User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/8: Difference between revisions

Dear Administrator: I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits. But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert an article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.

I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.

I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With- Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are. The world owes you. I owe You.

In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.

And keep that finger off the trigger.

Dfrg.msc 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi

You're not leaving that easily! C'mon, lad, there's work to be done. Hup, hup, hup!

(my email is over there <------ somewhere) Mark Gallagher 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You never struck me as the huffy type. What's up? At least come and talk about it. --Doc ^ask? 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give him some time guys, I know how he feels, or felt. I needed the entire month of May to remove the stink of corruption here from my life. Karmafist^{Save Wikipedia} 02:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh why everyone is leaving, this is just horrible, u, SlimVirgin, Phaedriel, possibly Linuxbeak, for what, a bunch of idiots like Brandt trying to control this site. I give up as well, this is too much, the community is just breaking apart because of this. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a newbie that happened to cross paths with you a few times, but while I wouldn't call you the most level-headed--I thought you brought valid insight into discussion. I wish you the best in all endeavours. Kotepho 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is terrible, you've been doing great and suddenly you're going with a couple of other fine sysops. What is the world coming to? - Mailer Diablo 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenny hasn't deleted all his pages, just archived them in a bit of a nonstandard way. I think he got stressed and is taking a bit of a break. He's done it before after all. I have every expectation he'll be back.. the taking one's ball and going home bit isn't his style. All IMHO of course, and with every wish for a restful and relaxing recharge. ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montsalvat Article

Thanks! I do agree it needs more sources, but I am having difficulty finding some, I disagree that sources close to the subject arnt as reliable as one further from it, it's just that they can't be as trusted most of the time, and any other sources information would have to be obtained directly (or worse, indirectly) from the subject (ex: sigmund jorgensen) and then it becomes second hand or third hand information, it isnt as good as first hand information.

I do agree though that if more sources can be found on things to do with Montsalvat other than its history, they would perhaps be better than the source of sigmund jorgensen himself, but for the history, I think you can't beat the son of the guy who founded the colony, unless those who were a part of it back then were still alive and wanted to share their info.

I created the article about "A symphony of mud and stone" because it is a real book that exists and thought I'd supply all the info I could about that source, but if it isnt as many here say noteworthy then I wont complain if it gets deleted. The articles must be neutral but the editors can be brutal, is that the way it goes? if so, very sad.

Thanks for bringing these things to my attention and for taking interest in the article, but mostly for providing some positive feedback! Its all well and good to say object and then say whats wrong with it...yeah? well what needs to be done to make it better?? I get frustrated with some editors on wikipedia somtimes I do.

The photos are okay I have some better ones and if I ever have time I'll update them, and I apologise for the late reply cause our internet connection died a few days ago. Nick carson 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Tony and the RfC

Hey, I just got your e-mail, after I submitted a request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You can see it on the bottom there. AmiDaniel won't block him, but does feel that there is some aspect of 3RR going on. He thinks it would be better to block for something like WP:POINT and/or for causing a disruprion. In any case you are free to do as you please, but if you want to look, all the diffs are at AN/3RR. Later, Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 07:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage

Heya,

I see that on the 30th you changed a word on my userpage. However, I feel that the original word is more appropriate. The picture doesn't look silly. It looks gay. :) No, really, it does, and I totally admit that (but by no means is that to be taken as me implying my own homosexuality, which does not exist). Search 4 Lancer 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your archives

Is there a reason why you don't link to your archives from here? Its relatively easy to put an {{archivebox}} or just links so that people can have easy access to them? Ans e ll 04:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ansell:I've reverted your change to Aaron's user pages. People do not HAVE to make easy convenient archives if they do not wish to. This page was blanked by Aaron for his own reasons, well within his aegis to do so if he wants to as long as he's not ignoring warnings or whatever. He's on break, he can blank the page completely if he so desires. I am sure he'll revert me if he does not agree with my reversion. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard back from Aaron via email, but I wasn't quite able to parse out what he was telling me, whether he wanted it left that way or not. So I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

If you don't return to editing soon, I'll be forced to reblock your account. You must ask permission to leave you know.--MONGO 06:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and I'll UNblock him! Ooh! Wheel War! YES! I'll be flying the rouge flag before you know it! ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that really helped me.

I am very thankful for your email, it has really helped me through this, thank you very much. ILovePlankton 04:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huff

I am happy that you changed your mind.
Because as an admin, you're quite a find.
We appreciate your civil attitude.
I'm certain you're one cool dude.
(Not an insult in rhyming couplet form, but you do have many admirers of your sysop work here. Happy to see you back) -- Samir धर्म 08:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This shall go into the oddities jar, but I've got a three-archive backlog right now. - brenneman ^{L} 13:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say Bye

You're the only admin i've come accross who does not conduct himself like a power stoned narcissist. I have a short fuse when it comes to being treated like shit by the community and it seems to me that everyone here has an admin friend who they spend a lot of time sucking up to and who is ready to help them out when necessary, which empowers them. I refuse to do that. I'm not a power hungry narcissist and i'm not a sheep. As such I don't see how I can fit in here. Wikipedia is an organisation with a Bullying culture that it actively turns a blind eye to. I can't justify putting any more time and effort.

If I could make any suggestion it would be that what is needed is a comprehensive anti-bullying policy. But I can't see that ever happening while it's the psychopaths who make the policies.

So thanks for everything. I wish you all the best and I hope you get somewhere with all of your endeavours. Factoid Killer 12:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See you later, FactoidKiller/JebusChrist/Jimididit/NSWelshman. Snottygobble 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above prompted a storm of new vandalism against me and everyone else who has ever stood against this sock farm. Vandals were Jebus Of Nazareth and IPs. Vandalism was to label us all psychopaths, per FactoidKiller's statement above. All five accounts have now been blocked - NSWelshman (the puppeteer) for a month, and the puppets indefinitely. Snottygobble 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:JimboJim is another puppet. Snottygobble 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourself phsycho. What on earth makes you think your little message triggered all that? You should do some reading on your specific condition Narcissistic personality disorder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jebos Chroist (talk • contribs) .

