friday (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I must point out that you have the facts wrong. "In some cases, blocks were given and then overturned, and later reinstated." This has never been the case so there was never anyone giving a second chance For VK35, he proved his identity and Jimbo Wales unblocked him. Then the POV pushers waited a few weeks and had him banned again even though he did nothing. Show me the bad edit, I haven't seen it. The only thing he is guilty is using the same ISP but Jimbo Wales had that data before...the POV pushers just waited a few weeks to reattack.

I don't think you understand who the POV pushers are. They want total domination over the John Edwards and Barack Obama article. Even neutral stuff makes them call others socks. Or if someone writes about socks in general, they want the person banned. Finally, they banned the original person because they claimed that he was impersonating a doctor. That doctor user posted his diploma online but they deleted it (picture is in wikipedia but deleted). They used a false reason and destroyed evidence. Others just heard the reason "impersonating a doctor" and supported the ban. Looks to me like there was no impersonation that maybe the guy asked his doctor friend to write a medical opinion (which was supported by other wikipedians). So they used a false reason. That's enough to overturn a ban. It's just like if you were banned because I claim that you are a sock of a fake lawyer (impersonating a lawyer) but that I know that the fake lawyer is really a real lawyer. That's lying. You need to stop empowering them.

I have written quite a bit here and now they will eventually see it and ban me saying I am this guy. I'm not but I've been caught up in their big net of false accusations. Please have the decency to help.

I'm also not the only person who have said that the POV pushers display incivility. Others have made the comment too. Even the POV pushers have admitted in writing that they don't care if the edits in political articles are good, they want a ban of all socks and they decide who they call a sock. This is proof of their manipulation.

Another thing that you didn't consider is the validity of the original ban. If the original ban was done with the banners lying, deleting evidence, presenting evidence they knew was false, and closing the debate early to prevent discussion, coupled with their admission that they don't care if edits are good, they want blood, then you can help right the matter. I fight for that guy because I know they will try to ban me soon.Model710 (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First they came for Dereks1x, because he was disruptive. And I said nothing, because I was not disruptive.

Then they came for Archtransit, and I said nothing, because I was not a sock of a banned user.

Then they came for Pachette, and again I said nothing, because I was not a sock of a banned user.

Then they came for Model710, and I said nothing, because I was not a sock of a banned user.

When they came for me... there were no socks of Dereks1x left to protest.

(To paraphase Martin Niemoller). MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, you are being sarcastic and just being nasty. You are also in project medicine. What if you were banned because I say you are impersonating a doctor or someone with medical interest? The ban would then be false and anything you said, I'd reply..you're just a sock....you are banned and anyone else I say is you. The fact remains, the POV pushers banned someone using fake reasons. I am not Derek. I would love to claim that I am VK35 because that's good editor. I would love to claim that I am some other editors which did great work. Some of them were banned because everyone assumed the original ban was valid. Model710 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I get banned, I get banned. I'd protest, probably feel it was unfair, but ultimately move on with my life. Honestly, if Wikipedia reaches the point where the community supports banning me, then I no longer have any place here anyway. With all the injustice in the world, being disallowed from politicking at a specific website seems relatively insignificant. Here's an idea for you: if you want to contribute to this project, just register an account and do it. Write some articles. Make this encyclopedia better. It's not like people spend their days combing the encyclopedia for low-profile socks. Your socks come to our attention because you insist on pursuing some old wikipolitical idées fixes, so it's not particularly convincing to hear you fulminate about how you're being persecuted and all you want to do is improve the encyclopedia. No one's stopping you, believe it or not. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saying what I'd been trying to get at, and apparently failing. Model710, Wikipedia does contain reasonable editors who are willing to cut a guy some slack. We have people who sometimes go overboard, too. We're all just humans, and everyone makes mistakes. So I can't really believe things are as bad as you make them sound. Wikipedia has its share of problems, sure, but we tend to look to the future rather than to the past. Friday (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case (as MastCell says), then we should encourage the dictatorships of the world to continue to kill their own people because we are unwelcomed to protest about it. Don't call them my socks. What is happening is that a few people have been accused as socks and some of them leave but some are interested in helping Wikipedia. For example, welcome back VK35, one of the best editors around. I am happy to write good articles. But not with the POV pushers banning me once they find me. So they are ruining wikipedia because of their power trips. If you end the Derek ban, they cannot ban someone for being a Derek sock. Then I will edit. So do you want to help Wikipedia or do you want to help some POV pusher power trip?Model710 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

<- The more you frame things only in the choices you want, the more you make it sound like your goal is something other than just being allowed to get on with your editing. The door is open. If you just insist you want us to build you a new window instead, well.. that's not very convincing. Friday (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue speedy deletion

Hi, you delete the My Bad Day page tonight less than 5 minutes after it was created. That's being trigger-happy. You gave me an A7 As however, from what I read about this, guide says:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [10]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections.

and

A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on

I believe giving the site a page is within these guidelines because the information provided does not belong to any other page. Furthermore it is not information about a person or an organization but a piece of software that runs on a web site and offers a service. The information was based on facts. At worst, you should have requested a deletion (blah) and, more likely, additional sources but I was working on it when you pulled the rug under me.

Please recover the page, thanks. PS: it is late where I live, I can add the extra information tomorrow if the page is back

--Pieplom (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone else did request a deletion, and I went ahead and deleted it because I saw that it wasn't suitable. Has this website gotten significant media coverage? Unless the article can be properly sourced, we can't have an article. Friday (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What source is required for the facts about the site that were in the article  ? It was factual except for the sentence about the "popularity" of the french site which I can get from [Alexa]. Why would media coverage be required to have an article ? There is something notable : it's a french export of huge phenomenon in France. Perhaps I should write an article about the french site and mention the clone ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieplom (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources are needed because we're an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Notability. If the french site has gotten significant media coverage, by all means go ahead and write a properly sourced encyclopedia article about it. Friday (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1

