User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/03

Insults in rhyming couplet will be kept and treasured forever.

Your name is allegedly Aaron Brenneman

But I think that's silly! Er, Amen.

Aaron Brenneman, he looks like an orange!

And it's not just that, he happens to be very borange!
Dmcdevit·t 09:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Poor Aaron wants desparately to rhyme,
'caus his name is not a dozen a dime.
But all attempts to construct
end up totally fucked
As the poet just runs out of time.

Do you want to keep limericks too? lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 07:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron edits on Wikipedia

And solicits rhymes to lessen tedia

His submitters state they comprehend

Couplets worse have not yet been penned.

Yet still the couplets keep coming

Tho' the efforts made are mind-numbing

He calls for insults, and yet

The target he offers is suspect

When he asks us him to insult

You see the sorry result.

The insulting couplets desired

In uneven metre are mired

If you want an insult in rhyme

You must give us a target sometime.

If insults scathing you want

More faults you will have to flaunt

As it is, for jibes you must ask

We just are not up to the task

In response to your posted request

I say, give it a rest!

KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cull I School merges, 20 Cent, tantrum
Cull II Snide, 666666, Bucko
Please leave new messages at the bottom. The right to ruthlessly refactor is preserved.

This is done.

The Magic Dudes[edit]

Your last comment and signature on The Magic Dudes VfD made me laugh really, really hard. Thanks. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 16:41 (UTC) Looks like their fans had the last laugh though... they are on TV again! And their web site is back up.

Darn, I blinked and missed it[edit]

It seems you went and placed a block
Two dozen seconds by the clock
I've never been blocked as being a vandal
And sometime wondered how I would handle
The pain and shame and humiliation
But, now, alas, the situation
Bears the most frustrating fruit:
Now I've been blocked, but never knew it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What happened there? An explanation:[edit]

The comments get fatter, not thinner,

For they remind us all of Snowspinner.

He, upon a time, offered the moteity

Of a thing called "semi-policy"

And argued, both loud and long,

That an insult would sound a gong

And straight 'way summon the guards

To remove it hence, and leave in shards

The discussion once found there.

Many complained and thicken'd the air

With laments, ruth, and some things worse,

For the matter made some of them curse!

Their words disappear'd from view, }

Which made them their oaths renew, }

And all was yellow and blackest bile too. }

And some who questioned then and some who now }

Might be supposed to have a Holy Cow }

Upon the field still grazing to lough }

When she the prod on her soft flanks has stuck

And to be missed most sorely when struck.

Geogre 14:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Aaron Brenneman, scared of ninjas,
Voted delete, which I found outringeous."

--Ashenai (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note[edit]

In regards to your edit at [1], I point out that the freedom of anonymous users to edit Wikipedia is a foundation issue, and that the mere fact of their anonymity is not sufficient grounds to revert - especially in the case of something that has been in a page for 18 months. Snowspinner 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. <fx: does waggy finger thing at Aaron while shaking head sorrowfully> --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there![edit]

Could you take a look at this, and see what you think? Thanks! Trollderella 19:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC) [[2]][reply]

A thanks[edit]

-- just because :-) --HappyCamper 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IgnoreAllRules[edit]

Hi! Would you be able to say anything about User:IgnoreAllRules? Thanks! - David Gerard 10:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know that your supreme power is unchecked my any sense of responsibilty. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be fair to say that you are aware of the identity of the IgnoreAllRules vandal? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, so do you know who it is or not? What "responsibility" would you be speaking of? Please answer the first question first - David Gerard 23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Mr. Gerard <bats eyelashes> is that an IP sniffer in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading the above might think you knew the identity of a vandal but were disingenuously concealing it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only people lacking in frankness here are you and David. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you can show everybody just how frank you are and tell us all what you know about the vandal. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 04:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problems[edit]

The problems are pretty obvious. The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy. To claim that it's been arrived at by consensus is to state a very palpable untruth. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, do please stop being unreasonable. You've twice falsely claimed that I should use the talk page or block you for 3RR. Since you've come nowhere near to breaking the 3RR, and I have no intention of doing so, and I have used the talk page whereas you have simply taunted me in edit summaries, it's becoming utterly surreal. I'll have another go at reformulating a policy-compatible version of the wording here. Do please try to discuss instead of edit warring/ --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please address my points, Aaron. Putting a redirect over my requests will not make them go away. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, stop playing silly buggers. I'm trying to reconcile the nonsense on the page header with Wikipedia policy. I have been posing many alternative suggestions to try to work out what it is that you object to in my formulation of Wikipedia policy, but until you stop blindly reverting we won't be able to get anything done. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's soooo easy to hide something when every edit is... hey, look over there! A link to all my contributions! Drat, my nefarious plan to keep my antics secret is foiled by those meddling kids! - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring[edit]

Thanks for that. I was beginning to think that all of Wikipedia had lost their wits and civilised discourse was a thing of the past.

Pete, not Poet

Are you using a sockpuppet account?[edit]

I am just curious if you are using a sockpuppet account? You don't have to answer of course and if I am causing you any distress by asking, or if you feel that I am in some sort of violation due to the bluntness of my question I apologize.--MONGO 03:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your socks. Uhh, I mean "talk" - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with the reasons under which the IP trace for evidence of sockpuppetry would only occur in dire circumstances. I was just curious about IgnoreAllRules as it seems he was targeting User:Tony Sidaway and I saw that you had reverted him several times. I noticed that IgnoreAllRules was vandalizing articles that Tony had edited.--MONGO 04:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most who know my editing know I tend to not be circumlocutory so would you say that User:IgnoreAllRules is your sockpuppet account? --MONGO 04:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to further badger, but I was noticing that you didn't make any edits from this account from 02:15, October 18, 2005 to 02:46, October 18, 2005. User:IgnoreAllRules made 11 edits in 3 minutes between 02:41, October 18, 2005 to 02:44, October 18, 2005. All eleven edits had as edit summary; "I'm Tony! I know best!!". In light of recent issues between you and Tony and other rather strange coincidences that can be elaborated further if need be, well, I really like people that are straight forward and honest. For the record, I log in from two locations, both in Nebraska (armpit of middle Earth). --MONGO 04:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I don't fault the use of sock accounts, and respect that since you use your real name, one may come in handier for you than it would for me, not that you do use one. A brief spree of obvious vandalism, I could forgive that...no big deal...I know you and Tony are at odds and if indeed you performed these vandalisms, well, they weren't that bad overall, and at least you and others quickly reverted them. Now in regards to someone tracking your IP...I don't have that capability but noticed the vandalism while on RC Patrol..the username IgnoreAllRules (redlined) struck me as a potential vandal, but I was overedited by another with a faster trigger doing the revert. I often rely on Occam's Razor due to nature of my real life job...the easiest explanation is usually the right one. Now as far as a breach of admin ethics regarding an unauthorized IP query...I am not familiar with that set of rules but not sure they matter as proof any more than my little time flow above described...I mean, even if the IP was the same, you could always say that your little brother was messing around while you were away for a few minutes. I know you have morte integrity than to want to hide, so, as you've requested, I'll butt out. Respectfully, I do not want to hound anyone.--MONGO 05:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony[edit]

Yeah - Tony's bugging the heck out of me too. I might be on wikibreak for a while but let me know if he gets up to his antics again and I'll help you out. Don't let him get to you either - he's just doing his usual. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note I'd take a break too if I were you just to relax a bit and let some steam out. Come at it with a fresh mind, perhaps :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFU header block[edit]

I have blocked both you and Tony for three hours for revert warring on this page. I realize this is mostly a matter of principle since both of you can unblock yourself, but I would ask both of you to please consider that revert warring is harmful no matter where or by whom. Please discuss on the talk page and seek consensus on the content of the VFU header. Yours, R adiant _>|< 11:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. Please see WP:ANI. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Aaron. I saw your note earlier in the day and am responding properly now. From what happened, and from what I see on Splash's page, I think you're currently under what has been called "wikistress". Wikipedia can be very callous, unfriendly, unfair, and sharp. The main reason it is so is because it is populated by humans. :)

It doesn't have to be though—or if it is, it doesn't have to affect you much. Don't let it. Realize this for what it is: an impressively imperfect project aimed at creating an impossible thing. It is, or can be seen as, noble, and I believe some day many years from now its descendent will be. We are the ephemeral, transitory, invisible, anonymous workers helping it toward that goal. When it is achieved we'll be long gone. It is altruism that keeps us here, now, while it is massively, almost unimaginably, imperfect. A little more imperfection, a few more silly edits, a bit of reverting here and warring there, someone being impossible—don't let it trouble you. If someone insists on a view that you believe is incorrect, by all means engage him and tell him why you think it should be done another way. Don't forget the other part of the bargain: listen to what he says. Try for a solution. If it is impossible, try to do the right thing (this can be hard). But whatever you do, if you find it includes feeling that it might be a good idea to vandalize a couple of pages, even if temporarily, even for a short while, it's likely best to take a break.

With the current disagreement, I believe most editors who have an interest in deletion policy on WP will agree with the version you're trying to keep on WP:DRV. That can be seen very simply—that version is theirs. Tony feels that it is invalid, for two reasons. The first is he believes "if in doubt don't delete" is a kind of "chief precept" of deletion policy that should be prominently placed in DR. The second is he believes DR should not be restricted to questions of what has come to be termed "process". This second issue is actually more complicated than it appears. I think we're all actually closer to agreement than most think we are, but it will need to be discussed with some care in the coming weeks/months.

The first issue is less complicated. One thing I'd like to say in Tony's defense is that he keeps being told that his addition of IIDDD to the template is inadvisable, but I don't recall anyone actually explaining (or attempting to explain) why (I may be wrong though. Has anyone?). It is true that the current version has wide acceptance among the editors who're actually involved with the running and working of DR. However, if someone says that something's not right with it because it conflicts with policy, that needs to be examined, whether or not most of us agree on the current version. I can post my view on this, later. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but perhaps with a discussion on the actual merits of IIDDD, we might find ourselves—all of us, Tony, Kappa, Splash, Rossami, an everyone else—coming to an agreeable solution.