I haven't looked at the vandalism, but I'm sorry that you've copped it sweet. I can only say that if presented with the same information that I had when I was involved with this user before I'd make the same decision. I always reckon we should give folks a chance at converting in a positive manner. If they choose not to do so, that doesn't mean we were wrong to give them the chance. - brenneman ^{L}

That sounds about right to me. My personal view is that people are most likely to reform when forced to bear the consequences of their actions. I know I had a bit of a crack at you a month or so ago, but I really wasn't criticising you this time. I was just keeping you informed of new chapters in the book of NSWelshman. Snottygobble 05:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hopefully it'll go better this time. --Cyde↔Weys 13:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and as always if you see me screwing up please tell me. - brenneman ^{L} 02:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too negative! Be positive! --Cyde↔Weys 02:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but saying "While a good deed is its own reward, I prefer you to slap me on the arse" got me in trouble at work, so I'm afraid to say it here. - brenneman ^{L} 03:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and Tony would make much better friends than you realize. --Cyde↔Weys 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links in gaming articles

I notivc eyou ve been trying to remove excess links from lots of pages. Chill out with your shoot first approach to gaming links. Did you even click on any of them to see their relevance? When an article eventually matures to be referenced., those links will be imporetant. ANd most of the links you got rid of are perfectly valid. I would recommend staying out of the CVG space, as we're pretty good at self-regulating these kinds of things. And btw citing Wikipedia:External links in your comment doesnt justify what youre doing, especialyl since youre rmeoving stuff that does not go against policy. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The game articles are particularly susceptible to linkcruft. Any editor can edit any topic as long as he does so responsibly, and Aaron's edits in this space seem like plain good sense. Could you identify a specific herd-culling he did that was inappropriate? Nandesuka 01:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am really getting annoyed by brenneman's removal of external links. In the cases I've seen (specifically the LUEshi article), you've defended your actions by spouting nonsense and pointing to the external links policies. It's one thing to delete cruft- it's another thing to remove external links that are 100% relevant to the subject at hand. Use some common sense, kiddo. 172.147.192.250 06:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Asteroids (computer game)

In particular, the removal of hte following sources

Asteroids at The Killer List of Video Games
Asteroids at MobyGames
Article at The Dot Eaters, featuring a history of Asteroids

and btw I forgot to re-remove that psp version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Larsinio (talk • contribs) .

Again, after having re-reviewed these none of them provide a resource that should be linked according to the guideline. Moby games is almost always instantly deletable as providing no information not widely available elsewhere, and dot eaters would be possibly acceptable if used as a reference (please in the "Cite" style not in-line refs!) but as a bare external link it is not.
brenneman ^{L} 02:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KLOV is exclusively used to fill the infobox items. Most pages in the CVG space have items listed in the external links that were indeed used as references in the article, which is why it is important to NOT remove links. Mobygames is an issue constantly under debate, and I dont really care either way on that front. Typically items int eh external links eventaulyl move up toa references section. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 18:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any external links that are in fact references are always available in the history. There is no need for them to be "stored" in that manner in the artical. Move them to the talk pages if you must but other wise they are just external links under a different heading. Next time I pass through, I'll check if they've been made into "cite" style. - brenneman ^{L} 11:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Puzzle Bobble

Aaron Brenneman/Archives/8 series at MobyGames
Aaron Brenneman/Archives/8 at The Killer List of Video Games
Arcade-History.com entry
Template:GameFAQs
Bust-A-Move at Neo-Geo.com (reviews) 1 2

these links cahracterise the gameplay of it, which relates to the context of the article.

I'm not going to respond individually to something that you can't be bothered to format correctly... but rest assured that I did look at every page. - brenneman ^{L} 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Winnetka, Illinois

[Winnetka Public School District web site http://www.winnetka36.org/]

If you cant link this here where can you link it? ITs relevent to the town.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Larsinio (talk • contribs) .

This one's actually a fair call. I was going to move this up into the education section and convert all the in-line refs into "cite" style when I got distracted by blind reversions of my edits. - brenneman ^{L} 02:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IN regards to my comment about staying out cvg space

ALl im saying is that the members of the WP:CVG wikiproject actively discuss these matters about relevent links, which are items you may not be aware of. Like gamefaqs links are useful references for many games, as they contain loits of gampleay information, information about items and levels, and what not. Just by linking to it does not violate WP:NOT. Lots of fangames and items liek that are obviously crufty, all IM saying is look before you delete. And if youre not 100% sure just post it on the talk page. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of problems with editors, who are good editors of other spaces and projects, try to apply the same delete-all cleanup without really understanding the context.

Welcome back

You'll get no chow from me, buddy :) MONGO

Aye, and now that I've adjusted my definition of "trolls" somewhat, you'll be seeing a much quieter brenneman, as well. ^_^
brenneman ^{L} 02:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I appreciate your hard work...time to kick ass, take names and sleep till noon.--MONGO 02:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 22:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warnings you're handing out re sigs and disruption

Thanks for the reminder, I've intended all along to do exactly that. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ducks. I do maintain it violates "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" and hence WP:POINT, but I appreciate the heads-up. :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You have been listed as an involved party at a request for arbitration. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Tony_Sidaway to make a statement. Thanks, Ch u ck^(contrib) 05:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Socks