I just want to point out that what I said is seemingly all true about this user. You saw how i was trying to get a consensus but it seems Pats1 is not into that. He then went to Jack Youngblood and made wholesale changes even though there was active discussion on that article that very day with 3 users. Rather than join in, he circumvented that and did what he wanted. I appreciate the help you offered and gave on the Chris Long (American football). It is my view that even though you and I didn't agree 100% on things it was a postive thing. I think now you can see this all stems from the chrisjnelson banning. Pats1 is making me pay for reporting his friend on AN/I. Anyway, thanks again. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. You guys should just try to avoid each other. Friday (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That is what was told to both of us months ago. When chrisjneslon was blocked Pats1 showed up at Chris Long (American football) and then Jack Youngblood. We were told to "steer clear" of one another. I did. He did until the neslon affair. Now, you guys paint us with the same brush. (I don't mean that so sound ugly). I wish he'd allow my edits to stand, I wish he'd avoid me, but with Wiki there is a trail left by edits.All he need to is follow me around and mess with them. The Adminstrators will do nothing to him. In fact, I bet they will block me for editing! I will be the one "edit warring". So, what do I do? Quit? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You certainly don't look like you're trying to avoid him. Frankly, I'm unimpressed with your behavior. (I'm unimpressed with his too, honestly, but this shouldn't matter to you.) Friday (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second now. Before chrisjnelson got blocked a few days ago I had no problems with Pats1. Check any log you want and see if there was issues from the time we were asked to avoid each other. Do that before you make an unfair assessment. Now I am in a mess because I am not sure what I can and cannot do. I am told I am free to edit. But when I do I am rebuffed. However, when this escalated into another incident I reported it. I will accept your criticism of my behavior. I am not too impressed with myself. What I should have done was swallow my pride and not reported chrisjnelson. I should find better things to do with my time. I should go back to researching and getting article published in my spare time rather than here. However, I like Wiki and I have a focus on the NFL. I should walk away. Standing up for oneself here is not considered an honorable thing here so I should not have done it. Walking away would have been better. So, know this: I have no animosity against you. You've been fair, mostly. The only thing I might criticize you for is a couple of mischaracterisation. I think they were born out of frustration and they are understandable. But if you check the log I did stay away from Pats1 and I stayed away from articles he edited. When I saw the user name Pats1 I stayed away in the vast majority of cases. I simply avoided him as much as possible when the both of us love the NFL project. That is the truth.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It can be a tough call between walking away, and defending yourself. I've tried to give you suggestions that I think would help. One thing I think you should still do is register an account. It's more private than exposing your IP address. Also, people will tend to respect your edits more. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying that's how it is. This whole situation is an unfortunate combination of a content dispute and a personal dispute, and it's often difficult to untangle these things. Suffice to say, he thinks your edits sometimes add irrelevant details. Well, this is a legitimate opinion, and there's nothing wrong with him fixing these problems as he sees them. I understand why it looks to you like he's doing it just to pick on you. I don't really care much about his motivations- we can't really know them, anyway. But he can make good edits. You can make good edits. I wish you both could focus on edits and not on each other. Friday (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, trust is all there is. I do not trust him. His motives can be known. However, no one will ask him. He has no reason to answer me, if he does he exposes himself to being banned. If he ignores answering the questions he can look as though he is taking the high ground. I happen to make good edits, real stuff. Real things that are interesting. Like I said you can feel however you wish to, but if you don't care about his motives then you don't care about the rules. However, it is not your job to care about the rules. That is for Administrators anyway. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Realizing, of course, that Friday is an Administrator, right? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a point. There are lot's of administrators I don't trust; Friday isn't one of them, just for the record. What I place my trust in is that the body of administrators can normally be trusted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Still the "everybody in the world is against me" conspiracy theorist, I see? Jack Youngblood, at least, is a Hall of Fame member (if my memory serves me correctly), so I can see him having a longer article than Chris Long. But, regardless, get an account and edit under it... you'll get more respect as an editor, sad, but true. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Most ridiculous usertalk of the day Award

I don't give barnstars, as I'm not a member of the award center and don't qualify, but I hereby grant you the Most Ridiculous Usertalk Page of the Day Award. Congratulations. and bottoms up Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this prize come with beer? I would like it to come with beer.. actually, given today.. let's say whiskey. Oh, and quaaludes if you got em. Friday (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

. Whiskey you say? Here ya go! Of course, if you need more whiskey, simply make the "50px" into something larger...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Competency is required

Good essay; codifies some of my thoughts nicely. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

We both have "Friday" in our names! We're not related but hi anyway! FridayCell7 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

mKR (programming language)

Hi. Can you tell me the guidelines for example code? (I think DT is gone for the week.) Rhmccullough (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, I don't know a specific guideline. The closest I can think of here is What Wikipedia is not, which says we're not a how-to guide or textbook. This means articles shouldn't go overboard with examples, but it doesn't mean examples are never appropriate. It might be good to give example to illustrate some core concepts. Friday (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yikes

Hello, I just managed to recreate a page that you deleted, by speedy tagging it as an attack page at the same moment you deleted it. I feel rather bad about this because, well, attack page. Any chance you could delete Yasin mohammed‎ again? --Bonadea (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, mistakes happen, don't worry about it. Looks like someone else already got it. Friday (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One of us must be mellowing

Dunno which! [6]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's you. I keep thinking I'm getting surlier.. probably not a good thing. Friday (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, can you please block User:U2 is alternative rock indefinitely? It’s a sockpuppet and he proved it himself by asking me (in Norwegian) “how did you know it was me?”. — H92 (t · c · no) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Err.. I'm not familiar with the situation. It might be best to post this on an admin board to get more eyes on it. Friday (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll second the assertion. He is definitely a sockpuppet of Wellwater Conspiracy (talk · contribs); normally User:Rudget handles the cases, but he's been temporarily inactive. Evidence: see how he is addressing comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Linkin Park discography, which had been nommed by another sock of his he created yesterday; Linkins Parkl (talk · contribs). Further similarities between the 2 users are their tagging of articles with Rock music Wikiproject templates. indopug (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, with the already-noticed disruptive editing, plus the messing with comments here, the evidence sure looks solid to me. I've blocked. Friday (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. But knowing him, he has already created another account. :( indopug (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, another one. R.E.M. is so cool (talk · contribs). Both edit Europe (band), too. indopug (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Double-LOL! He forgot to log off! I’m having a conversation on the Norwegian Wikipedia with him. He doesn’t like being blocked (duh). It started with the vote fraud, and since then he has been blocked on every single account. Would it be possible to get a second chance? Personally, I was willing to give him a second chance, but I think he blew it with the “REM is so cool” account. — H92 (t · c · no) 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If he can come back and not behave disruptively, I have no interest in hunting him down. I don't have much confidence tho, given the immature behavior that is already evident. Friday (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he actually behaves on the Norwegian Wikipedia. I’ll tell him he can SUL his account (Superunknown) and edit with that one. I’ll leave a note at Indopug’s and Rudget’s to preent further blocks. Then we gotta leave him alone (although I will keep an eye on him). :) — H92 (t · c · no) 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Superunknown was already taken, he’s gotta choose another name. We’ll see how it turns out. — H92 (t · c · no) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA comments