You are an excellent editor, Aaron. Too valuable to loose. Please be happy and well. I'm going to be away for a while myself, so I will not be able to contribute to any ensuing discussion, but I'm sure everyone concerned will be able to decide something satisfactory. Regards enceph alon 20:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) NB. By the way, your note on my page suggests you might believe me to be a sysop. I'm not, Aaron. I've turned down 5 or 6 nom offers now, I think. I might go up for it in a couple of months, but I'm afraid I can't do any blocks for you at the moment. :)[reply]

Hey back[edit]

(Was just about to go to bed, forgive any thinkos and/or rambling) I don't know when I first encountered Tony, but it was months ago, and I think even before you did, just in the normal course of editing, and his talk page has been on my watchlist since. I've always respected his judgment, dedication, and helpfulness. Even after he restored one of my first, zealous, speedies. (As an aside, I don't know how it is possible for anyone to get on Radiant's bad side or vice versa, but it happened. Haven't talked much recently, but Radiant and I used to see each other a lot, indeed he nominated me for my adminship. He is one of the most open and reasonable people I know on WP.) I'm pretty sure I remember way back in the primordial depths of time when this thing between you and Tony started. It was about some VFD debate, likely a school, right? Then you encountered each other on VFD again and again, it spread to talk pages, and spread more. I'm not even sure when we met, Aaron, (though I just realized that silly note at the top of this page is from July), but I've had enough rational discussions with you, and seen you around as well, that I long ago came to the conclusion that I could trust and respect your judgment, dedication, and helpfulness. I think you (plural) are level-headed and reasonable, and I would point a needy editor to either of you. You (plural) can also be abrasive, stubborn, and, yes, coy. That happens, somehow, mostly only when you encounter each other, or the issues that spark this. My point is: why?

I must admit (don't know if I should be guilty about it, but I'm guilty about not knowing :) that your admission hasn't really changed my opinion of you (good judgment, dedicated, stubborn, etc.) in that I still have cmplete confidence that I would trust a decision by you, and that you still have that inborn WP hatred of all vandals. Not to compare them, but neither of Tony's RFC have changed my confidence in him either. I think, independent of each other and the general tussle, you are best. What have you gained from it, besides much undue stress and insanity? I'm sure it's been suggested before, but now would be the time to just drop it. It isn't anything that I think mediation, or another RFC, or even (Jimbo forbid) and RFAr could help. This doesn't mean you give in, or thatI think you two can become best wikifriends overnight. But how about if you refused to engage each other? Period (well, it was a question mark). I'm convinced that by now your banter does nothing but inflame each other. Watching this slowly spiral away has been painful for many I'm sure. I've seen both of you lose control in different ways and to different degrees. But if we all are to accept your apology as sincere (I certainly do) the least you could do is start over and give it a shot. Disputes between good-faith, trustworthy editors are worse that trolls and vandals: they divide the community, and create factions where none need to be. Don't ever forget how much good you can still do for this wonderful encyclopedia, but also try to think up how much more you could have done in that time you wasted thinking about Tony. Again, my point is: why? Not just why have this dispute, but why are we all here (including Tony)? Let that guide you.

(Oh yeah, and if you really want to make me happy, fix this :) Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination)[edit]

No, they just convinced me that the article merits inclusion. However, that said, I'd really like for some broader discussion about what is an acceptable source for comics. WP:COMIC is quite inadequate right now. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki log[edit]

Basically the transwiki process has become this kind of endless cycle that never gets completed. I wrote the instructions there, and hope they make some sense. An article is transwikied because, presumably, it doesn't belong here. The TL, as a record of transwikied articles, is a list of articles that need cleanup in some way. Just take any article and deal with it appropriately (merge, send to AFD) and strike it out when you are done (or upon resolution of AFD) or if it is encyclopedic enough now (some are old enough to have changed substantially). Any stricken entry can be archived whenever. If we take corn soup, I'd say find somewhere to redirect it or just take it to AFD as it was transwikied to Wikibooks Cookbook wikibooks:Cookbook:Corn_soup 2 months ago with out any changes since, and WP:NOT a how-to (recipe). Finally any resolved Wiktionary entries should have {{transwikied to Wiktionary}} replaced with {{Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished}}. (Very few of the archived ones do, but going back and fixing that is probably lower priority atm.) That's it in a nutshell, did it make sense? Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 05:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Your proposal to Tony Sidaway[edit]

Please explain to me why I should be ashamed of stating that Tony might benefit from opening himself up to some real community input? Clearly there is precedent.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal involved a breach of Wikipedia policy (admins are not permitted to stand for confirmation except in the rare case of being ordered to by the ArbCom, something which has only happened twice), and furthermore (if followed) would have extended conflict rather than reduced it. Wikipedia is not a dueling ground, and we do not need people exacerbating disputes through grandstanding. Fortunately, Scimitar and Tony, both being adults, were able to resolve their dispute and reach a position that was mutually acceptable to the both of them without having to go at it with swords and sticks in the middle of the public square -- something which you clearly would have desired. Your bloodthirstiness for Tony's sysop flag has been noted, and is that that of which you should be ashamed. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly happened by the page. I don't wish to condone everything said against Mr. Sidaway, but I see nothing wrong per se with a request that Mr. Sidaway stand for reconfirmation. Only the Arbcom could compel him to do so, of course, but asking him (in light of the recent controversy), seems perfectly reasonable to me. Of course, such request should be made politely. If there is a policy prohibiting voluntary reconfirmations, I'd like to know where it is, and I'd like to object to it. Anyone should be free to voluntarily re-stand. Xoloz 18:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Us delitonist vandals need to stick together. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Watching with eyes in the back of my head[edit]

You don't say. Lots of accounts, but I wonder how many people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC View[edit]

I think your argument is basically correct, and dispassionate. (I'm not sure if Mr. Sidaway's view is always binary -- he sees grey sometimes, but once he's certain, his grey becomes the perfect, only acceptable grey -- but the briefer way you've explained it is better for persuasion.) That said, I think it is highly likely that his response will be defensive, and it is also highly likely he will dismiss your view with a mention of the recent past events. Still, this is a good thing to have in the record. I'm also secretly hopeful that, whatever his defensive public face, he might privately take these criticisms to heart and work to improve.

In any case, if IAR isn't used sparingly, I expect tensions to accelerate, so I have hope that the problem will remain under control. Xoloz 06:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Veering[edit]

Yes, you're right. I'm sorry. I've been rather virulent in that DRV debate, haven't I? I just don't see a whisker of reason to restore the first article, and the second is only teenage spewage (imio). And Chalst has twice recently tried to tell when/where I should or shouldn't edit, and anyone who tries to so lecture me is likely to be reminded of the first two syllables of the website's name.

Anyway, yes, everything's ok (though RL is trying at present), and thanks for asking. I'll cool myself down. I just noticed the talk page for DRV. It fell off my watchlist in the move, and there's been loads going on. Annoying, but the outcome seems to be little change. I am concerned about the standing inconsistency between DRV and undel policy, though. The proposal changes the policy, after all, despite the protestations that such is somehow impossible. Perhaps today's frame-of-mind isn't the one with which I should make such a change, though. -Splash^talk 04:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I learnt a new word. I didn't know one could recidivise(?). Anyway, no I won't, but then I won't give experienced editors who exhibit such sorry misunderstandings an easy ride, either. The trouble with your RfA is that I don't think a single incident need be taken as evidence of calamitous judgement from a familiar editor. But then, it was quite a serious infraction. But then, you certainly wouldn't do that again. But then others did point out some other lapses. But then they (the opposers) have so many sour grapes they could make wine, and I didn't want to join them. And I don't feel neutral about your RfA. So I'm left being unable to vote at all. Which is complicated. I'll stab you in the back some other time, if you like. -Splash^talk 01:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

^^ That is a very good characterization of how I felt, too. Didn't know what to do, but I didn't want to say nothing at all. Dmcdevit·t 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Well, I'm glad to see you're back to your usual levelheaded self. As you probably noticed, you recently had me thinking that you already were an admin (and IIRC, David thought the same). I realize this may turn out controversial because of the recent events, but I believe that whenever I think someone is an admin and it turns out he isn't, he deserves to be nominated. So, would you accept it? Or would you prefer to wait awhile? R adiant _>|< 10:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See User:Aaron Brenneman/RFA. Please fill in the questions at your leisure, modify the closing time accordingly, and move it to a RFA subpage. R adiant _>|<

Aaron, I think you would be a good admin, but the timing of this RfA is awful. At any time, this would have brought out the worst type of partisan warfare in some. But two weeks after that incident, many of us who would otherwise have supported you will be unable to do so. I just opposed User:purplefeltangel for vandalism three months ago, it would be hipocrisy to support this now. This will fail, and some of your more partisan critics will enjoy it. Can I suggest that either now, or immediately the trend becomes obvious, you in good spirit withdraw this - humbly aknowledging that the community's trust has been damaged by the sockpuppetry. If you do, you will score some credibility points with others, and I for one will be happy to support you in a month or so. Then I suspect it may (and will deserve to) succeed.Doc (?) 14:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take the martyrdom too far. A graceful exit will clean your slate. Prolong too long and it will look like another example of you disrupting the system to make a point. I'm tempted to support your nom right now but then I'd be accused of making a point too LOL. Keep on asking the tough questions. Good job David D. (Talk) 17:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are some things that do need airing, so perhaps twenty-four hours? I do want to hear what people have to say. It's a shame that I appear to be so one-dimensionally defined, and a bit of a suprise. I expected a lot more of "oppose" good with policy and gentle with newbies, but recent rash actions were, well, rash." and a lot less of "oppose" no idea about civility." There really is only one person I can't seem to get along with... - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 17:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that the neutrals and even many opposes are 'later' votes. But really, don't push it. A graceful retreat, and another shot in 6-8 weeks. Meantime stay well away from Tony - neither of you ends up looking good.--Doc (?) 17:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hug[edit]

Hi, No hard feelings, friend. You've shown grace under pressure here, and I know you'll be given the due recognition once things settle down. We all know you could do better than the worst admins we have now, even if 99% of your brain were tied behind your back! ;) Best, Xoloz 03:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA, of course[edit]

You already have at least four sections about your RFA, so here's another one!

You have no idea how many other, less respected, names went through my head when I saw a section heading calling me a "Cheeky Monkey." I actually thought "Ugh. Who's going to be bitching at me now about a 3RR block?" (check out [3], [4]). This admin thing is actually sparing you a lot of trouble. :-) Really, community respect/trust is much more important than a few extra buttons. I would part with them easily if I didn't think I was doing the community some good by pressing them once in a while. Just keep cool. Really.In fact, I'd like to nominate you when the time's right.