While I appreciate your note, I think that you probably are mixing me up with somebody else, as I haven't really been dealing with too many sockpuppets lately (well, a few, but not in the way you're talking about). Plus, I haven't criticised you lately... sorry for the confusion, mate, but I think you've got the wrong chap. If I am the right fellow, could you clarify what you mean? Sorry again, and doubly for acting the eejit. Snoutwood (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Snotty/Snouty, gobble/wood... it all made sense at the time. That was the most nicely put "are you on crack?" I've gotten in ages. Sorry for the confusion. - brenneman ^{L} 08:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, no bother. See you around! Snoutwood (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it's good to see you back, of course. :) Snoutwood (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

If you want to send me one for the next couple of days, use my alternate. If you don't have it already, ping my talk and I'll send *you* an email, whomever you may be. - brenneman ^{L} 09:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me baby... ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! - brenneman ^{L} 03:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Surprise

Hmmm... Well, let me put it this way... I've got the flu, and that article resembles what is streaming from my nose! :) Seriously, my guess is that it is neologistic "management speak" from disaster-prepared people, apparently some of them Israeli. I'd certainly AfD it, and I swear, on a day like today, I could support an A1 speedy, because it does verge on indescipherable.

I checked my email yesterday, and got yours; but now I see the pink box, and I don't know where to send a reply. Go ahead with your plan to give me the Brenneman overhaul, about which I am quite excited. While you're combing through my contribs., please wander over to James F.'s talk page and see if I did anything to deserve the WP:DICK treatment he gave me. That sort of thing from a person "on high" is what makes a volunteer want to crawl in bed and take his Tylenol. Best wishes, Xoloz the sneeze 15:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi vey. Thanks for that, hope you feel better soon! - brenneman ^{L} 03:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions about KAS?

[Removed due to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I've sent out the clarion call, since I tend to work slowly. - brenneman ^{L} 03:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can tell me what to look for or what to put on watchlist I can try to help. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bitter/kas problem

I am guessing Bitter contacted you recently about KAS. He sent me emails, which I believe were sent to you, for the greeting wasn't my name, but yours. I think both sides of this arguement should be kicked off wiki for a while. What ever arguement they have with each other has nothing to do with this article and both sides have taken this a little too personally. Not even I fought you with personal insults and I did try to keep it limited to the article contents. This fight between KAS and Bitter should be removed from Wiki, as Wiki has nothing to do with this fight and Bitter is trying to drag others into the fray. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 12:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks?

I appreciate your comments. I think I'm going to change it to one of those.

Mr. Bagel ^{leave me one}peteg913 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out now

peteg913 ^{leave me one} 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks![reply]

I still say redirect your user-page to your talk page. If you do, I'll help you put mag wheels and a big mural of a girl riding a dinasaur on it. In fact, anyone who redirects their user page to their talk I'll help fancy-fy their talk to duplicate all functionality they need.
brenneman ^{L} 09:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks again; I was away and just read your message. I'll take a look at your diff, too, if you have time. peteg913 ^{leave me one} 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does not convey the full horror, as I was mostly using preview, but: use goggles when viewing.
brenneman ^{L} 06:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Hate Template:NPOV

Hi. Please visit Fethullah_Gülen and Talk:Fethullah_Gülen and help me knock some sense into people who seem to be having some trouble getting out of their rut. Nandesuka 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - brenneman ^{L} 01:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blah

Do you mind helping at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop? I need some input from people that actually know what vandalism is and isn't. --SPUI (T - C) 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just leaving you a note asking what you wanted someone to look at. You also said at ANI I think that there was some trench work that you thought that ArbCom was ignoring? - brenneman ^{L} 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't seem do be helping at all on the non-proposed decision pages. --SPUI (T - C) 01:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ouch, I don't like the sound of the precedent set by Making arbitrary decisions -> Accepting an arbitrary decision. No, sir, I don't like it at all. - brenneman ^{L} 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on the Image:Playboy 0603.jpg discussion on Bornhj's talk page

Out of the last forty fair use claims I've seen this is actually one of the best.

Is what you stated on James's talk page about the Out of me and James, who is this comment in reference to?

Jean-Paul 19:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me![reply]

From what I understand it means the fair use claim is fine. Thanks for clearing it up - I'm not all the experienced with fair use or any of that huuhaa. --james_{(lets talk)} 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the expanded fair use rationale is much better. --james_{(lets talk)} 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Hi Aaron,

thanks for the welcome. I will have a look at those links you sent and may even create an account!

Regards

Gordon Cheng

Bikini

Moved to Talk:Bikini#External_links.

Average Homeboy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average Homeboy

May I ask why this article was deleted? There are so many less popular internet memes on Wikipedia. A page that was very popular and at the top of the google searches when searched for 'Average Homeboy' is deleted. He is going to appear on Jimmy Kimmel Live. I think that is grounds enough for him to atleast have an article. I worked long hours revising and editing and researching the article, that I created, only to have it deleted. I know you have a lot to deal with, but please reconsider, as it was a popular article. Thank You. tynews2001

I'm always happy to re-examine any adminstrative action I've made. I'll have a look again, watch this space for a reply.
brenneman ^{L} 08:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Lolicon

Out of curiosity, what did I say on Talk:Lolicon that was uncivil and/or commenting on another user rather than another user's edits? Powers 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger. Sorry, that was meant to be a general comment. But, um, *shakes finger* please do try and avoid stirring things up by saying "filth" again. Or something. - brenneman ^{L} 01:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yessir! Powers 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Delete

Template:Delete 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. Wisd e n17 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. - brenneman ^{L} 06:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages at DRV?

Why? So much more complicated, this is. I thought you joined me in hating them. Xoloz 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed hate them with a passion that borders on the monomaniacal. However, I bow to the pressure of the people. Three things: A) Getting any early stops them from going to per-unit subpages. I had to do some quick-stepping to un-do that not long ago. And 2) If we don't like it we can change it back and then I'll have more ammo to resist it next time. And Γ) I get some small credit for being flexible and following consensus.