Friday, please cut back on the condescension. Your disagreeing with a point of view does not make it "fundamentally wrongheaded". And invoking a "not-yet-adult mind" is obviously insulting. You have a right to your opinion, but please express it without being insulting, or not at all. - Revolving Bugbear 19:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I wasn't trying to be insulting, I was trying to explain some things that I think really are way off base. Disagreement is allowed, but some positions are inherently unreasonable. I'm not sure how to say this in a non-insulting way, apparently. Friday (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some positions are inherently unreasonable (see my comments in the "proposal" section). However, I think that the deep divisions about this issue indicate that such is not the case here. What is missing in this disagreement on both sides is a willingness to respect the other side's opinion in any meaningful way. You don't have to change your personal opinion to accept that the other side may have a legitimate point. - Revolving Bugbear 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I already recognize the legitimate points. I've thought about it a lot, anyway. Not everyone has legitimate points- some people have only kneejerk emotional reactions. But, if I'm coming off sounding too harsh, maybe it's best I just let it lie for a while. Sometimes attempts to expand on my reasoning do more harm than good.. :-/ Friday (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what's happening is some affirming the consequent here. It appears to me that what you mean to say is "I would expect someone young and immature to object to an oppose on grounds of age". That's most likely a safe expectation. However, it's coming across as "Objection to an oppose on grounds of age is immature, as if the person objecting were young". That, I think, is unfair, and the difference, when phrased like that, is clear.

I appreciate that these age-centered opposes expose people to some unwarranted abuse. But, as with any RfA oppose, there are unfair objections to it and there are legitimate ones. I think that, in this discussion, people have lost sight of the legitimate ones. To reiterate, though, in case I haven't been clear -- a legitimate objection doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that there's a real discussion to be had.

Thanks for hearing me out :)

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for telling me your concerns. Friday (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying I think you've fallen victim to the fallacy (although many people involved in this discussion are), I'm saying that you've phrased your comments in a way that inadvertently imply it.

In any case, happy wiki'ing. - Revolving Bugbear 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped

They simply happen to have more people doing their reverting at this moment." They're making HUGE changes without consensus. That said, I know the rules. I won't revert them again, even though what they've done is WILDLY inappropriate. S. Dean Jameson 17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the rules. It's not inappropriate for people to edit pages as they see fit, even if this means turning a page into a redirect. Friday (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, S. Dean, you're not going to revert the article again. You can just encourage someone else to. -- tariqabjotu 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I encouraged them to join the discussion, since you were using the fact that they weren't there to claim that you had consensus to merge/redirect the article. There's nothing inappropriate at all about my actions, your bad faith assumptions aside. S. Dean Jameson 17:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When there's an ACTIVE DISCUSSION about WHETHER to do THAT VERY THING, and an AfD that resulted in "no conensus", then it's completely inappropriate for them to do so. S. Dean Jameson 17:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)`

A prior AFD does not bind our hands in any way. The article is subject to standard editing at any time. Now, it might sometimes be bad for someone to redirect during a discussion if the results are not yet clear. But, the article being redirected does not interfere with said discussion in any way. You would do well to focus way less on your procedural objections, and way more on why you think the merge should not happen. Friday (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made my opinions on why it shouldn't be merged abundantly clear in the many discussions that have been undertaken on this point, as have 15-20 other editors. I won't keep repeating myself. And please refrain from calling me a "fanatic" by posting little essays on my page. Advocating for keeping an article on a notable media phenomenon does not make me a fanatic. S. Dean Jameson 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right, that's not what makes you a fanatic. You should read the essay. Friday (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. I usually don't accept reading suggestions from people who insult me. S. Dean Jameson 17:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WT:RREV

I think you have nailed it - you summed up the problems very well. Although at first glance it might not seem like it, my reply does follow directly from what you wrote. I'm looking forward to seeing what you think of it. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my attitude and tone

In looking back through my discussion with you (and others of your view), I recognize that I have advocated my position with such vigor that it has led to hard feelings and anger. I apologize completely for the role my tone and attitude have played throughout. This is my first real dispute on Wikipedia, and I have not handled it as I should have. Please accept my apologies. S. Dean Jameson 20:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I got frustrated and let that effect my interactions. To the best of my ability, it won't happen again. Also, I removed the "semi-retired" thing. As I said, I was just frustrated, and that won't happen again. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 20:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What do I do with "barnstars"?

Thanks for being so gracious with me before. I have another question for you: I received a barnstar last week (ironically, for my work on the Russert article and the daughter one), and I know that some users seem to display them on their userpage. Is their a standard acceptable practice for this (and for userpages in general) or is it just kind of "do what you like"? S. Dean Jameson 03:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just do whatever you like. Friday (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

age racist jerk is what you are

And I'm leaving because of you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freind of young (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're in earnest, I'm sorry you're leaving. However, you sound like someone trying to discredit our young editors with obviously immature behavior. If this is the case, well, don't let the door hit you.. Friday (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Request Rollback

I picked you from CAT:WARR as an admin I particularly respect. May I please have rollback? I have been a Wikipedian in good standing for 4+ years. Mike R (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but this makes it sound like you're trying to sweet-talk me into it. :) Anyway, yeah, been around many years, clean block log? Seems reasonable to me. It's done. Friday (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just said that in case you wondered why I asked you, since I don't believe we have ever spoken. Mike R (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

npa/civil

May I please remind you of these 2 gold rules. Otherwise I'll take you to Jimbo and Arbitration to loose being an admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freind of young (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You can remind me of whatever you like, but I'll take you way more seriously if you use your real account. So far you're just making the case stronger that this is false flag account. Friday (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The "main article" link at Russert