About the TL, the truth is, I have no idea. The purpose of it right now is as a list of articles that need cleanup/deletion, as the fact that they were transwikied means they were improper. I think the word transwiki tends to scare people away for some reason, though. Basically, very few people have ever touched that page (and if the software upgrade hadn't broken my bot, it would be five times as big, at least). Take a look at the archives and you'll see some old resolved entries, almost entirely done by just me, by hand. If you take a bit out of that page, I might give you something special! (meaning a picture of something special, oooh...)

My talk page is always there for you, if you ever want an opinion on something, (or want to know what I think before saying something stupid :) I have to admit, sometimes you just make me laugh, and maybe that's why I like you. Remember that edit summary discussion on Splash's talk page...? [5] :-) Take care. Dmcdevit·t 03:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA withdrawal[edit]

I don't see any point in keeping the RFA, and I would prefer you withdraw it and start afresh after sometime. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Why should you do that? Is Nichalp worried that you might actually win? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hee. What would it take? Jimbo weighing in? He does owe me that favour after the Argentenian twins fiasco, but I was really saving that for something special... - brenneman ^(t)^(c)

Hi! I've removed your nomination. The problem is the pileon votes which will increase. RFA is the forum to ascertain the suitability of a candidate for adminship. For feedback, an RFC on yourself would be better. Having your nomination go on would be pointless IMHO, and unnecessarily increase the server load. Regards, PS I think the latter pronounciation would be fine. Nichalp is a combination of a few letters of my name, and surname. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. All right then. I must be honest and say that seems, well, overly officious. I'm aware that an RfC would be the place had I been seeking feedback, but here I was trying to elicit more of what had been forthcoming. As to the "pile on" I'm not sure how that's a problem, as if they had brought points that I could improve that hadn't been touched yet, that would be the point. Finally, server load... that leaves me gobsmacked. You've got a templated sig. I'm not fussed by the removal per se but, well, yeah. Gobsmacked. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the general consensus is that if an RFA receives oppose votes exceed the support votes by 10, then the RFA should be removed. (Its in the WP:RFA talk page archives, about a month back). Do you still find it officious? I know I'm guilty of templated signatures, but its a few bytes only as opposed to an rfa bid which is in tens of kbs. I was actually referring to the fact that the page was ~400kb. May I have the liberty of giving you a few tips for a sucessful nomination? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy that authorizes this action on an RFA that was not set to close until November 9? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem *blush* I did in fact mean RFA, not RFC ;-) This RFA was IMO put forward with possibly the worst imaginable timing. But that you answered objections in good grace does put you in good stead for next time, which will undoubtedly happen in whatever number of months - David Gerard 10:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, this got removed before I could vote yes. Is there no justice? · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They will think I am a fool or psycho-path,[edit]

Well, gee, why would somebody think that? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and context[edit]

I was interested to the recent comments by Hypocrite at Afd for Grove School

I would be happy to help. I assume the intention is to take a bunch of stubs from a geographic district, create an article "High Schools in x,x,x" and then replace the individual school articles with redirects - for example, where I live now: "High Schools in Brooklyn, New York, USA?" Can I suggest that notable schools with longer articles be shortened and included in stub-format in the list, with a link from their name to their main article? Suggest a starting location! Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My first experience with the school debate was with the Afd for Benjamin Cory Elementary School. You may remember that this discussion actually extended into the talk page. At about that time I started to experiment with essentially the redirect approach, as Hypocrite describes above. The first page I tried was based on a, then, recent Vfd for Charlotte HS. You can see my effort at Charlotte Public Schools. I was trying to create a template approach that could be used to see the hierarchy of the schools as well as make it relatively easy for people transfer the information to a new and better article if someone saw fit to expand one of the schools.

After the Afd for Bartlett High School I again tried this approach at the Elgin Area School District U46.

After the Afd for Chester_County_High_School I created the following Chester County School District article to allow the school article to have some real context.

And finally I experimented with a very long list of schools in hampshire after the Afd Court Moor School although I did not really complete the school district list to my satisfaction in that case.

Early on I was labeled as a deletionist by Silensor and Nicodemus75 but I do not count myself as one. I have always tried to be a constructive voice in this debate. I know these pages are not perfect but i saw them as an experimental compromise. The most important thing for these school articles is that they are not hanging in cyber space with no context. I think this was summed up well by yourself at the recent Afd for Grove School:

"That's my point, Kappa. Why spend so much time and energy defending these little bits of low-utility information instead of gathering them together into some coherent form?"

I'd be interested to hear comments. David D. (Talk) 07:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Wikiproject Inclusion[edit]

No worries. I speedy deleted it under WP:IAR on the basis that the result was absurd (patently non-NPOV project kept because no one knew the vote was on). With this in mind, I've put it up for an actually fair vote. Ambi 10:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL[edit]

The reason I use "a different construction" is because I'm only... ah, "half-black", whatever the hell that means. Going back three generations I am African-Anglo-Scots/Irish-Cherokee-Polish (ethnic Jew). If you saw me, you'd know I wasn't Caucasian, but you'd probably be undecided about the rest. When I typical Southerner see me, then I am black. :) This gives me a nuanced view of "race" (which I attest doesn't exist biologically, but certainly does sociologically.) Best, Xoloz 17:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures[edit]

Wow that was quite an explaination! I listened to your advice and have updated my preferences. Thanks! Will keep my end of the bargain too. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to comment on your future RFA chances? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input[edit]

I mean that sincerely. Some of your advice I will probably heed, however when it comes to Nicodemous, the only way he'll get any kind of olive branch from me is if he stops this hardline BS. I'm willing to compromise on the school issue, however I've not seen any indication he is at this time. And if an RFC is started against me it's started against me. From what I've seen of that process it's about as useful as the AFD School debates have been, (ie:nothing happens at all except more bickering with no ultimate conclusion one way or the other), so no worries on me keeping clear as I have no interest in that kind of garbage even if I am the topic.Gateman1997 18:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subliminal advertising?[edit]

[6]

</me is laughing> Did it work? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect[edit]

It seems it's still on WP:GD. SO, OK, my bad, I'll change that. Thanks for pointing it out. (For some reason I thought it wasn't possible - perhaps I was thinking about something like 'merge and delete' not being allowed under GFDL, or maybe I'm just too tired...) :) - ulayiti (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that makes you look like a completely unsalvageable wikiholic, don't you? :p - ulayiti (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA, etc.[edit]

As for my comments on your RfA, you must know that the timing was awful; I couldn't in good conscience support so soon after, and your interactions with Tony are not the high point of your Wikipedia career. I've looked in on the WP:WEB discussion and the ones you pointed out on your RfA. Could be better, but not too bad; I don't expect every prospective admin to be Mother Teresa, and you do have a talent for finding a contentious mess and jumping into it. I won't hold ancient history against you after some more time has passed if you continue to act reasonably in the future. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mugglecast[edit]

If you want to know about it's popularity or whatever, I have plenty of sources!

Mugglecast is a very popular podcast from Mugglenet.com,[7] which does have it's own Wiki page. Mugglenet gets millions of users a month, from hundreds of countries. It's been on Yahoo a few times, here are the links. [8][9] Also, it's been mentioned repeatedly by the CEO of iTunes, for example, it's in their newsletter this week. [10]

70,000 people are subscribed to Mugglecast on iTunes, and it has always been at LEAST in the top 60 podcasts, usually much higher though. The first month it was on iTunes, it was #1. On it's Frappr, which is a Google map where you can post shout outs and such, Mugglecast has almost 3000 different people: [11]

Also, on the official fanlisting, that just came out 2 days ago, there are already about 100 people and 525 different posts. Mugglecast is also hosting a big Barnes and Nobles Live Podcast in NYC, where it is estimated 700 fans alone will be there.

If you want more proof, I can find it, but I assure you, Mugglecast is VERY VERY popular. :) Please allow the entry. :/ ~Mamatha

Replied on your talk page. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self[edit]

Geek porn - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selected Users[edit]

May I ask what that section means on your user page? R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, alright then ;-) R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a rather shocking, yet interesting, explanation. Feel free to add me, it'd be good to have a guardian angel. I just found it strange to have 6 users on someone's user page with slashes inbetween them, and the link was to their contribs rather than their user page. And I knew you aren't friends with specifically at least one of them, so I knew it wasn't some wikifriends thing; yet all the users are recognizable admins, so I was really just curious. Cheers, R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So there' is where you hide the black book... interesting. I would have thought you had it here. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, one thing you haven't explained. Why do you have slashes between users? I can understand one pair, but not the other two. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diary[edit]

I disregarded all votes from anonymous users. After that action, the result of the debate was eight for deletion and two for inclusion. However, majority votes are not binding, according to What Wikipedia is not, and the deletion policy clearly states "when in doubt, don't delete", and I am in doubt about this article.

If you wish, you may ask another administrator what (s)he thinks about this article, and (s)he can act accordingly.

Denelson 83 07:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Fisker, the original nominator changed his/her mind about deleting the article, and for Naming Substituted Benzene Isomers, a redirect seemed more appropriate to me. Denelson 83 07:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let them know. Denelson 83 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, my original sense of doubt about deleting this article came from the sheer length of the debate. I'm not usually one to read through a long debate, because such a thing bores me quite a bit. I will stick to short deletion debates from here on out. Denelson 83 07:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, thanks for following up on this. I went offline after I posted, and when I returned you had reached a satisfactory conclusion with Denelson. Very kind of you. Regards encephalon 00:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerk[edit]

Hi Aaron. Don't take it too personally when somebody calls you a "jerk". It says a lot more about the name-caller than the name-callee. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, something to say[edit]

Since you're begging for it. As per [12], you're right - I DO think you are a "deletionist vandal" among other things. My earlier attempt to reconcile with you after your disgusting and inherently racist use of the term "nigger" in the context of saying "even they [them niggers] call each other that" was patently ignored [13] with no response on your page or on mine. My apologies on that occasion were not replied to, and my declaration that my use of the term "deletionist" is in no way intended as personal insult or attack went unanswered, and in fact you have since insisted on several occasions that my use of the term is a personal attack, including your removal of my comments including the term "deletionist" and even the phrase "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete" (which is just a statement of identification of behavior of certain editors and I am baffled at how that could be construed as a personal attack). Your ignoring of my attempt to mend the fence I see as typical of your behavior in general, which had included a block request against me for calling you a "deletionist". I see a continuation of this sort of nonsense in many of your actions including the most recent and shameful incident of your vandalism, motivated by your clear hatred for Tony and his positions.