However I've organised a meeting of E.A.G.A.D.S. (Editors Against Gross And Disgusting Subpages) for midnight tonight, behind the shed in my back yard.

brenneman ^{L} 01:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said the people wanted them? Xoloz 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while we're on the topic of DRV, could you please close-out Mending Wall, if you get the chance? It is unanimous, but I am ineligible to close it, being a heavy participant. Xoloz 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mending wall done, and a saw this and this as saying that I was outnumbered on the subpage thing?
brenneman ^{L} 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My missing "E"

Thanks for letting me know about Tony's opt-out list. (Actually, I saw it yesterday; sometimes I look at Tony Sidaway's talk page when I'm not finding enough stress around here.) I'll consider it, but I think his "do not refactor" list is kind of a kludge at best. I'm not a proponent of long signatures with 12 color changes and the flags of my city, state, and country, but I think Tony's "refactoring" is his attempt to enforce a policy when there isn't a clear, definitive policy to be enforced. nathanrdotcom, as an example, had several people hammering on him about his signature, and that sort of thing represents a community consensus that signatures that long are undesirable. On the other hand, when Tony "refactors" just about any signature that has a font color change, or CSS, or a link, then that smacks to me of enforcing policy. (Interestingly enough, he's never refactored Cyde's signature, even though the pink color and cursor change are unnecessary to get the point across.)

It doesn't bother me terribly much that my signature could be "refactored", but it does bother me that one user is trying to set policy, based on his personal preferences, without real community consensus. My belief is that policies and guidelines should come from the community, with certain exceptions, like if Jimbo needs to put the foot down on something that could damage Wikipedia. Even at that, he hasn't put the foot down on people as harshly as some admins have. Look at the userbox debate as an example -- Jimbo politely requested that people remove religious and political userboxes. Certain admins took that as an endorsement to move toward a wholesale deletion of userboxes. In the process, a request that could have strengthened the community has instead caused rifts in it.

I think I'm rambling here instead of simply acknowledging your message, but sometimes things like this need to be said. --Elkman 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with almost everything in that statement. Especially the bit about you rambling. My feeling on the signature fights is very much like my feeling on the userbox imbroglio: Utter waste of time. But to be more specific:

Even the very longest signatures have never presented even the slightest trouble to me as far as "finding" comments or editing. I hear a few other people claim that they do have problems. Considering that thousands of wikipedia discussions occur every day and we rarely hear complaints, I'd guess most people also have no problem editing.
Signatures are for identification, and I use the colours, symbols, etc to identify people. I have found the occasional signature to be "too much" for viewing I admit. But you can tell a lot about a person by their signature, be it clever or eye-gouging.
I've only very rarely seen someone refuse to change when asked nicely. Really nicely, not "do it or you'll be blocked" faux-nicely.
I'd agree that it's poor form to attempt to forge policy based upon a very view (if quite vocal) opinions. I often wonder about why some people are happy to hold pitched battles over ephemera.

Finally, your comment about whom has been refactored and whom has not was an interesting one. I'd love to see a table made with the number of times each editor's signature has been refactored, with notes on number of characters etc. My totally-baseless impression is that it has been far from even-handed, but I'm too lazy to track that down right now. A massive list of diffs in chronological order with every sig refactoring would be a great task for some compulsive wiki-gnome to create.

brenneman ^{L} 02:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Please do both use and promulgate Tony's list. Only good can come of it, and even people who have not yet been refactored might think of signing on.

re: Automatons

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that bots generally are more damaging than helpful to the project. They seem to be frequently fired off by a single person with a sense of purpose and they propogate throughout the project faster than consensus can emerge.

Using them while a dispute is actively being discussed is, of course, even worse since the launcher clearly does or should know that consensus for the action has not been reached. Unfortunately, bots have become so easy to use that they will be extremely difficult to stop. I don't know how to put this genie back in the bottle. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a couple of quick thoughts.

Hope that social pressure will do the trick? Tell the person using AWD or BullBot or whatever, "Please don't do that again" a few times.
Shouldn't we have a "revert everything" button for this sort of thing?

I know that a mass-revert seems like the worst kind of buggery. However, the more I think about it, the more reasonable it seems. If it takes someone no effort to make a MFT of edits, then reverting them with no effort should be the same as one "real" reversion.

brenneman ^{L} 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement. It can take a block to stop someone who's really going. And that's not really appropriate if they are well-intentioned but merely mistaken. I like the idea of a "mass revert". I could see it being very helpful in vandalism patrols as well. But it could also be easily abused. Something to think about anyway. Rossami (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on whether it's a good idea to revert everything or not, the functionality to do so exists. See User:Voice of All's scripts. With all of his stuff installed (a bit daunting, to be sure) I can look at the last N contributions of a user and press "master rollback", everything they're top on gets rolledback, at least. I've never actually done it but others have. You need a LOT of memory as it uses loads to do its work. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration precedents

It may interest you to know that I've added cases to the Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions page. You can now tell people not to flabnitz per case Foo to your heart's content. --David.Mestel 16:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Star shines upon...