I've checked, and it's pretty much standard practice, it seems, for their to be a link to the "main article", when one exists. And for now anyways, one exists. As such, I've readded the link to the main article. I don't want to fight about it, but it just seemed common practice to have the section link to the larger article. S. Dean Jameson 03:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to see eye to eye on this issue, I think. The sub-article exists for the moment, but there appears to be a general feeling that there is already enough detail on the main Tim Russert page. Friday (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What I'm asking about is why it appears we're ignoring what normal protocol is. The article does, in fact, still exist. Is it not pretty standard to link to a daughter article from the section it deals with? If the article becomes a redirect (as you're convinced it will), then the wikilink would be removed, of course. Am I wrong on what's normally done? S. Dean Jameson 03:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is most typical that sub-articles are linked to in the way you describe. Really, the general rule is that articles should be linked as appropriate. This is what I tried to do. There is already an appropriate level of coverage in the main article. This is our fundamental disagreement, I think. Wikipedia is not a tabloid; we're writing for the long-term here. Friday (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that our (and others as well) fundamental disagreement, though? You view the daughter article as "tabloid", while we do not. Therefore, is it really necessary to un-wikilink the daughter article from the main article, while the daughter article still exists, since protocol (not sure if it's codified, but it seems that you're saying it's a bit of an "unwritten rule") would dictate that it stay wikilinked? S. Dean Jameson 05:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We won't see eye-to-eye on that. But maybe we can agree on this- if people are saying you're being obstructive, you should pause, step back, and try to figure out why they might be saying that. It's not just me saying it. Friday (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I feel like I've really tried. That my latest effort at finding compromise is being viewed as "obstructionist" is very discouraging indeed. I did not intend it that way at all, and have been intentionally non-confrotational with those who have called me that. S. Dean Jameson 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it too much- if people thought you were really being unreasonable, you'd be getting stronger complaints I think. What people are basically arguing for in wanting a merge is to make this like the rest of Wikipedia. There's already long consensus that we should have appropriate amounts of coverage and that we're not a news site. Whether this consensus is explicitly visible on Talk:Reaction_to_Tim_Russert's_death, it exists in the rest of Wikipedia as a whole. The people making statements at Talk:Reaction_to_Tim_Russert's_death#Summary_of_arguments_supporting_a_merge recognize this. I realize that when you want to count votes, and you want to wait six weeks, you're suggesting what you think is best, but it's not how things generally get done here.

Suggesting you want time to look for more sources is very bizarre. We already know there are tons of sources- this is why people are calling it a media frenzy. You can find many sources on Britney's latest haircut too, but we don't have an article on it. There's a general feeling of opposition here to following the media's short-term whimsies- we're trying to write for the longer term instead. As an encyclopedia, we ultimately want what's historically relevant. Friday (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

While I see your main point (you don't feel that there needs to be an article covering the media reaction to Russert's death), I don't think it's fair to draw a comparison between this phenomenon, and "Brittany's latest haircut." There have been respected columnists who have weighed in about the explosion of media coverage surrounding Russert's death. That was what really convinced me that this was a notable phenomenon: columnists and news coverage devoted space and time to how the media covered Russert's death. I know this hasn't convinced you, but when the actual coverage has been mentioned in reputable sources, doesn't that give you at least some pause as to the non-notability of it all? S. Dean Jameson 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a substantial section in the main article covering this. This is probably for good reason. The amount of coverage of his death and the frenzy should be in balance with the amount of coverage of his life and work. This is most easily accomplished when they're not separate pages. Friday (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore's RfA

Thanks for your message. I was aware of JeanLatore's request but, given the circumstances, I felt it was inappropriate for the RfA to remain open. The RfA has served its purpose of gauging community consensus as to his suitability for adminship. The comments were such that I don't think that JeanLatore had anything further to learn from his RfA, nor that there was any chance of it bein successful. I felt that keeping it open, as JeanLatore asked, would be an abuse of process and would do nothing but atract trolling and bad feeling. I feel that my actions were entirely justified. Rje (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a judgement call. It's not what I'd have done, but I can't call it all that wrong, either. The only reason I hesitate to close them against the wishes of the candidate is to prevent future whining of "I'd have passed, but some evil people censored the discussion." Not a reasonable objection, I know, but we're already not dealing with "reasonable" here. Friday (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, wish you were right.

You are wrong. I wish you were right.

Someone asked you for help. You said to just edit normally and everything will be ok. That person pleaded to you.

That person just edited normally. Then that person edited a non-controversial and correct revision to the Howard Dean article (edit fit the reference more accurately). Immediately, the worse of the POV pushers wanted their own way and banned the person. This proves that you were wrong and the other person was right. I urge you to correct things. The POV pushers are using the sock excuse to ban anyone they don't want. This manipulation of Wikipedia must stop. SundaySell (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit that caused POV pusher's anger and banning. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Dean&diff=prev&oldid=220843936

After making it more accurate, the POV pusher who has a short fuse/temper now seeks retaliation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Dean&diff=prev&oldid=221028577

There are other examples of the POV pusher banning people simply because they demand total domination. This is not an edit dispute, this is their way for total domination. Please don't defend their sorry ways but help fight for Wikipedia fairness. One of their tactics is to get a ban railroaded through using false evidence. Then they claim that half of the U.S. and one ISP is reason enough to ban someone. Or they ban even if those flimsy criterias aren't met. SundaySell (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this. Here's the thing- This Dereksomething guy was so disruptive, the minute people see that it's him, they don't stop to look at whether he's still disruptive. This may or may not be a good thing, but that's how it is. You can stop this "that person" stuff- it's not necessary. I still don't see where the situation is as dire as you try to paint it. Friday (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I see Mastcell says there was continued disruption with the new account. I didn't personally see it (I wasn't looking), but I have no reason to doubt it either. Also, consider this: dishonesty was a contributing factor with this Derek account. Do you think continued dishonesty is a good approach? Friday (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See, that's how gang mentality works. Even if you mean no gang mentality, you agree with Mastcell saying there was "continued disruption". FridayCell7 had only a few edits so it's easy to look at them. Show me the disruption. There was no disruption.