Now the current debate where you pontificate from on high as some well-read and researched editor on the history of consensus on school articles, from a clearly partisan pro-deletion perspective. I respect the fact that you may have a different philosophical position than I do on schools. What I do not respect are many of your comments and tactics. I am frankly sick and tired of you constantly insisting that you aren't a partisan, that you don't favour the deletion of school stubs and "non-notable" school articles defacto, when you clearly are every bit as much a partisan as I am. The constant self-righteous, holier-than-thou approach to school debating is offensive in the extreme, particularly when it is peppered with false statements to buttress your position. If I went around, claiming there clear, majority consensus keep on ALL elementary schools, you (and others) would rightly call me on it and be outraged that I was fraudulently trying to convince people of falsehoods. If I came back and claimed, "Oh that's how it was months ago" you would in all likelihood be rightly suspicious of my claims considering my history of participation in the debate or at least suggest that I get my shit in order when making claims and make sure they are backed up by the evidence - using a couple of selective AfD results on the fly, obviously wouldn't cut it.

Based on the history of interaction, I am not sure how we can reconcile at this stage, because you don't respect anything I say, and I essentially consider you to be a bad faith contributor to many discussions on WP, admittedly backed by offense taken at your latently racist remark. (Just to be totally clear, it is not the word "NIGGER" that I am so offended by, it is the phrase "even they call each other that" stating by implication that "they" are the "niggers" in question). If you want to debate and even bandwagon for school deletion - fine. But I do not think false claims and the whole self-righteous act when it comes to AfD that "you are all partisans and I am not" is a bunch of condescending, insulting tripe that is intended to pander to certain elements of the WP community so your next go at adminship actually has something better than a snowball's chance in hell. To top it off, you make even more galling statements that "[Nicodemus] has done worse" than calling people jerks. When it is you who have insulted me (and others) with your disgusting use of a racial epithet while insisting "oh, but it was sarcasm" and "Oh I am not a racist". I'm sure you'll tell me next how you "even have some black friends" or some other nonsense.

As far as I'm concerned, the ball is in your court to do something more substantive than just offer a string of glib apologies everytime you do something offensive.--Nicodemus75 09:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar for you on your user page, Aaron, for creating WP:PAIN. Thank you for doing this! There's a horrible personal-attack culture around here (from some users) with admins often unwilling to do anything about it, perhaps in case they become the focus of the attacks too, so I'm hopeful your idea will make things easier for those on the receiving end. Feel free to move the barnstar anywhere you fancy. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's in storage right now while I find someplace nice to put it. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Once we've licked that, we begin to work on civility. Ok, we may have to start with me, but I can live with that." LOL!! You always make me laugh, Aaron. I could block you briefly pour encourager les autres, but I don't think I can give the same person a barnstar then block him within ten minutes. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vowel play?[edit]

Indeed. This site requires consonant vigilance by Men of Letters. (Appy polly loggies to Norm Crosby). Wahkeenah 14:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of apologies[edit]

You could append the following to your apology at top of page, paraphrasing an old joke: "And if I continue to feel guilty, I will repair the other sites I have vandalised." >:) Wahkeenah 14:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Tone down[edit]

Carlton,
Don't suppose I could get you to tone that down a little, could I? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tone down what, Arthur? --Calton | Talk 01:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hee. I really just meant to "special olympics" bit. Kurt's statements usually require no editorialising, they stand on their own. Hee, Arthur.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm assuming you mean "uncle arthur"... Wrong. Try again. Clue: what's my name?

2) I really just meant to "special olympics" bit And what was wrong with that? --Calton | Talk 01:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's too bad. If you'd have been calling me "Uncle Arthur" it would have been funnier. I don't want to sound like I've got my knickers in a twist over it, and while I understand what you're saying about Kurt, use of Special Olympics as a derogatory term is outside the pale. Perhaps I'm being over sensitive, but it just seemed a bit callous.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...use of Special Olympics as a derogatory term is outside the pale. Perhaps I'm being over sensitive... Yes, you are. If you don't understand a sentence, don't criticize it. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That reply was uncalled for. If I've misinterpreted that remark, than others might do the same. The phrase "Special Olympics of Data where every factoid is on equal footing with every other factoid, where my fountain pen is on par with, say, New York City" implies pretty strongly that the Special Olympics are in some way deficient. If I don't understand a remark, and try to engage you in some dialog about it, snapping that I "shouldn't criticize" means that the error could only be mine. I won't comment on this any further that to say that openness to input is generally considered a positive trait. Feel free to tell me how you feel on my talk page, but I'm moving on. I really didn't mean to offend you.
brenneman^(t)^(c) 01:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...openness to input is generally considered a positive trait Buckie, you didn't provide "input", you scolded me -- without explanation -- for using a phrase in a way that you misread, simply telling me "don't do that": getting anything resembling an actual explanation out of you was like pulling teeth with scissors, and that's not input as I would describe it. If you want to provide actual input, be my guest, but if you're unwilling or unable to do so, don't bother.
Ordinarily, I'm unsympathetic to writers who complain that they've been misunderstood, even myself, but in this case it's clear that you read the words "Special Olympics" and you ceased to see its context, metaphorical meaning, or anything else surrounding it. Your response was so knee-jerk you couldn't even get my name right, despite it being in my sig and in big letters at the top of my Talk Page.
If you don't want to offend, back up, at least minimally, what you're talking about; understand what you're talking about; and don't force people to play Twenty Questions in order to figure out what you're trying to say.
If there's any way phrasing is ambiguous I'll change it, but I stand by my usage of the term.
Calton | Talk 02:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I said I was moving on, but that last reply was just hilarious. I didn't get your name wrong despite it being in giant flashing letters at the top of your user page. I simply mashed an extra key when I typed it. And your complaint that I was obtuse I find tempered by the fact that rather than simply saying "and there is no R in my name" you choose to make an oblique comment that it took another 75 words for me to understand.
  I have in fact gone and read and re-read your comment several times since we started this strange little dance. I still think that it was poorly worded. I'm not sure how you would have liked me to phrase that, however I did not intend to "scold" you. If you could tell me what I should have said, that would be great.
  I do seem to have gotten you on the wrong side of the bed, and I hope that no lasting damage has been done. You have been pretty abrupt with me, though, and I'd hope that even if you disagree with everything else I've been saying you'll consider that.
  brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I simply mashed an extra key when I typed it. That's quite a strange keyboard you have. Is it French? Their keyboards are a little different from standard English keyboards, where the "a" and "l" keys are apart from the "r".

And your complaint that I was obtuse I find tempered by the fact that rather than simply saying "and there is no R in my name" you choose to make an oblique comment that it took another 75 words for me to understand. Oh good, you're halfway there. Did you consider why I took that approach? There's probably a fancy Latin term for that rhetorical technique, but I could say that the "medium was the message" or "lesson by example" and leave it at that.

...that last reply was just hilarious. What's equally hilarious is your assertion that the single sentence you provided, Don't suppose I could get you to tone that down a little, could I? is a) not content-free; and b) not patronizing.

Let's try a thought experiment: what would happen if you went to an article -- say George W. Bush, Israel, or Teletubbies -- slapped on an {{NPOV}} tag, then ran away without explanation. How far would that get you?

If you could tell me what I should have said, that would be great. Well, if you don't want to offend, back up, at least minimally, what you're talking about; understand what you're talking about; and don't force people to play Twenty Questions in order to figure out what you're trying to say. [See first point in current posting, above] If there's any way the phrasing is ambiguous I'll change it if you tell me how it's ambiguous, but I stand by my usage.

Wait, why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, I already wrote (almost all) that. So, which part did you miss, or which part was unclear? Did the bolding help clarify things? --Calton | Talk 05:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oookay... I'll be moving on to less cranky pastures now, thanks. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion logs[edit]

Oh, Aaron, poor Aaron.

If all you have to get you through the night is reading my deletion logs, I feel very sorry for you.

Take up a hobby.

How about Wikipedia?

Oh, wait, Wikipedia isn't a hobby, it's an obsession. :)

User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD Comment[edit]

Thanks for the tip on linking Alexa and Google news hits. Makes my VfD nominations more effective. Too bad there's no criteria as of yet on what makes a blog notable, though. Skrewler 05:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion IS vandalism, even by the "official" definition[edit]

Wikipedia:Vandalism states:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia (such as swearing, deleting letters to make inappropriate words, etc.)

That establishes three criteria that must be met for an act to be considered vandalism:

The act must be performed intentionally
The act must cause harm to the encyclopedia proper (as opposed to the community SURROUNDING the encyclopedia)
The act must be performed with malicious intent

Now, that deletion meets criterion no. 1 is indisputable, unless you want to argue that all listings on AfD are done with a gun to the head.

To see how deletion meets no. 2, one must realize that an encyclopedia, properly understood, is a repository of ALL human knowledge. WP:NOT may say otherwise, but WP:NOT is wrong and thus can be ignored. Thus, removal of knowledge from the encyclopedia directly causes harm to the encyclopedia by working against its proper aim of containing all human knowledge.

For criterion no. 3, one must look at Ayn Rand's proof of how all bad acts (and I showed, above, how deletion of an article on any bona fide subject in an encyclopedia is a bad act) are necessarily done with malicious intent. Unfortunately, her explicit proof is not available on the Internet and her non-fiction writings are not widely available in publicly-accessible libraries (and I don't expect you to buy a book from a bookstore just to see one argument) but the entire theme of her novel Atlas Shrugged centers around that precise fact.