File:Blue-star.gif

...my dear Aaron,
one of the greatest talented
persons to ever grace this place,
who is always present when a word of kindness and a lighthearted
gesture is sorely needed.
I hold the deep affection you've
gifted me over and over so dear,
that even to think about the moment I feared you had left fills me with sadness, and the joy
to see you here is immense.
I am so happy to call you my friend,
my dearest Aaron!
Phaedriel

Trounced

20:11, 20 June 2006 Tony Sidaway →Wikipedia:Conservative notice board "Close, kd, strongly endorsed"

Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that this blatant attack on our most basic principles was comprehensively rebuffed? Wiped out. Stamped into the dust. Smashed. This is the one thing we can all agree on: that Wikipedia is neutral. --Tony Sidaway

I'm sorry to say that when an adminstrator closes a review of their own actions and then edit wars over the highly biased closing notes, it's my most basic principles I see getting stamped into the dust. - brenneman ^{L} 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, I don't agree with Tony's in this case, but it is something so minor, that is truly insignificant. I mean, within a week it will be off the "Recently closed" list, as a new month will start, and a decision of "endorse" between "strong endorse" is by all effects equivalent. A few more holes in a potential case to overthrow it, but hey, if someone wants to fight it, I'm not the one who is going to waste time to defend my actions.In this case, I'll just pick a different battle to fight, as Sun Tzu recommends. Tito xd^(?!?) 23:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Meaningful sigh* You're as always correct. Moving on to greener pastures, thank you again.
brenneman ^{L} 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem with stamping your principles into the dust. We're not here to uphold those. To describe "strongly endorsed" as highly biased in the circumstances is simply inaccurate. A blatant attack on Wikipedia was crushed by a strong endorsement, and I'm very proud of that. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#If_not_mine.2C_Tony.2C_then_whose.3F__Yours.3F

Re: Dark thoughts

We're not having dark thoughts are we lad? - brenneman ^{L} 02:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a normal day for me without dark thoughts. Besides, when the agreement changes from, "If you ask, I won't refactor your signature except on my talk page and WP:AN," to, "If you ask, I won't refactor your signature unless they're causing excessive clutter," to, "Even if you ask, I'll still consider your signature as clutter and refactor it, and don't ask in terms other than my own," I get a little cynical. Moreover, since there isn't a real decision as far as what "clutter" means, where does it end? Clearly, vanity articles about people or their bands meet WP:CSD, and deserve to go -- they're clutter. 730-byte signatures with three images are excessive, as well. Featured articles probably aren't clutter, and can stay. But in the meantime, there's a lot of gray area. For example, someone could say that Peavey-Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator is just an insignificant tower in St. Louis Park, Minnesota and doesn't deserve an article. Or, Talk:Glacier National Park (US) has too much chit-chat on it about what needs to be done with the article, and not enough productive editing. Or, my large number of edits to List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota could have been condensed into just a few edits, reducing database space on the server. I'm not sure. --User:Elkman 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I am often weilding a scythe, so it would be hypocritical of me to simply *nod* in understanding. I can point out that deleting things doesn't save any space, but that's an aside. More importantly is to have a look at the wider picture (something I often fail to do) and see that Wikipedia is thriving overall. If there are some areas that need improvement than let us make them better. Dispute resolution needs an overhaul, especially at the request for comment end, for example. Or the calmer waters of article space. Lots to do there. But keep your powder dry, there's always another hill. - brenneman ^{L} 06:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your signature

Well, it was the first signature I made, so I thought it had to be colorful °≈§→Robo°_°maeyhem←§≈°^Talk 00:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks for all the colorful sigs! Ive chosen one and modifyed it to make it link to my talk page, etc. Thanks! °≈§→ Robomaeyhem: T/←§≈° 00:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well...

Let's see... I closed a DRV the way some folks didn't like, so the malcontents questioned my competence, and Mackensen (metaphorically, I hope) threatened to kill me at ANI. Kelly added her dash of fun, Kelly-style, Cyde and I had a reasonable discussion, Rossami stood up for my choice, a disamb. got created as a compromise... all in a day's work! And my talk page got moved to "Nigger" around the same time for good effect! Ugh. This place is not always welcoming to its volunteers, ya know. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Malcontents"? Ugh. --Cyde↔Weys 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyde, After the fun you had at Rossami's talk gloating "You lose!" as if this were kindergarten, I wouldn't police my language if I were you. You certainly sounded like a malcontent over there... Xoloz 15:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, metaphorically. I was simply using the language of the parent poster. I've certainly no desire to kill anyone, least of all a fellow admin, Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness! It's been simply weeks since I've had such a collections of esteemed individuals on my talk page. If only we could use our powers for good, instead of bickering. While I've been known to jump on my "kick Cyde" scooter, on Rossami's talk he's not veering to far into "malcontent" in any pejorative way, barring that he is dissatisfied. Kelly was shockingly incivil, though. Looking further, the ANI thread is a train-wreck, and I'm a little bit dissapointed in almost everyone involved in this particular round of madness. We do love to argue though, don't we all? - brenneman ^{L} 00:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article to /dev/null

I need a process-wonk down on aisle three stat! We were fighting a minor skirmish in the long dark German spelling war when all of a sudden people are trying to delete an article through the "requested moves" procedure :) See Talk:Voss-strasse. Maybe someone should make a "procedural nomination" at AfD or something. Haukur 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*quick look* Arg, my eyes, it's voting! The goggles do nothing! I'm sorting through the discussion, I'll wait until I can comment intelligently to do so. - brenneman ^{L} 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Many reasonably seasoned editors have not been through the Deletion review process, and the page does not seem to direct whether we rehash the AfD arguments, try to formulate new ones, whine about procedure, or just bring the whole thing to a new audience without comment. A little guidance on the page to avoid the verbose responses if they are inappropriate would be helpful. Sorry to have bored you. Carlossuarez46 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Away with the verbose vagabonds! Cast out the prolix proletariat! *brenneman is among the first carted off, protesting loudly and at length*

I'd suggest that both the beauty and the downfall of DRV is that it is all of the things mentioned above. It is very flexible, and despite some grumblings I beleive that it works very well, and if people want to wax on, I think they should be allowed to do so.
I surely meant no offense with my comments, and apologise without reservation. I am at times careless with a turn of phrase, and always welcome being told when I'm being a jerk.

brenneman ^{L} 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Prolix (great word). Thanks for the note, your apology is unnecessary, however. You did not offend me; I think of myself as thick-skinned and thick-headed. Something I have learned here is that chaos is its own reward, and that "Wikilawyer" is the worst insult one can heap on someone else and not be cited for civility (or is that WP:Civil disobedience?) Any way, being new to the politics (no offense intended), I decided to be boldly boring and prolix (still a great word), figuring that debate could be closed at any moment and I wanted my say, gosh darn it. And, I am often quoted as saying "bits are cheap", but see bit (money); again, I digress into prolixity (what a great word, it takes inflections too). Carlossuarez46 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime

In typical fashion, after having posted a comment with this summary:

I'm not Primetime, by the way, asshole.