Another example of gang mentality is where you say that Derek was dishonest. I am not Derek but I have been caught in the web of false accusations so that I have studied Derek. An administrator accused Derek, found evidence to the contrary, and deleted the evidence. That's dishonesty on the part of the POV pushers.

The bottom line is that some people "own" articles and the moment that they disagree with someone, they seek their friends to ban. Look at the FridayCell7 example. Please help and not be so ruthless. The reason I do not claim or deny that I am FridayCell7 is that some people will use that as an automatic excuse to ban me. They just wikilawyer and say "we have an excuse". Please just answer the question - where is FridayCell7's disruption and see for yourself how the POV pushers are bullying others. SundaySell (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that you wrote "the moment they see"... I have looked at the Howard Dean article history and Derek never edited that article. You see the Derek excuse is now so convenient that whenever a member of the gang doesn't like someone, they ban them as being Derek. They gotten so bold as to use that excuse for an article that Derek never edited! Knowingly or unknowingly, you have taken the side of the POV pushers who insists on owning articles. If you are truly interested in being fair and a good administrator, you won't do such a thing. SundaySell (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I already made a long, perhaps foolish, effort to engage you in discussion on this. I'm not sure more would help. Friday (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

At first, you showed signs of compassion and reason. By turning your back, you are helping those who clearly manipulate wikipedia processes and stop at nothing to harm others. They aren't doing this to help wikipedia, only to empower themselves. As an administrator, I plead to you to act kindly and not let some others get away with wicked deeds.

Those bad people clearly didn't like "their article" touched. Nobody knew that the Howard Dean article was forbidden to touch. Then they get their friend to ban FridayCell7. The evidence is clear...reasonable edit in an article not known for edit wars, a known bad person (that has gotten into conflict before) doesn't like it and reverts it/making their first appearance in that article then gets friend to ban FridayCell7. You said normal editing doesn't attract attention but that bad person seems to have a long list of articles they "own".SundaySell (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Endlessdan

Hey Friday, I've replied on my talkpage to the thread you began titled "EndlessDan". I've also noticed the thread you started on his page, and it seems to be getting sorted out now. Let me know if you want me to expand any of my opinions of this situation -- it seems to be sorting itself rather harmlessly (probably because of the other crapola going on, meh). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Do you mind protecting my userpage against IP edits? my attempts at article clean-up has made the target of various forums - I'm off to bed and would rather not have to pick up the pieces in the morning. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, protecting a user talk page isn't generally a good idea, but I did it for 24 hours, which is probably acceptable. Friday (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR

thanks for the comments regarding my 3RR warning and the F40. it's nice to see that random people care so much, it's just a shame you were wrong.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you here to make useful contributions, or to argue with people? One is welcome, the other is not. Friday (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought my comments here were about on the same level as those you left on my talk page. I am sorry but I did not consider either of the points that you made to be useful. BTW do you really consider your revert on the F40 article to be in the best interests of wikipedia? Perhaps merely removing sports car made the article worse, but my final wording seemed to improve the article. Your revert seemed to be proving a point more than anything else. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm serious, look at your version and the previous edit of mine. Which do you think is better? I think mine gets around the controversy regarding the term "supercar" or any other classification without detracting from the article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the version I reverted to is better. It's how things are generally done. I'm concerned that you've been reverting multiple other editors in various places. When it was explained to you why we avoid "supercar", you implied that other editors were "retards" for seeing things this way. This isn't remotely how do we things here. Disagreement is allowed, but calling other people names never helps. Edit warring is bad whether you're reverted 3 times or not. Name-calling is bad, even when you disagree with other editors. Friday (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, maybe I suck at getting my point across or something. I think the term is retarded. I most certainly did not and did not wish to imply that any editor is retarded. If another editor called me retarded, I would report them for making a personal attack. I am a strong believer in attack the edit not the editor. I do however disagree with you on the supercar issue, I think the term is fine for the F40, and if it is not used, I think my edit was a good compromise. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is

I think at this stage, something like 50% of his edits over the last few weeks either mention me or are about me. What do you want me to say? I think the guy is stalking me. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do in these cases is to just ignore it. Don't take the bait. If you take the bait, it looks to an uninvolved observer like a typical dispute between two editors. If you don't take the bait, and he keeps offering it, it looks to an uninvolved observer like one editor repeatedly trying to bait another. If it really becomes a problem, someone will take care of it. Friday (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point - I've avoid quite a few of his snipes but it's getting a bit tiresome.... looking at his talkpage, he's been warned off before. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has their own communication styles.. his may seem odd, but mine probably does sometimes too. I really doubt it's anything to worry about. Friday (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI

Seeing as how you've removed rollback twice :-), and I've now added rollback twice, :-), for User:RyRy, just wanted to give you a headsup to the userrights log, and to the thread on my talkpage that resulted in another chance at rollback. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

berlinetta?

how would you feel about berlinetta being used on the F40 page? it seems to be the official term as per Ferrari's website. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Replying on talk page. Friday (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Urine therapy

Hi. Please see here, here, and here. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw. That's why I rolled back and blocked him. Friday (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you sure they weren't good-faith edits? The article on Urine therapy seems to say this is plausible. Without reading the article, the edits seem like complete vandalism. I left a message on his/her talkpage referring to reliable sources, but without realising the user was already blocked. Does this really warrant a block without any warnings? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, this probably should be reverted too. Actually, I'll do that. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They might have been. But, good faith or not, putting in unsourced stuff saying "urine therapy is the only way to cure this" is not good. I blocked mainly because it looked like the person was going alphabetically through articles. If they respond and want to understand what we do here and contribute constructively, I'll unblock. Friday (talk)

Urine therapy? Me too! :) MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My page

I was still working on my page. It's my first. Go easy on me! --Kdudee (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My Cookies!