Thus, as I have just shown, deletion is vandalism and may be properly called such. Kurt Weber 14:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well Aaron, now you know. Who can argue with that, or with Ayn Rant? --Doc ^ask? 16:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I keep telling my wife that our house, properly understood, is a repository of ALL the stuff I've ever bought. She doesn't agree. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Checkerboard_Nightmare[edit]

Could you please take a look at this? I think you have far more experience in these things than I do. This AfD discussion was going along fine with 4 rational, civil votes until the comic's author and User:Eric Burns put up blog posts about how "Wikipedia just put Checkerboard Nightmare up to votes for deletion ... who the fuck cares what wikipedia thinks?" Predictably, the AfD is now a mess of anonymous, unsigned, and vandalized votes as well as incivility and personal attacks. Someoen changed my nomination to "keep this beloved webcomic," there's posts in there about how I'm "blatantly lying" and "Clearly, whoever put this up for deletion doesn't understand even the most cursory elements of the artistic field he's trying to 'edit,'" somebody created Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Megatokyo to try to make a point, etc. I'm sure this isn't the first time bloggers have tried to disrupt Wikipedia by spamming AfD, so there has to be some policy or precedent for how to clean up this mess, isn't there? Dragonfiend 02:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You both really, really need to do better at assuming good faith, rather than (a) assuming bad faith (b) actively promoting assumption of bad faith - David Gerard 11:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm a bit curious why you seem to be so, well, forceful about the Checkerboard Nightmare deletion topic. I mean, sending messages to friends to join to reinforce your side, making little side comments in the number of posts additions, and putting a big orange notice box at the top. Heck, I was unsure you weren't an admin until I checked the admin listings page. Bobulus 07:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stink.inc[edit]

Aaron, thanks for the info. I've not deleted too much up to now; when I have they were usually speedys which were not in the "Articles for deletion" list. I've started doing more patrolling; I'll do better next time. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ianblair23's RfA[edit]

G'day Aaron,

I would like to thank you for supporting me in the end on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambtalk[edit]

D'oh - I was actively editing in, like, ten tabs when my computer conked out (it's a piece of shit that randomly shuts off on its own), and I couldn't quite remember all the stuff I was working on. Thanks for the fix. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There I am![edit]

A spot on your user page, I'm honored to be on your all-star team. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-( I feel left out. Or is it a good thing I'm not there? Dmcdevit·t 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now I find out I am on your hit list... wow. o.O Tito xd^(?!?) 06:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBabies[edit]

Thanks for your, erm, ... "kind" offer, but ... (need an excuse quick) ... I've left the gas on. (call that an excuse!?) Chris talk back 05:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide[edit]

Thanks! I love the template, btw - good work! Trollderella 01:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplex[edit]

Hey, no worries. The clean-up was certainly needed! But do you reckon a slight expansion to the "movie theater" dab would be worthwhile, such as adding "...with multiple screens" or something? Just in case anyone isn't familiar with the term - it'd give 'em an idea of what makes it different to a regular cinema. CLW 11:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Bloggers[edit]

I see you're refactoring the discussion on the talk page to correctly tally up the votes. I wonder, are you doing it to bring it to DRV? Tito xd^(?!?) 17:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NP....[edit]

My pleasure. And I generally approve of snark. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom[edit]

Arbitration has been requested in a matter involving you. Phil Sandifer 16:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Regarding_webcomics_deletion and your talk page.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that after looking at that RFAr, I think it looks very weak. I think that that AFD nominations should have gotten to the point of being viscious disruptive before it is worthy of being ArbCom food (this one for example). If the ArbCom votes to accept this, I will be following the case closely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al-islam.org[edit]

At the AfD for the above, you wrote:

 Two bob each way, one of whom is the article's creator.

This is very minor, but what exactly did you mean by that? I'm not sure if "bob" is a verb here... Turnstep 18:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, colloquialism. "Two bob" means both two shillings and is Cockney for shit, and "each way" is a reference to gambling, for example placing a bet on two horses if you're not willing to commit. Thus "Two bob each way" means "not enough on either side to make a difference"! (This turned to "no consensus" in the end, but I'm happy with a no consensus that has more than two bob each way.)
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, betting "each way" is taking on both a win and a place (top 2/3, sometimes 4 in large fields). If the horse comes in first, both "ways" pay out. Chris talk back 00:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just know that there is no better way to suck up to me than a pedantic correction!
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right, Mr. "Have my babies". :-) Chris talk back 00:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CSD talk[edit]

Can you chime in over at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? I still don't get what's supposedly wrong with the CSD, but I think you can provide some insight, as you did yesterday. Thanks!--Sean|Bla ck 22:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Aaron. It looks like Radiant! has done something to please the people who think that they're was a problem (not that I can understand what the problem was in the first place, but this seems like a good compromise).--Sean|Bla ck 23:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yes. Like I said, I still don't get what the problem is (Something about people not following the rules, but there are too many rules? Whatever.), but I hope this makes them happy. I'll let you know if there's more complaints.--Sean|Bla ck 00:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

Are there two many rules, or are they applied badly? How about changing that? Why not add your statement to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements? —preceding unsigned comment by Simon Chartres (talk • contribs)

LOL![edit]

Thanks for the chuckle. I didn't know what to think about that header! :)

As for new pages patrol, I am staying well away. People are putting more effort into complaining about deleted single sentences than they are in making real articles, or so it seems. We persist. Anyway, thanks again. - Lucky 6.9 19:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation/rant. If people patrolling Afd for one sentence delete spent that same time writing new artciles.....imagine the concept. Rather than saving junk they could add what they believe is most important. We all know they think everything is important but they must acknowledge that some holes are bigger than others.

The same goes for Rfc, and POV pushing. Both are an almost complete waste of time, yet many many users seem to spend their whole time pursuing these futile tasks. Why would one do this? David D. (Talk) 19:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my last rant was not aimed at anyone imparticular. i just needed to get it off my chest. David D. (Talk) 19:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers and Kittens[edit]

Thank you for the flowers and kittens for When I Am King. It also made me laugh that you 1) gave me flowers and kittens before 2) you got grossed out that I was a girl! Thanks for injecting some humor into an otherwise mostly unpleasant situation. -- Dragonfiend 20:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian hip hop ext links[edit]

Did you read my response on the Talk page?

I think you are seriously over-appling policy in this case. There is a proposal to change 'External links' to 'Further reading', see here. Perhaps that would make it clearer that links like Stealth magazine are appropriate in examples like these.

cheers, pfctdayelise 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- You had divided the votes into three categories[edit]

(I don't know why that kind of thing belongs on the talk page, but that's what you did.)

Anyway, a couple of the votes were miscategorized, so I put them in the proper groups. Me, personally, I think we should leave the whole discussion page blank. BrandonYusufToropov 15:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the content on the talk page should replace the main vote page. It is more organized. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. As long as we don't delete any discussion. I see what you're doing now, Aaron. Just didn't get it at first. Ignore me. :) BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! No, we can't change the main page, everything there should be left alone... that way if I go nuts and start putting things in wrong, it's easy to compare. The main AfD page is sancrosect. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just to be clear - never do this WHILE discussion is ongoing. It makes people think less about what they are going to say and more about which box they are going to fall into. This shouldn't be a vote, and anything that makes it more like one is a bad thing. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and agreed, but note discussion is still going on and people are still (as in within the last five or ten minutes) casting votes. BrandonYusufToropov 15:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had thought that I would take advantage of a time-zone difference, but oh well... - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Aaron, you could put the message "More organized voting on talk page" on the main page. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, BIG mistake on my part. The discussion's natural life span had not yet ended. I've removed the whole thing. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Honest mistake. Also: Please note that, at the beginning of this discussion, I really did not realize your work was related to closing the discussion.

Hey -- why should the wrapup be easy, when everything else about this thing has felt like having one leg bolted to a third rail. The whole ^&*()-*$# fiasco is beginning to feel like WP's little Apollo 13 to me. BrandonYusufToropov 15:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But you can probably do it after the voting has ended and before the votes are counted. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

Lifeisunfair,
I'd suggest that your comments to me at WP:DRV were patronising at best. Despite my personal disregard for blogs in general, an examination of the argument shows that the "keep" side made no case: No links demonstrating mentions in media, no statements in parliment about Bloggin Toires, etc etc. Had they done so, I'd happily have seen this article kept. These aren't meant to be me-too pile-ons, they are meant to be debates. That I have a different view than you is no reason to malign my character.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd suggest that your comments to me at WP:DRV were patronising at best."

The advice in question was written without condescension. (I even included the word "respectfully," purely as a means of conveying the fact that no disrespect was intended.) I'm sorry that you viewed it as some sort of insult.

"Despite my personal disregard for blogs in general, an examination of the argument shows that the "keep" side made no case: No links demonstrating mentions in media, no statements in parliment about Bloggin Toires, etc etc. Had they done so, I'd happily have seen this article kept. These aren't meant to be me-too pile-ons, they are meant to be debates."

Suffice it to say, I disagree with your assessment, as do most of the WP:DRV voters (including "delete" voters from the AfD debate). I'm not suggesting that you change your mind, but merely that you accept the outcome and move on (instead of harping on how wrong all of us are).

I cited an example of a recent situation in which I found myself in a similar position. I still disagree with the TfD consensus, but I realize that my opinion is in the vast minority (and therefore must be overridden). Yes, this is frustrating, but such is life.

"That I have a different view than you is no reason to malign my character."

Ditto. —Lifeisunfair 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. I still feel that your comments came across as condescending, and that the "respectfully" was about as useful as "Don't be mad when I say this", but I am totally undone by the artful way thay you nested the bullet points with colour. Bah. I'll go do something useful now. - brenneman ^(t)^(c)
Oh! Almost forgot - I'll take "Ditto" to mean that you feel like I've insulted you back, so I'm sorry. Not my intent. Handshakes all around, etc. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Querulous redirects[edit]

It's not a good thing and doesn't look like a good thing to redirect the talk page of a wikiproject started by someone you're in an Arbitration conflict with to the talk page of an unconnected wikiproject. Please don't do this - David Gerard 00:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does it look worse for him to delete the page rather than simply undoing to re-direct? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT - David Gerard 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think he's actually disrupting wikipedia just to prove a point.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant you. Don't be disruptive for the sake of it - David Gerard 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

WP:WEB[edit]

I can see why it is better to have all the discussion about all websites at WP:WEB. On the other hand, blogs are a subset of websites that probably warrant some attention of their own. They could be handled at Talk:WEB (sic) adequately, but there's already a whole load of concurrency there as it is. So maybe somewhere of its own, with a prominent link from both the project page of WP:WEB and its talk page (Snowspinner already put one on talk, I think) is enough? If that causes the discussion on blogs to go nowhere, it can be brought back to WP:WEB. I see what you mean about Balkanization, though. I don't think there was any need to for Snowspinner or Gerard to delete the redirected page, though, a redirect is easily reverted. -Splash^talk 01:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aw[edit]

I didn't know you cared. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does, indeed, rock the party. BTW, maybe you should start Stalker fetish? · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What have you done to AICW?[edit]