User:I discovered America has now admitted that he's user:Primetime, but complains that I'm not letting him "finish [his] business". God only knows what that business is. -Will Beback 06:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just like things to be neat and tidy, because I'm lazy. When someone says "this person did this and so does this other person" I like to see some diffs so that I don't have to scratch around for them. I also agree fully that copyright is an area where we cannot afford to be lax. However I do think that we (collectively) need to learn to be a little nicer when we're showing people the door. Firm, but kind, with a full head of hair. That's the kind of admin I would like to be, at least. - brenneman ^{L} 11:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question your review, and just wanted to let you know of the outcome. FYI- I have been an admin for about a year now. Though I don't habituate the RCs or other areas of random users, I figure that I have seen a wide range of behaviors ranging from POV pushers to trollish, vandalistic, sock puppetry, puerile humor, hoaxes, etc. Even so, I've found Primetime's case to profoundly disturbing. Perhaps that's partly because I'd edited with him at length and extended good faith. He has been found to be such a bald-faced liar, such an unapologetic plagiarist, such an effective weedler, such an active vandal, that the collective good faith I feel towards other editors has gone down a notch. We're still correcting the copyvios he planted, and he's still trying to sneak them back into articles. I expect another couple of months activity. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links and the Laundromat

I tell you what. You can be the very first person to whom I will reveal this project:

User:Nandesuka/WikiProject Laundromat

Your input would be welcome -- feel free to edit the project page in whatever way you think useful. It's related in a tangential way to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, but is not simply focused on eliminating commercial links. Rather, the idea is that laundry lists are almost by definition unencyclopedic (not counting an article that is explicitly "List of yaddas in yadda"). Out of control external links section are, of course, a special case of this, but for an idea of what I'm talking about, consider the laundry lists in Wizard and Fairy and their histories.

Whaddya think? Nandesuka 14:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's legendary. - brenneman ^{L} 07:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary, shurely? -Splash - tk 20:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need admin help!

Hey there Sjakkalle! You were one of the first fellow admins I could spot on the recent changes list as being active right now. Could you respond to my WP:AN/I request? There's a revert war going on right now at Oprah Winfrey, with a two-day-old user! Thanks in advance if you can. Harr o5 09:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you tooke me for my better. But not so much harme, good Harro, for I was looking o're this already.
brenneman ^{L} 11:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Baha'i Faith

Moved to Talk:Bahá'í Faith

Jack Napier (porn star)

Moved to Talk:Jack Napier (porn star)

MusicBrainz

Moved to Talk:MusicBrainz

Porn

Edits with summary "rv vandalism by Aaron Brenneman": [4][5][6][7][8][9]

Editing

Let's face facts here...at least as far as I am concerned, what brings me the most enjoyment out of this project is creating my little stub articles, some of which I do expand to something more, but with a half hour or a little more, I can write up a stub and turn a red line into a blue one...it's not much, but it's a start. In many cases, like in the National Wildlife Refuges and or Wilderness areas, there simply sin't much material to source from, so the articles are naturally never going to be anything more than a stub until somebody else comes along and makes it better. But, the truth is, my computer skills are modest, so for fellows like yourself, you are able to do more benefit than I can with the Afd's and etc...sometimes, I am simply dense, and in one case it took two users about three tries to make me understand that for one template, they wanted me to do a move of the entire history and not just a cut and paste plus a redirect...duh. That must be frustrating when someone comes to me for "help" on an admin level. Keep up the good work, we all have our niche.--MONGO 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting admin help

there is an admin that is using vile curse words in their edit summary and a photo of their privates on their page : Freakofnurture

In reference to: according to what Wikipedia is not

1. User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

the freakofnurture is in direct violation of the above.

the response I received from first request:

I know it may appear raw and inappropriate at first sight, but almost everything on that page is a reflection of some component of Wikipedia culture. For example, the phrase "This administrator knows how to spell his fucking words" refers to wikipedia's rogue admins. Someone accidently spelt "rogue" as "rouge" and the joke has stuck ever since.

The "meta-template for hate reflects the controversy surrounding meta-templates. The "This user is often a dick not censored" reflects a controversy surrounding a picture of breasts in a userbox. Most of the categories at the bottom reflect controversial articles or arbcom cases. So you see, there is much more depth to the page than a quick glance may suggest.

I hope this helps explain some things. Have a nice day. The ikiro

can you do something?

Thank You Narrow is the way

I try and take every request seriously, although the word "vile" is a bit tedious. "Debauched" is much more fun. Anyway, I will have a look at some stage, albeit a quick one. As to the use of explicatives, I might have done so before and not recall. I always suggest that adminstrators, like every editor, should try to be as civil as possible. If, for example, something I said or the manner in which I expressed myself offended you, I'd try to engage you in meaningful dialog.

But since you've included no links to diffs in this request, I can't comment on this occassion with regards to "curse words". Diff would not only have been helpful, they would have made me quicker to examine any issues.

brenneman ^{L} 07:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the userpage in question, and I understand that you feel confronted by the words and images there. However, presuming that the text above accurately represents your discussions with FoN, he appears to have taken your query seriously enough to compose a sensible reply. I've left a note on his talk, as well as having a brief discussion via IRC. This seems to me to be well in order. - brenneman ^{L} 03:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corn on the Cob has a Mother?

Drink this, you'll thank me in the morning.