If you delete one more page of mine i'll look for a page by you and delete it. YOU HEAR ME???--Kdudee (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your 'ego' comment

Friday, based on this comment you made at WP:VP, I am reminding you of Wikipedia's policies of no personal attacks and civility. Your statement crossed the line from a comment on the proposal and instead has become a comment on me. As you know, this is absolutely prohibited. Would you mind apologizing? Bstone (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to be reminded of common sense, and not to take yourself too seriously Bstone? Just a thought. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no essay, guideline or other policy provides for exceptions to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Let's keep it professional and not let our emotionals get the best of our typing, shall we? Bstone (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR springs immediately to my mind. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, it wouldn't be sincere. I hate insincerity; I think editors should be able to give and take constructive criticism. Can we just agree to disagree on this one? Friday (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus here, Bstone. Relax about it. Friday disagrees with the proposal, and points out where there may possibly be an ulterior motive in your actions. Take it with a grain of salt. Asking for "an apology" rarely generates anything. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's sad, Keeper, but I might just have to agree that Friday's clear and unambiguous violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL will have to go without an apology. Looking at Friday's RfA indicates this has been a systemic problem, so I take comfort in knowing I am not the only one who Friday has made the subject of her insults. Bstone (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So adding an insult (to Friday) makes you somehow fell better, or justifies Friday's? Your claim is without merit. Friday was not the first to say that the Ombudsman proposal is "silly". And are you really using Friday's several year old RFA as justification for your post? Yes, Friday coulda worded his post better, but you need to understand that his question there was not without merit. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Insult? Hardly. Just grouping myself with those who have been on the receiving end of Friday's critical personal attacks. That's all. Bstone (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors need to be a little more robust, instead of running off complaining to Mummy whenever someone says something they don't like, shouting all of these wp essays/guidelines/policies that they've probably never read and certainly don't understand. I by no means agree with everything that Friday says, but I do have a great deal of respect for Friday's honesty and integrity in stating his/her opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree that in general, focusing on the content rather than contributors is good. However, some of what we deal with here is disruptive behavior. When dealing with this, it's sometimes useful to look at the bigger picture. I know I'm not always the most diplomatic- my natural personality is to usually be quick and blunt. And, I realize excuses of "hey, that's just me" don't count for much if people's behavior is problematic. I try to stick to relevant issues and I try not to be a jerk, so I don't think my behavior is actually a problem. Sure, I've occasionally gotten complaints, but I get complaints all the time, even stuff like "You jerk, you deleted the article I wrote about my dog." So, I don't always consider the complaints valid. I certainly don't think there's been anything resembling a pattern of bad behavior stretching over years, as you seem to be implying. Friday (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that your RfA is cited as evidence of a "systemic problem". Looks like you actually got near-universal support. The most interesting thing there is to see that Alkivar, of all people, opposed you on grounds of civility :0 MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing how 50% of those who opposed him have wiki-died, I'm now feeling very frightened of Friday. - brenneman

Twinkle

Excessive templating 1

If you see the edit summaries i'm using twinkle; it doesn't give an option to not inform the user. However i've done the nice, mature thing and, after only-warning him, applied to have him blocked :). Ironholds 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think I have any confidence at all in this "twinkle" thing. Friday (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Excessive templating 2

Do you really think it's helpful or necessary to leave people templated warnings when they already have a couple of the exact same thing you're leaving? Friday (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I was adding the CSD using twinkle, which put it there automatically. At the time I didn't know that it had survived a Afd as there and there was no information about this on the talk page. It had very little content and was suitable for an A7 CSD. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle again?!? I have yet to be convinced that this twinkle thing does more good than harm. Friday (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Many people use it and it means that you can very quickly add any type of CSD, AfD or any other clearup type tag to an article. You can also request page protection, unlink backlinks and see the diff on the last edit of the page you are on etc. It is very useful and speeds things up alot. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Suck it and see, as they say

I'm going to join the twinkle brigade. (Somehow that doesn't sound quite like I mean it...) I'm afraid I may be suffering observational bias, where every encounter I have with the damnable code is similar to the exchanges above. "Your honour, I cannot tell a lie. The script made me do it." It's entirely possible that, iceberg like, Twinkle is mostly perfectly fine under the surface and it's getting bad press from the spiky bits sticking up. Watch this space. - brenneman 06:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope there's some middle ground to be found. A tool that helps people not have to remember obscure syntax is good; a tool that does questionable things the users aren't aware of is another thing altogether. Friday (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Help I'm New

Hi I uploaded a page like two minutes ago. I went to add a picture and it's being edited by another user? already? What do I do? Also when is it safe to delete the article draft from my user page? thanks,--Erikaj001 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello. I'd like to give the rollback feature a try. I've spent some time reverting vandals, but going through history, saving last edit, making warning, etc. Too many steps. Thanks Llamabr (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Friday (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Double standard

Don't defend Kurt and threaten me. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. If he's been unreasonable, adding more unreasonableness is not the solution. Friday (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But at the same time, don't look like a hypocrite. If you defend Kurt for clearly being unreasonable, you should defend every other editor. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. No way I can convince you to just drop it, it seems. Friday (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not an impossible standard

Just because something enrages the a portion of the community doesn't mean it isn't helpful. Kurt's opinions, on the other hand, are labeled outlandish and discredited even by some of his biggest supporters. If you read the comment I refer to in the RfC, Kurt continues his inflammation of the community despite lack of apparent tangible benefit. This is not only not an impossible standard, it is quite reasonable. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Friday/bcrat

I've left some thoughts on this talk page that you may be interested in. Best wishes. Acalamari 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Friday. Nice to meet you. Niaih (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: What's up?

Why won't anybody listen? People are bandying around "disruption" way too much. The MFD and disputing of RFC/U was actually in good faith based on the fact RFC/U hasn't progressed in nearly nine months: it's just poor timing that it was done now. I'm not angry, and I'm not seeking to disrupt Wikipedia: I actually wrote and rewrote that nomination for around thirty minutes so it would be taken seriously, and not influenced by recent events. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. I don't think you thought the last thing I warned you about was pointy either, though, and it clearly was. At any rate, you've been edit warring also. I think you've been here for a while, right? You should know better. Friday (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to better myself. I'm actually thinking before I press "save". Sceptre ^(talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good. I was concerned because it seems you've been a bit erratic lately. As long as you stop edit warring I don't see any good reason for a block. But, if you find yourself getting excited over things, consider just logging off and do something else for a while. Wikipedia will still be here later, and you know, cooler heads work best and all that. Friday (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I was reverting on the MFD and the process page respectively was because I strongly object to it being labelled as a violation of POINT, and I was trying to make as many people aware of the debate as possible. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, such reversion is a violation of POINT in a its own right. Martinp23 17:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, "POINT" is too often quoted by people who don't even bother to read it and understand what it means. (Hey, what about me now going to nominate WP:POINT for deletion? Hey, good idea!) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that referring to me? Sceptre as good as admits it in his comment above. WP:POINT redirects to "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". The disruption was the reversion on MfD and process page, while the point he was making was that he didn't want it to be labeled as a violation of WP:POINT. Sorry to use your talk page for this, Friday. Martinp23 18:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

MfDs

Go ahead and close them. All I've done today is screw up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good faith

Hi, Friday. Dear me, here I used to think of you as a good-faith editor, and you possibly thought the same of me. But now we know we were both wrong. We have been judged and found lacking, and so have a host of other people—previously in good standing, you know. [7] Bishonen | talk 19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC).