The redirect you did to AICW has completely vandalised the page and I do not think you understand anything about the subject matter. You have redirected AICW to Metal Storm for no apparent reason, further AICW is not the property of Metal Storm but DSTO. Can you please explain what you are doing here? --Never29 08:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Never,
As this relates to an article, I've responded at Talk:Advanced Individual Combat Weapon.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Texture's Shoe[edit]

Well, I remembered that someone had made that joke, but I had made a mental note to myself that the first time I found something that it would fit, I would actually create a subpage in my user space to link to that. Unfortunately, it came before I had the time to actually write User:Titoxd/Texture's Shoe Theorem... Tito xd^(?!?) 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeballs[edit]

Well, just getting the note from you was nice in itself, so thank you. ;-) If you have any extra energy, you could look in on Talk:Animal rights. FuelWagon has been at it again, so the page is protected, but some other editors have weighed in now, so a proper discussion is taking place. Basically, the issue is whether the intro is POV, and if so, how it can be improved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you like. I've just archived a bunch, but if you can be bothered to summarize what's left, that would be helpful, though perhaps leave the most recent comments from the RfC? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare?[edit]

A voice that cries and wings that fiercely beat,
Another summer night you'll someday fly,
A dwindling world below your weary feet,
You cannot hope to know until you try,

Bright feathers grow, your fledgling wings spread fast,
You soar above red sand and blue-white ice,
Bright feathers grow, your fledgling wings spread fast,
You soar above red sand and blue-white ice,

Rise from your bed, worn body, and frayed skin,
Steel nights of silent pain; bronze days of rage,
Now leave behind a life that's closing in,
Fly far from death in evil wars they wage,

Fly free of summer's burn and winter's bite,
Someday In a blue heaven you'll alight.

R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under the table deletion attempts[edit]

Yes, the poll's been up about an hour... Also, I'm not the only one. The community rejected this already, it isn't as if I am opposing something that has support outside of the usual suspects who, I am sure, would love everyone who opposes them to go an do something else while they write in all the things the community didn't want back into policy. Trollderella 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollderalla[edit]

My reasoning behind this was that Trollderella was the one who was reported on AN/3RR so Trollderella was the one I looked at in terms of diffs and contribs. I was planning on warning however due to Trollderella's responses to being warned on his talk page I decidede a block was appropriate to enforce A) a cooling off period and B) to stop the edit warring on a policy page (edit warring on policy pages is a fairly serious issue as far as I'm concerned due to the fact that these pages are cited and used all over the project. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent any confusion I also posted a clarification on User talk:Trollderella Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I have presented some evidence in your defence. I think that your taggings of votes at this AFD debate were entirely within good editorial conduct of AFD, and not something which you should be reprimanded for. I have also suggested that the ArbCom consider the policy on meatpuppets relevant to this case. Personally, I think the ArbCom should have rejected this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. I would have provided the same diffs, you just saved me a heap of time. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please discontinue your involvement outside of the article namespace[edit]

I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rl[edit]

Why you meanie! You bit a greenie.
Worse than that, you're big and fat!
he was right, you were quite wrong
Were you there, smoking a bong?

Why you slime! You did say insults must rhyme!

Okay, done with the insults already. :-P I couldn't resist the opportunity :-)

What I'm actually quite curious about is why did you post your particular opinion on that requests for adminship, way back when? And are you still of the same opinion?

Kim Bruning 06:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suprised indeed by the content of your couplet, I'd thought that those aspects of my personality were well hidden!
I wasn't impressed with the apparent coyness of the responses. True, 100% indicates everyone agrees and anything less is simply "rough", but I'm not going to place my bet blindly. If RI had (for example) said "here's a linked decision, and here's what I would have decided" then I would have had something to go on.
I generally vote "oppose" in any instance where I'm unsure. I recently did otherwise, and found upon closer conversation that the person was clearly not ready to be an administrator. Seeing as how it's effectivly impossible to dead-min someone, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.
However, I'm way more worried about attacks upon people based upon their votes, especially when those attacks are, in effect, telling them to either "shut up or go away entirely."

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need Your Opinion[edit]

Hey Aaron, thanks for your input on Mindspillage's talk page(I think you and her are probably tied now among the arbitrators i've respected the most among this nonsense), and I was wondering if I could get your opinion in regards to his comment here. I assume by this point, nobody really listens to him at WP:AN or any other associated board anymore, so I was wondering if it's even worth adding to his rfar by now consdering the over hundred and fifty or so pieces of evidence against him in regards to such behavior. karmafist 08:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, i'll try to add an insulting rhyme for your collection later. I have to check in on Ward Churchill. The arbcom seems to have far too many slaps on the wrist. karmafist 08:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the others could have said what you just said on my talk page when this all began. They did to some extent recently, but your insight there was fantastic. Please accept my pet bear in gratitude, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to keep the peace around here. karmafist 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't think of an insulting poem, but I was wondering if you could help me with expanding the injunction, POTW is still harrassing me, he's put in abusive comments on my talk page archives twice in the past hour [15] [16]. He's already restricted from editing in the rest of my user space, but apparently that's not enough. karmafist 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a lie and a personal attack, contrary to Wikipedia policy, and should be removed by a neutral third party, ASAP (please feel free to remove this at the same time). Andy Mabbett 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy[edit]

My apologies: I did, indeed, forget to close the speedy. - DavidWBrooks 14:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While we're being snippy, then[edit]

You also don't get to simply decide it's time to cruft up the deletion policy and weaken a section that you have already tried to delete with a misleading edit summary once before ([17]). Phil Sandifer 02:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responed on user's talk page. I really do have do develop some system for managing these split discussions.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seriously suggesting that, after a paragraph has sat in place for over a year and a half, it is appropriate to remove it on the grounds that it was added by an anonymous contributor, especially since the right of anonymous contributors to edit is a foundation issue, are you? Phil Sandifer 02:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that? Must have quit taking my meds, I don't remember saying that. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then one wonders what the point of that edit summary was - why point out its anonymous addition, which seems beside the point? Phil Sandifer 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting the cart before the horse. This is either a failure to understand the logical implications of what you're saying, or a bad-faith attempt to throw some mud and hope it will stick. I'll presume it's the former. The fact that was added by an anonymous user is not "beside the point", but it does not then follow that I support the whole-sale blanking of anything ever put in my any anonymous user anywhere. It is relevent when we're discussing an egregiously mis-used pithy phrase that distorts the entire intent of deletion policy. This user's other contributions weren't edifying, they couldn't be queried as to exactly what they intended, etc. There was nothing "misleading" about my edit summary, another phrase of yours that a less charitable person could interpret as mud-slinging. I'll again presume that you were simply confused.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you weighed the fact of its anonymous contribution over the fact that the phrase sat without objection for a year and a half? Phil Sandifer 02:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the talk page, other than to place comments on it? There is extensive discussion there regarding my opposition to IIDDD's inclusion. At some stage I begin to hope that you're misunderstanding me on purpose, because the alternative is simply so depressing. Then again, you seem to be able to type english-like words, and claim to have PhD, so perhaps your myopia is limited to things that relate to me. It appears that any attempts to actually comunicate with you are pointless. If you wonder why I think that, please review your talk page where I have on several occasions tried to enter into some meaningful talk with you, to no avail. If you'd like to continue to crow about the fact that I pointed out that it was contributed one occasion by an anonymous user, please do so. I'll interject your contributions to my talk page with limericks, which will be more amusing and probably just as effective. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...[edit]

why you did this? My opinion is that archiving to subpages duplicates data, and disk space is cheap but not free, but I'm always happy to hear other opinions. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons: actual archives are easier to link to; unlike links to history, they get indexed by Google, making it easier to find vaguely-remembered discussions; and looking at real pages taxes the server a lot less than looking at an old version, especially if there are many intervening revisions. —Cryptic (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

Your comment: "Use the talk page" doesn't mean "leave a notice that you've blindly reverted to your version" seems unnecessarily harsh to me. Surely my detailed explanation of my reasoning does not count as leaving a notice that I've blindly reverted to my version. Indeed as I explained, Cryptic has evidently missed the point. Speedy deletion is always something that we should be prepared to reverse; it's always subject to challenge, and a good faith claim of authorship should be enough to justify undeletion in this case. We shouldn't engage in pointless alienation of new editors when we have a perfectly good mechanism for dealing with suspected copyright infringements.

In the circumstances, it would be difficult to characterize my edit as a "blind revert." Indeed you may have noticed that, unlike Cryptic, I did use the talk page to explain my edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing your concerns to my talk page, Tony. I may have been harsh, I can admit that. It's just that we've played this game out so many times before, I sometimes tend to skip to the end.

Here's the sequence of events, with a little bit of commentary. I've put them top-to-bottom, I can't keep the "normal" way straight in my head. Sorry.

07:39, 4 December 2005 Tony Sidaway # (→Articles - If the deleting admnistrator is subsequently notified of an error, the article should of course be immediately undeleted.)
This was a perfectly good edit. I happen to think that it's wrong-headed, but last I checked that wasn't the standard, more the pity. Nothing on talk page, but so what, you try it on and see what happens.
09:26, 4 December 2005 Cryptic (Rv. Absolutely not. We don't undelete copyvio pages because someone makes an unsubstantiated claim of permission.)
Ok, Cryptic hates it. He does a full revert without then using the talk page. Bad Cryptic, bad!
23:00, 4 December 2005 Tony Sidaway (If there is a claim of permission, then there is a dispute, which should be resolved. If in doubt, don't delete.)
Here's the problem: You just roll him right back. Full revert, wham bam thank you mam. That's a revert war, Tony, no matter how you look at it. No amount of "But he was wrong" can change that. At this point you had an obligation to let the wrong version stand and go to the talk page.
(TALK) 23:09, 4 December 2005 Tony Sidaway (→Copyright)
You do use the talk page, something Cryptic did not do. But you'd already rolled back his changes.
23:11, 4 December 2005 Aaron Brenneman (if there is a dispute, don't just blindly revert - uset the talk page. No biscuit!)
Well, no biscuit for me, either. I also should have let the wrong version stand and, uset [sic] the talk page.
(TALK) 23:13, 4 December 2005 Aaron Brenneman (→Copyright - I've put cryptic's version back until there is further discussion.)
I do uset the talk page, something Cryptic did not do. But I'd already rolled back his changes.

This is a lot like the VFU header scuffle, and somewhat like the Deletion policy dust up. You insist on your version being on the main page while discussion goes on, I insist on editing it. You think I'm trying to be sneaky, I think you're just being stubborn.