Hi,

I applied at RfA on the rationale that I'd keep DRV running, and it's what I do. It's a simple, repetitive task of the sort I'm perfect for. Since you chimed in, though, it just so happens that the bottom three now are things I've commented in, so I'm ineligible to close. ;) Have fun! By the way, I don't know whether I'm more drunk than I am fat, or more fat than I am drunk; but, I am both drunk and fat. I gotta drink on July 4 to reconcile America's great potential with its recent retarded record of mismanaged global mayhem. How hard is it to emigrate to Australia? Best wishes, ~~hoopydink~~... no, wait it's Xoloz 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC), I'm just in love with hoopydink's name because of the alcohol!~~~~ [reply]

Mate I would be happy to join you, however, in a toast to independance: To independance of spirit, and the willingness to speak out of the same.

brenneman ^{L} 04:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Re: Bury Nothing~~
I got rid of that warning because I have already contacted him (He is giving out [[Template:Test2a|Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ]] Warnings because he revealed what a censored word was when it said Not to reveal it. So he reverted it and gave anyone who reverted it back a test2a. °≈§→ Robomaeyhem: T/←§≈° 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I wasn't at all questioning the facts of it being an incorrect tag. Just that the best thuing to do is to simply put the paragraph above under the comment and leave it there. The talk help has a little section about it. - brenneman ^{L} 04:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~In response to your comment on my Talk page~~
~~Wow, dispute resolution! Who are you and what have you done with Zoe?~~
Hey! User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, I wasn't upset in the least. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Surf breaks AfD~~
~~AfD inuse?? Writing a novel? Hehe... can't wait. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Good decision. Very wise.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~stop it please~~
I am not spamming, leave the link. Theres nothing being sold there! Im making forums and a full hair loss support community. Its not hurting anything, and its not spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.130.19 (talk • contribs) .
~~FCS~~
I've replied to your edit on Talk:Federation of Conservative Students
JASpencer 08:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oh the shame...~~
~~This is someting I'll simply have to live with. I have good support: friends, family, drugs. I'll pull through, over time. --Coil00 00:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Ahh, see, I usually console myself frieds: chicken, potato, mars bar, etc. - brenneman ^{L} 00:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Frying mars bars is a bit, mmm. Dude frying crack up aint that far away from it, like. Esp if yer up trolling Tony Danza articles at 2.3am, (cough), like me. --Coil00 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~WP:WING~~
~~Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_Google™#Banner.~~
~~abuse~~
stop abusing your admin privileges. you are deleting and protecting pages without a forum for discussion. that is abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.167.24 (talk • contribs) .

~~STOP removing unsourced content~~
You seem to be overly convinced of your assumed righteousness. Just because a paragraph is unsourced doesn't mean you can immediately delete it. This is not your encyclopedia. There often exists a high probability that the content is verifiable upon doing a little research. If you want to help, why don't you find the citations or make it more encyclopedic? And you need to be consistent in your spelling - unsourced is not spelled unsrouced. I'll be watching you Brenneman. --Amit 20:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Aaron Brenneman, but please reread the verifiability policy. I'm not sure exactly what your particular issue is. If Aaron Brenneman gave reasonable notice, for example by marking items with the {{citation required}}, then there shouldn't be any issue.
The verifiability policy is quite specific: The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Nothing in the policy says that it is good enough for there to be "a high probability that the content is verifiable upon doing a little research." If "a little research" is all that is required, it's reasonable to ask that editors inserting the material do that little research before adding content, and certainly should be willing to do so once they've been asked to supply a reference. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're talking about the Speed dating article, and it does not appear that Aaron Brenneman gave any notice, but it shouldn't be a big deal. Add the sources and reinsert the items. I've done one of them to get the ball rolling. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the edit changes that I reviewed, Aaron Brenneman did not give any notice. It would be useful if he were to use the {{citation required}} tag rather than directly removing the unsourced sections. I believe it is also responsible behavior to initiate a discussion topic and place the relevant text there, before removing it from the article. This way there would still be some hope that someone in the future would cite sources. --Amit 00:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion, yes, I agree with you, Amit: it would have been more courteous of him to have tagged them, waited a while, and then moved the unsourced items to the Talk page. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the input.
I do, in fact, often use that approach. I also often move material to the talk page for discussion. I'm also known to actually add sources.

But experiance shows that the {{fact}} tag has very little effect, and if you'd like I'll provide a long list of talk page discussions I have with myself. The majority of the time my "I'm going to remove section foo" is answered only by crickets.

If someone is upset enough about a removal to mock my spelling, I can only know about that after the fact. I don't fully understand it, as no damage has been done to anyone or anything, and the wiki-linked phrase "Use verifiable sources for encyclopedia content" appears every time an edit window is opened. That doesn't diminish their affront, of course, however I only rarely intend to offend.

Amit, if you'll review my talk page you'll see that I attempt to answer every question or complaint with courtesy. I'd suggest that it is much easier for me to do so when I'm approached with courtesy.