She has a reasonable point. Her criteria were not good. I don't see that anyone ought to take this as a personal slight- she's not saying "those who endorsed are not editors in good standing", she's just reconsidering her standards. Friday (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was referring to where she says "I also thought, naively, that those making the request would be doing so in good faith..." Bishonen | talk 20:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC).

Sure, that part is kinda bad. But, that's one of a few conditions listed in that sentence. The full sentence is "I also thought, naively, that those making the request would be doing so in good faith, out of a concern regarding my use of the tools, and after other efforts to communicate with me about my actions had failed." I believe I personally count on all three conditions she listed there, but maybe she disagrees. Maybe it sounds like I'm lawyering, but I'm really just trying to read her words at their face value. Her response is what I expected. But, her conditions for recall as she pledged them were pretty bad and easily-gamed. Were they gamed here? Well, I'm sure some participants were approaching it like a game- those types of editors are common. I'm equally sure that some participants were doing it in a good faith and reasonable effort to improve things- those types of editors are also common.

Where does it leave us? The biggest problem with this situation is not the recall. Recall is what it's always been- subjective and voluntary. There's not much to be done when someone changes their mind. The biggest problem here is what some of Elonka's critics have been saying for a while- faced with criticism, she often does not respond to it in any substantial way. Rather, she attacks her critics instead. This is effective politics but lousy wiki-editing. It's effective, no doubt- look how many people call the RFC or recall a "witch-hunt" or "mob" and then look no further. Friday (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the "pitchfork" rhetoric is coming out. I didn't choose to comment either way in Elonka's last RFA, but I read it carefully. If she hadn't pledged to be open to recall, I would have opposed. I remember looking for that pledge, and checking that it didn't leave a loophole. As you know, one of her formulations did, by mentioning "tools", but the other one did not. She was a very controversial editor, and I don't believe she would have passed without that pledge. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC).

Ummm, sorry to butt in, but here's my perspective on this: "I also thought, naively, that those making the request would be doing so in good faith, out of a concern regarding my use of the tools, and after other efforts to communicate with me about my actions had failed."

• Doing so in good faith: I would say most of those who asked for her recall were doing so based on the evidence presented at the RfC or based on their knowledge of her interactions. In any case, wo should assume good faith.
• Out of a concern regarding my use of the tools: That's where I would say that the status of admin is in and of itself a tool, especially when it is used to impose special conditions, enact article and topic bans, and argue to revewrse community consensus to unblock disruptive editors.
• And after other efforts to communicate with me about my actions had failed: Well, the RfC was certainly one way to communicate our concerns. She made the decision not to address any of those concerns, but to criticize in turn those who criticized her, never acknowledging that she might have erred (except in accepting to submit to recall).

Unfortunately, I would tend to say that her objections on those extended points don't hold any more to scrutiny than just the first sentence.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she's wiggled out of the second condition, but I'm with you on that. I think it's preposterous wikilawyering to claim that admin tools and admin status are meaningfully separate. If you run around saying "I'm an admin, do what I say or I'll block you", this counts as wearing your admin hat by any reasonable definition. However, one type of bad behavior I've seen from her repeatedly is lawyerish tendencies, so I can't say I'm surprised. One thing I think is really interesting here is that a few people have endorsed the recall after she said she wouldn't go thru with it. I don't remember seeing this before. I believe this indicates that community support for her is waning more than she realizes. Friday (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, and it ought to be obvious. If I intervene in a dispute, then my intervention is usually backed explicitly or implicitly with the possibility of blocks, page protections, etc. If I impose 0RR or 1RR on someone, then that is an administrative action, because it's backed by the fact that I'll block them if they violate the terms. Whether I actually end up needing to push the block button, or whether anything ends up in my administrative log, is a technical matter - the intervention is the administrative action.

I've been on the fence about the whole thing - I was willing to let it go with a word to the wise - but I'm reconsidering based on the response to the recall issue. Her response there is actually the single most concerning thing, to me. Yes, the recall criteria are harsh, but Elonka's the one who made them up and agreed to abide by them. No one imposed them on her. If someone at my RfA had said, "Go up for recall or else," I'd have told them to go ahead and oppose me before I'd agree to those recall criteria. Setting them up as an additional selling point at RfA and then refusing to honor them when called to account shows either poor judgement or cynical manipulation, depending on how much good faith one is willing to extend.

It would be one thing to say, "I have decided that I am no longer open to recall." It's another to wait until someone calls you on your espoused criteria, and then decide not to honor them. It's yet another thing to couch this decision in sharply legalistic distinctions about "using the tools", to encourage deletion of an RfC on such legalistic terms, and to implicitly declare that all criticism is motivated by bad faith. That last item in particular leads me to believe that nothing in the RfC will have any advisory impact at all - Elonka has written it off as bad-faith criticism, and she's being encouraged to ignore opinions coming from anyone critical of her or who might "reasonably be a friend" of someone critical of her.

Of course, recall is voluntary, as you said. If Elonka doesn't feel moved to resign or stand for reconfirmation, then that's her call. But I agree with your analysis: the response to the recall situation is telling, and it makes me pessimistic that advice or opinions rendered at the RfC will be taken seriously. I'm tempted to endorse the recall on the basis of her response to it, but that would be both WP:POINTy and pointless since she's not going to go through with it. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Progressive Bloggers Prod

I declined the prod you put up over at Progressive Bloggers. This article has been through an messy AfD and DRV, and WP:PROD is not the proper venue for this article. I very much disagreed with the idea of a joint AfD for Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories after each had different outcomes in their own AfDs. I would certainly encourage you to start an AfD based on the reasoning of the prod.--RWR8189 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV guideline/essay thing

Just a note, I hope you don't mind, but I added a Oppose to your comment, as it wasn't immediately noticable which way you stood. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your speed but I would like to point out that all events mentioned in my article could, or are even very likely, to happen. I feel that 'future wikipedia' is an avenue you may wish to explore. Would you agree?