I'm vaguely aware of the existance of "voting pairs", where junior senators agree to cancel each other's votes out in return for alcohol and hookers or somesuch. Surely we can work something similar out? I edit something in a way that appears designed to inflame your unnatural lust for inclusion, you pop up and yell "PAX" and I have to leave the main page alone for twelve hours or something. I'm happy to hear any suggestion short of "Please discontinue your involvement outside of the article namespace" because, really, it's no fun for me.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course I could yell "PAX", too. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Extreme Redemption[edit]

It's ok, we all have bad days every now and then, especially us Rageaholics (personally, I can't get enough of that Rageahol). Lemme see what happened on Deletion Review, I wish ESPN would put an extreme sport on regarding remdemption of the human soul, but that's kind of hard to put a camera to I suppose. karmafist 23:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha[edit]

Thank you for your explanation. I moved Alpha (disambiguation) back to its original name, as per your reasoning. However if you discover such mistakes in future you are welcome to correct it yourself and provide me a notice - but I still appreciate your courtesy. As for the disambig notice at the top of Alpha (letter), another editor already has corrected a few days ago, but I take your explanation as a useful future reference. No, you are not snappy at all! Thank you for your civility and hard work. Keep the good work. --BorgQueen 06:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the disambig notice thing is that, another editor before me had put it in the form of "See Alpha" so I had made it disambig notice, for the sake of layout. In other words, I merely tried to make it look better, but it wasn't my idea. Thanks. --BorgQueen 06:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Webcomics[edit]

I agree with you, we cannot just take the word of an expert or authority on deletion debates. They are not exempt from providing sources or evidence of notability when asked to do so.

Most people who visit AFD value the opinions of experts, and so even if they are new to Wikipedia, they will usually be able to influence the debate as happened on the second Able and Baker AFD. However, in the end, if the expert only brought a lousy reason to keep (e.g. "Keep, I am an expert and this is notable"), their vote will not carry any more weight than any other one else. It is the responsibility of the expert to provide good enough arguments to prove that something should be kept, and if the community rejects their advice it has been rejected. The most valuable contribution an expert can come with is references. On this AFD debate, I was at first quite unsure what to vote. But then Gustavus, who wrote the article and who obviously is quite knowledgable in the field of old British politics, provided the references I needed to be able to trust his judgment and vote "keep". There is a big difference between that and just asserting expertise. An expert needs to command respect, rather than demand it.

There would be nothing preventing me from writing an article on myself. I could easily provide references that I have finished second in the B-group of a Grand Prix tournament [18], won a junior chess tournament [19], and that I am the 1453rd strongest chess player in Norway. I could declare that since I have written a large number of chess articles, I must be an expert on the field (tsk tsk Elo rating 1212 is a class 4 player, the second lowest class, in Norway, so please don't tell anyone...) and that an article on myself must therefore be encyclopedic. It would be utterly ridiculous if the community accepted that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Girafa[edit]

When I speedied it, it was a copy of Thumbshot. It's been recreated with different contents as an advertisement - I'll check for copyvio. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. FreplySpang (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No clear copyvio - I've AfD'd it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girafa 2. FreplySpang (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy[edit]

It looks like things solved themselves there, Tony and me have had scrapes too, but ultimately, I think he's acting in good faith, even at times when he bugs me to no end. You've given me some hope with this arbcom nonsense, so keep on keeping on -- we need you. Please feel free to come over to my talk page any time you feel like you're going to insert your foot in your mouth (A feeling I know all too well.) I'll try to help you avoid the impending insertion karmafist 22:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Three right feet.jpg

Warning! Do Not Insert Into Mouth!

Oh, almost forgot[edit]

I cannot think of an insult
Alas, I regrettably meant to
I might as well stop
Oh, wait, I forgot!
With these poems, Aaron's quite mental
karmafist 22:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was awful! ^_^
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron's page is a literally spot
Where poems that are good and are not
end up taking up space
without making a case
to show their not a pile of old rot.

For while limericks are all very well
some of the rhymes went quite to hell
with neither rhythm or pace
Its quite a disgrace
But some at least are clear as a bell.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete / Merge of articles[edit]

Hi. I saw your comment on the Lighthouse (chat site) article that I asked to be deleted, as the sole contributor, and it thus fulfilled the criteria for speedy deletion.

I am now in the process of merging all of the articles about individual talkers in to the main talker article (which I may then reduce in size later), and have mostly done it as the vast majority of the articles I was the sole contributor. I speedy deleted Lighthouse (chat site), Crossroads (chat site) and Ncohafmuta on the basis of not being suitably notable, and merged the remainder - Surfers (talker), Resort (talker), Foothills (talker), Lintilla (talker), Fantasia's multiple worlds, Sleepy's multiple worlds, Cat Chat (talker) and Cheesehouse (talker) all in to the main talker article.

But I have some problems, and I would appreciate your help.

I would like to speedy delete Crystal Palace (chat site), as I was the sole contributor until about 4 days ago, when a bunch of anons started vandalising it. I put it up for AFD, and the anons then all voted to keep it. What is the process there? AFAIK it fulfils the criteria for speedy deletion. Its clearly not suitably notable for its own article per Wikipedia guidelines, not having 5,000 regular users etc, not being mentioned in the media, not affecting anything else, not being the first of anything, and so forth. Its only claim to notoriety are the controversies associated with it, which, in retrospect, is not a good reason to make an article. Whilst I have mentioned the controversies in the talker article, I didn't explicitly refer to the talker (i.e. I didn't give their name), primarily because some people viewed that as an "attack", and there were views that no matter how factually and unbiased it was presented, it was nonetheless never going to be neutral. Given that its not referenced anywhere, I don't see the point in merging it. Given that all of the others have been merged, I can't see how it can justify being the only one that has its own article. Therefore, it should be deleted. I just don't see why it can't be speedied though, as it meets the criteria.

I have already merged all useful content from Planes of Existence (talker) in to talker, and I was the only contributor to that article until 4 days ago, and remain the only contributor other than vandals. It was nominated for deletion to prove a point. I would like the page to simply redirect to Talker, and I believe that as the only real contributor, I can do that.

I didn't create the UNaXcess page, so don't have authority to merge it. UNaXcess is the first ever talker, albeit it didn't connect to the internet (the first internet talker was Cat Chat). Again, for consistency, I would like for it to be merged. I have already merged all useful content in to talker and would like the page to be a simple REDIRECT.

Now, based on the rules for inclusion, several of these articles are suitably notable in their own right - indeed most of them, other than CP, Sleepy's, Fantasia's and the ones that I speedied. I guess Cheesehouse might not be, as it wasn't the first of anything, but it was still sort of the first, since it was basically an extension of Cat Chat (opened on the same port, opened the day that cat chat closed, etc).

I personally don't mind either way if these articles should exist individually or as merged, but the general consensus seems to be that the talker community really only existed for about 5 years, had minimal impact and wasn't all that popular. It was really just an alternative to the more popular IRC. Hence I'd like them to be merged.

There are also the issues of these people who have come to Wikipedia to launch personal attacks on me and disrupt Wikipedia, but that's another issue, which I have raised elsewhere.

Anyway, would you be able to help with the merge process? Thanks. Also, can you look at talker and see what tips you'd like to give? I gather that it probably should be shorter, however, since the MUD article also includes 46 separate articles about individual MUDs, I personally think that the length is okay. What do you think? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Thanks for the welcome back![edit]

I know what you mean :)... what prompted me to return was that I'm still using the 'pedia. While I use it, I'll help it. And thanks to you, buddy, for coming by and welcoming me back. You always crack me up--you're one of WP's humorous highlights. Take it easy, now. Cheers, Blackcap (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greeneyes[edit]

Now I notice your delete vote; you forgot to bold it so I kept missing it when I went through. I only saw your response to others. You might want to fix that. As for which is it (no special knowledge or saying the spirit supports inclusion), it is my opinion the spirit of the law indicates the article should be included. This doesn't mean that's the only way it can be interpreted (i.e. my opinion isn't better than another's). You seem to have insinuated that I was putting my opinion above others, which I wasn't. I was stating my opinion so others could understand what I thought. That is, after all, what you're supposed to do with an AfD: state your opinion clearly.

If you thought the "set a trend" criteria didn't apply, you should have stated that rather than launching an inappropriate rhetorical manuver to try and undermine my views in the eyes of others by citing irrelevant events (i.e. the edit history of WP:WEB). While you may have thought you were stating your opinion, you failed to do so effectively or in a way I think is appropriate for an AfD discussion. Light hearted banter or serious logical tones would be fine; but the sarcasm you use implies a feeling of bad faith towards those you interact with and is probably why you're in trouble right now! I suggest re-evaluating how you say what you mean so you avoid more trouble later on. Pointing out the logial flaws in a presented argument is one thing; trying to make the person you disagree with lose face (whether done knowingly or unknowingly) in an open forum is quite another. Xuanwu 01:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by pointing out the ArbCom thing was that, given you're already under scrutiny, engaging in what the "powers that be" could interpret as a personal attack on another member would not seem a wise course of action. (Sort of like telling a person under FBI surveillance that now is not a good time to start learning recipes from the Amarchist's Cookbook.) It was meant more as a friendly word of caution than an attack; sorry if it sounded wrong. Xuanwu 02:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; pip pip tally ho and all that rot. Until the next big AfD disagreement, that is. ^_^ Xuanwu 02:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AMA request[edit]

Posted on ClockworkSoul

Hello, person with whom I've never interacted,
I'm currently one of the subjects of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics. From the list at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, the only names I recognized were yours, Friday's, and errr, Snowspinner's. I'd like a conduit through which my responses can be channelled constructively without whipping up further bloodlust. Would you have the time and the inclination?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brenneman. I will accept your case, not because I have the time, but because I have the inclination. :) From now on, if at any point you need to speak with me privately, you can most easily reach me by email at "clockworksoul AT optonline DOT net". I've read over the RFA, and it strikes me as very, very odd. At the moment, it looks like ArbCom is not focusing on policy in this case (it really is a fairly standard content dispute) so much as the behavior of all involved. So far, I've only done a fraction of the reading that I need to do for this case. If there are any edits that you would like my attention drawn to, please feel free to point them out to me. Oh, one more thing: out of curiousity, what is a "Nervous user", and is that a list I want to be on? :D – Clockwork Soul 06:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Don't forget to visit Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop: this is where the ArbCom crafts their response. Snowspinner has been taking all of his opportunities to respond to ArbCom observations, and I highly recommend you do the same. Not that I need to tell you this, but I would be remiss if I didn't remind you to keep all of your comments very, very civil. The ArbCom has a difficult enough job to do, we don't want to make it any more difficult by dragging the same dispute onto their working page. – Clockwork Soul 06:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just found your name at the very, very bottom. I advise that you do your best to make some modest constructive comments, even if to maintain a presence on the page. As always, keep it civil, and more importantly, humble. – ClockworkSoul 06:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Humble? Eeek... I'll do my best. I'm making some comments on the workshop page now. And thank you. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Full text of diffs[edit]

I've posted the full text of some diffs here. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Bill of Rights[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Green-blooded, I think[edit]

Well... yipes. This RFC was not the best idea. Clearly, the lady has been subject to some guff (comments like Chameleon's are evidence of that); equally clearly, from my best approximation of an objective point of view, she sometimes overreacts.