brenneman ^{L} 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rep Beep~~
Hm, yeah, good point. We're talking about original research I suppose. Whilst I think my comments there were in substance correct, they were also rather acidicly made. Thanks for keeping an eye out. -Splash - tk 12:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hi Aaron~~
~~Someone lied, and said you smelled~~
~~Of poos, and wees, and craps.~~
~~You may be interested in~~
~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps.~~
~~Um, as you closed it last time. Not vote soliciting, mind. Proto///type 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
*lol* Oh my, that was so weak! I love it. There doesn't seem to be much discussion of verification going on in this, and my deep respect for HP doesn't mean I can't disagree with him. I'd strongly object to direct observation being used as a source, be it video games, movies, of the taste of apple pie. Once all unsourced material (like where people like to hide, etc) is removed, there will remain only very bare location description even if we let the primary sourcing issue slide. These really should all be trimmmed and merged, as they may be useful redirects. - brenneman ^{L} 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~AfD fodder~~
~~Have a look at the sources for the items on List of shopping malls in North Carolina - brenneman ^{L} 02:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Rocco Siffredi Image~~
~~Moved to Talk:Rocco Siffredi~~
~~Regarding WP:ANI/I~~
~~Thanks for your helpful advice, Aaron. Nice name, too. ;) --AaronS 01:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Stalking~~
<snip>
Regarding your comments on DRV: You're correct to some degree. I watch Tony Sidaway's edits very closely. While Tony calls this "obsession" I call it "monitoring a problem user with more than a handful of RfCs and RfArbs, who's proven remarkably resistant to community input." ^_^
With regards to "wiki-stalking" in a more general sense, the inventor of wiki (way before wikipedia) has said that the use of "recent changes" to track the edits of other users is one of the strongest points of the system. It means that oversight and transparency are trivially easy to maintain. I'll dig up the reference for that if you'd like.
This isn't to say that it can't be destructive and/or disruptive of course. But I encourage you to stalk me and if you think that I'm doing something wrong to let me know.
brenneman ^{L} 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
</snip>
I would consider just looking over user's edits as passive stalking, which would be pretty well harmless, depending of course on your motives. (In fact, if you are just looking at their previous edits to try getting a feel for their actions in general, that's not even stalking, that's acquainting yourself with their behaviour.)
My biggest complaint would be that filling the entire day's DRV with closures betrayed a rather unbalanced interest in the behaviour of the editor in question, and had a significant chance of starting an argument. It's not like Sidaway will be swayed from his rather, shall we say, "singular" administrative practices by people following him around and DRV'ing everything he does anyway. If early closure of AfD votes is disruptive, then mass DRV'ing isn't much better. Basically, as I commented there, I would think that leaving it to the editors of those articles to decide whether they think a DRV is appropriate would be the best course. --tjstrf 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can well see the logic of what you're saying. While I was looking for (and recieved) a general consensus of "err, bad form on some of those closes," I accept that A) It raised some stink and B) It may have little impact. I am frustrated by Tony's almost pathological indifferance to the input of others, and am rapidly running out of ways (short of ArbCom) to deal with the behavior of this problem user. Thanks for taking the time to reply, I'll consider your comments next time a situation like this occurs. - brenneman ^{L} 12:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More concisely and to make it less like I'm dodging - I'll try to not do it again. - brenneman ^{L} 00:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. It sounds like you were acting within good faith, and it didn't explode in our faces after all, so not much harm done. Also, I'm crossposting the left out portions of this conversation between our two talk pages for the sake of readability, hope you don't mind.--tjstrf 00:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Regarding the AFD on "Everywhere Girl"~~
~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everywhere Girl (2nd nomination)~~
Hello, Aaron. I just wanted to express my regret at your castigating the people that sorted the AFD votes into sections. I will admit that it appears to be a violation of standard policies, but personally I feel it was justified, given the effort by the Inquirer to try to rig the vote. Perhaps, even an effort to make it easier for the closing admininstrator to sift out the dross and figure out consensus. By any means, I think that in light of the subjects linking to the AFD vote, I would consider doing something like that an exceptional case in which unusual measures were appropriate to take. Now, while I'm here, I felt the need to express the sentiment that I'm sure a lot of the supporters felt on the article's deletion, but in rhyming couplets, if I may.
Aaron, you deleted our everywhere girl,

Hist'ry will revile you for the loss of our pearl.

A grumpy admin with itchy trigger-finger,

Too eager to be the deletion bat-swinger.
~~Oh, and by the way, I agree with your evaluation of consensus, your closing statement was otherwise pretty much spot-on. Happy editing. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Oy, nice one. ^_^ I must admit I had been watching this one to see which way it fell. I was trying to stress that it can be hurtful to the people "sorted" thus as opposed to shaking my finger at whomever did it. Some closers don't mind, but I still sort through the history and it makes it harder for me. Was I too school-marm-ish? *goes to look again* - brenneman ^{L} 13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Inquirer has just published an article in their website directly attacking me and Wikipedia, this would explain why my user page and my talk page is getting vandalized. [10] Dionyseus 13:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought I'd cop something for my troubles... - brenneman ^{L} 13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if gets bad enough that it needs s-protection just ask. - brenneman ^{L} 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Everywhere Girl is on DRV,~~
~~It is there for you to see.~~
And to comment on.

Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~What! No insult? You don't get into the curio case without an insult, you know. - brenneman ^{L} 14:17, 14 July 2006~~
Hmmm... okay, how about this:
Everywhere Girl is on DRV,
It is there for all to see
That you failed to follow the proper process
And instead, drank beer to excess.
When the review is done, and we've mocked your life,
Will you then stop beating your wife?
--Deathphoenix ʕ 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or this...
You silly big lumping hoser

You think you're such a good closer...

Would it get your nose out of joint

And further, violate WP:POINT,

To say I regret not being an RfA Opposer?

because, AfD wise, you're kind of a poser.
~~++Lar: t/c 14:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~External links on Bob Dylan~~
Hello there. I will be restoring most of the links you blew away on Bob Dylan. Dylan has a huge and active Internet presence and the majority of links you deleted are valuable sources that have been linked from Wikipedia since 2002. I'll wait a day or so to see if you've posted an objection at the Dylan Talk page before proceeding. JDG 14:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks for the heads up. - brenneman ^{L} 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~

@@ Line 581: / Line 581: @@
 --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
+Or this...
+:You silly big lumping hoser
+:You think you're such a good closer...
+:Would it get your nose out of joint
+:And further, violate [[WP:POINT]],
+:To say I regret not being an RfA Opposer?
+:because, AfD wise, you're kind of a poser.
+++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 14:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 == External links on Bob Dylan ==