Thankyou

Future WIki?

I'm impressed by your speed but I would like to point out that all events mentioned in my article could, or are even very likely, to happen. I feel that 'future wikipedia' is an avenue you may wish to explore. Would you agree?

Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memeonetwothree (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The VSS

Hi. I didn't just cut n paste text from a web site. It is bio text that I have written for a band in which I am a former member. Much of a similar bio exists on the band web page and it is being donated to wikipedia for use here. Panzram08 (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)User:Panzram08

Barack Obama

Please self-revert your last edit to Barack Obama which re-added an inappropriate "see also" section that contained only a link to a campaign-related article. The Democratic National Convention is not article does not have any relevance to Obama's biography. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! Sorry about that- it must have been a random mis-click. I didn't even realize I'd done it. I've reverted myself now. Friday (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Tubbs Jones

I'm not sure your full-protection is necessary, and locking an article during a current event is highly unusual. It should be noted that the reports of her death are due to an erroneous news report - see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijDA5bgxiHlTvS_r-SSjskS1Tq1wD92M6DOG1. Hidden comments in the text with that link included at the text of the article and next to the text that says she's hospitalized should probably by sufficient to resolve the issue. Please reconsider the protection. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Hopefully it already accomplished what I wanted. Friday (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Larry and Grog

It's real! Or at least it will be! My brother tried out for the voice of grog! So did this guy! Seriously!!! Heres the art for it! TheThingy ^Talk_Website 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, has it gotten significant coverage in reliable sources? Friday (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It did have a try-outs website, but now it's gone. TheThingy ^Talk_Website 22:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request to intercede vs. IP address blanking my page and copy of deleted article

Hi; I appreciated your putting protection on the Stephanie Tubb Jones article.

An anonymous IP address editor User:71.248.69.48 has repeatedly blanked my page, in spite of other editors' request to stop doing so. Could you please block that IP address from editing wikipedia?

Also, I authored an article on Steve Elman, a disk jockey and music director for WBUR of Boston. It got deleted; I thought that I did a very good job of providing references and composing it well. I read that you provide copies of deleted articles. That is very commendable. Could you please send me a copy of the article?

Thank you very much. Dogru144 (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the vandalism stopped a couple days ago- there'd be no point blocking now. I restored the article and put it in User:Dogru144/Elman so you can work on it as needed. Friday (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just in case your ears fail to burn when people talk about you, there's a thread at the RfA talk page beating the ageism drum and citing you as an example. Not that you need to comment there or anything, but just a heads-up in case you'd like to. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was preparing a reply a while ago, and then got busy. Looks like the drama-fest was unavoidable here. Friday (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: A little off-topic

Alright, you have a point about Mongo, Jeffrey Gustafson, Betacommand and Zoe, though I though Sceptre is in his twenties. In any event, I just wanted to raise one quick point; when you say that Majorly is acting like a teenager (and indeed he may be), you are proving that greater age does not make one inherently mature. Thus, an adult should be scrutinized for maturity issues just as much as a teenager, no? Otherwise it becomes a matter of discrimination. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Immature adults are a problem too, certainly. I remember Majorly being described to me by someone as a "teenager", but maybe this was not correct? I don't know- I always assumed he was young. And yes, maturity is what matters. Age just gives us a quick and easy way to guess how mature someone is. Once people are over 25 or so, I don't care much about age anymore. Friday (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree that age is a quick and easy way of guessing how mature someone is. If you had just come to Wikipedia, and somebody told you Majorly is 32 years old, you wouldn't have guessed that he behaves somewhat immature, would you? Similarly, if JamieS93 had never revealed her age group, you most likely would not have guessed. Overall, my point is that while knowing one's age can most certainly help you in determining one's maturity level, I believe it should never be used solely for that purpose. I ask in all respect, did you at least take a look at JamieS93's contributions before !voting? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a mistake to focus this discussion on particular individuals, as it may elicit unwanted opinions as to whether or not, for instance, Majorly is behaving maturely. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point, I'll refrain from such actions in the future. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm becoming less convinced that there's more I can say which will make my position more clear. Suffice it to say, in Jamie's case, a couple simple facts spoke volumes. As a general rule, if there's a chat room kid nominated by Majorly, I'm going to need very compelling evidence of unusual wisdom and maturity. I see nothing like that here - an unusually wise and mature kid would have done things differently, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Wikipedia is turning more myspacey as time goes on, and I believe the huge volume of kids here is a major contributing factor. Opposing RFAs for candidates I consider poor is one small thing I can do to try to turn the tide. So, that's what I do. It may or may not help, but I feel like I should at least try. To me, the purpose of RFA is not to just be nice and positive. I believe we should set emotions and friendships aside and try to rationally gauge the competence of the candidate. If you're not yet remotely an adult, you've going to have an uphill battle trying to convince me that you can exercise reasonable adult-like judgement. This, in my view, is quite rational. Your mileage may vary. Friday (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Majorly is an adult. He ran for steward, and requested CU/oversight access, over the course of the last year. —Giggy 07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that only required he was over 18. Friday (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes.

Did I just block Jimbo?!?

...nah, I'm kidding. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By emergency order of the President of the United States, I have blocked you for a period of 12-20 years. Agents will be arriving to pick you up shortly.. Friday (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

cross posted

Hey Friday, since I mentioned you by name in my "advice" essay, and you responded on Jamie's RfA, I wanted to let you know that I cross posted it to WT:rfa. I didn't copy your comments because I don't feel it is right to copy somebody elses comments.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

i was reading about letters to judy blume and there was a talk to judy blume page and now he says I look like a troll and I cant ask my questions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachstar93 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

userpage again

If you're the owner, it's best you don't get involved in the article in any way at all. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Friday (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qmanjr5"

I was just wondering why I shouldn't get involved ?