She feels outnumbered, not without some justification, because she is; she's also pre-conditioned to feel outnumbered by her experience as a minority, complicating things that much more. Basically, the best solution would be for a group of sensitive users to talk to her calmly. SlimVirgin and Anonym leap to mind as good choices, and I wouldn't mind giving it a try. Thing is, the RFC has her defenses up, and that's very bad. I'm not commenting there, because I don't know enough about the true origin of Crypto's complaints, though I might drop him a line.

She takes pride in her anger, which is a natural thing to do if one feels one has been shat on for the whole of one's life; however, somehow, she needs to understand that encyclopedias are not built through anger, however just the anger feels.

Yeah, I'll try writing her... someone said she had left, however. Not already scared away I hope? Live Long and Prosper, Xoloz 06:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Rare RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...[edit]

Aaron:

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for supporting me in my recent RFA. As you may know by now, my RFA succeeded and I am now in possession of the Mop and Bucket. I look forward to Ignoring All Rules and...

...no no, just kidding. In all seriousness, I look forward to trying to improve Wikipedia in whatever way I can.

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 23:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of translations of Fuck[edit]

Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 04:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break[edit]

I completely understand your being worn out. I was gone for quite a while until I built up enough energy to tackle the trolls again. And they know who they are. Good luck to you, and come back when you feel up to fighting the good fight. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image galleries[edit]

You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD). Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

deeceevoice arbitration[edit]

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

-Justforasecond 18:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on Wuhan University article[edit]

Please also visit Tongji Medical College for corrections. --Jon Zhang 17:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I don't think Ive ever been here before, but I noticed an edit by you this morning and wanted to say I'm glad to see that you're back. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

you updated my profile that I'm doing well, but I need to use the expanded version of greek letter (i.e Alpha (letter). I'm aware of this but I'm not sure where I made the mistake you caught. could you be more specific. thanks for the compliment Ccson 00:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures[edit]

It's warmer inside, no? Merry Christmas. -Splash^talk 03:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays, to be silly. :) So, do you still have all your body parts? No frostbite? :P Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the newcomer links, and for the quick delete tip. The warm welcome is very much appreciated too! Hope you have a great holiday. :) Regards, Kw 06:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Relisting[edit]

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for your comments. I personally do not take nominators' vote into account. That makes only one delete vote. I would sometimes even delete with 2 votes (I used to do that), but recently it appears to be the norm now to close with at least 3 votes, minus nominator.

- Regards, Mailer Diablo 11:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow[edit]

This would be fine with me for your renom. As you know, I wanted to support before, but we Vulcans are a very sensitive lot regarding "fighting words" (too many years of being called "pointy-ears", I suppose). Anyway, ol' Steve reminds me of our mutual friend, so I had to choose among 2007, 2010, and "never" as my suggested return dates. In the spirit of the season, I decided to be optimistic. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hey, I know you're obvously a little stressed right now with this ArbCom thing, so I just wanted to make sure that you have a happy Atheist-kids-get-presents-day! :)--Sean|Bla ck 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!![edit]

**MERRY CHRISTMAS**, Aaron Brenneman A well deserved subst:pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

I didn't notice your edits over the last couple of days, I'm glad you decided to come back. Just grit your teeth and muddle through. The RfAR is ridiculous, but what can you do? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Sidaway is trying to preempt any real action against him by making fun of it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY HOLIDAYS![edit]

Happy Holidays Aaron! I think I may finally be out of my arbitration-induced funk and getting back into editing wikipedia again. Dragonfiend 17:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to arbcom[edit]

is centered around the concept that if an arbcom case regarding Tony's irresponsible behavior is brought, it shouldn't be in the context of a "case" where both sides of the issues 'are framed by Tony. Hence "without prejudice". Nandesuka 20:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for completing the afd[edit]

Thanks for your help, much appreciated. --A.Garnet 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFd[edit]

JJay,
I've noticed that you're a bit, well, terse in AfD discussions. There are several reasons that this is less than desirable, most of which I've already mentioned. However, it also lends to the less-than-collegial atmosphere of the discussions. We expect that people who nominate will take a little bit of time to explain why they think something should be deleted, and anyone else who takes part in the discussion should also make some effort to add something other than a naked vote.

Thanks for the remarks. I assume you were/are trying to be helpful, however if you examined my AfD participation beyond a handful of votes, I doubt you would be concerned with my terseness. I also consider the practice of providing a link to a wikipedia policy or guideline page to be an insult. If I choose to vote without commenting it should be assumed that I have done so willfully. On the whole, my comments are sufficient, although my time is constricted by efforts to improve the articles that are nominated and the continual challenges I face in the discussions.

Moreover, while a short response seems to be one of your pet peeves, I fail to see how a statement such as rpgcruft is like rust, it grows while we sleep contributes to the collegial atmosphere of the discussions. Denigrating someone's contribution through the use of mindless slang is never attractive. Unfortunately, it is far too prevalent along with one word non-comments such as ad, cruft, vanity, etc.

I do thank you for your compliment regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules lawyer, and for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona Sit following my request-- JJay 03:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I didn't really like JJay's comment in that Fiona Sit afd either... was a bit combative. Well, Aaron was a bit too I guess. That said, at times we can all be a little terse (just look at some of the past school afds... ohh boy)... anyway, thanks for afding those Aaron :). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 03:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moderated my "rpgcruft is like rust" comments... one should always be able to get as good as they give! - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It pains me to bring this up, but given your position on user comments, I wonder if statements like: burn voting with fire and feed the ashes to the sharks are necessary? Isn't there a more polite way to make your opinions known? Perhaps sometimes no comment is better than a flippant remark designed merely to insult or cause pain. Behind every vote is a very real person trying to weigh the issues at hand. Also, since you do not feel that "Keep. seems notable" is a valid vote, I wonder if you believe that an AfD nomination that consists solely of "NN" or "not notable" is a valid nomination? -- JJay 00:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm not actively looking for your comments, but that one happened to pop up on my watchlist. The issue, though, is serious because I don't see how we advance the project by insulting people. I'm also not criticizing your noms, because you do make an attempt to spell things out, even if I do not agree with the approach. For a current AfD where you might want to encourage comments from delete voters, you might try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ukraine, although watch out for the mines. -- JJay 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ukraine - Shave a monkey and call him dad. It would have been nice to have seen this one before it turned into a free-for-all. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, that's a great line...but seriously, I thought you were monitoring all these AfDs. In any case, it somewhat typifies how keep voters are often treated in these discussions. Unlike what Zoe and numerous noms think, my comments are actually very tame compared to what takes place on a daily basis. -- JJay 01:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gratz[edit]

Daniel R. Anderson[edit]

I'd like to encourage you to reconsider your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Anderson, particularly for Anderson himself. I you look at the first section of his revised article, it is evident he is a major force in the children's television industry, having helped develop Blue Clue's, Dora the Explorer, and Go! Diego Go!, the three highest rated programs currrently for kids 2-5 years old. -- user:zanimum

Snowspinner Wheel War[edit]

You know as well as I do that it takes a third person to stop a wheel war, and you know i'm too much of a do gooder crusader to let a POV Bully to have his way(right now he's on IRC basically saying that he's justified in doing whatever he wants whenever he wants if he thinks it helps things). Do me a favor and protect it and let him know not to unprotect/delete again. I can walk away if I feel safe that he won't get any more power trips, at least for now. I'm writing up the rfar request on him and Kelly since it's connected and nobody else seems to want to do it. karmafist 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, he's still at it. karmafist 04:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR[edit]

I'm sorry I didn't check my messages sooner, I figured it was someone angry with what I was doing, thus making my temper explode, and just making things worse. And, I saw that rfc and all the talk on IRC about how both sides think it's getting nowhere despite the issue not being resolved, and I thought I just had to jump in or i'd lose the nerve. Please do what you'd like to alter it if you feel that's right. People can see me as a liability in all of this, but I don't. karmafist 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice On The Wheel War[edit]

Well, Snowspinner deleted the shortcut again. I'll give it a few hours and see what happens. But ultimately, the way things are going around here lately, we'll just keep on reverting each other until doomsday. karmafist 03:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toy[edit]

Heh, you think that's a toy, take a look at this. :-)

Just imagine if I ever got focused enough to build a bot. Every person would be welcomed.

Unfortunately, I lose track of this sometimes and head over to the IRC Channel, which has basically become troll town. Doesn't it bother you that basically the Kellies, Snowies and Tonys of the world think they can do whatever the hell they want, regardless of who they hurt?

If we're around decades from now, it's likely we'll just be seen like any other bulletin board-esque thing, a group of people just yelling at each other while the majority of the universe doesn't particularly care. karmafist 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never Thought About It[edit]

Heh, maybe the OCD might help things here. I assume there's probably 7 or 8 in the batshit column and maybe as many on the other side, with varying degrees in both and 20 or 30 vascillating in between the two sides. Then again, I never really took the time out to figure out who they are and why. It's just kind of a vague thing.

Then again, if I look at it analytically, it would likely help defuse alot of this since emotional attachment to something is the number one cause of issues on here, and I assume i'll get a load of shit if I do it on here, so i'll just make an excel sheet. Who knows? Maybe it's a good cabal building method to take eventually take down the elitism that's rampant nowadays. karmafist 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Ironic?[edit]

Heh. Because I have a past record of blocking rather a lot of admins and at least one arbcom memeber. This was because there was a time where I was pretty much the sole inforcer of the 3RR and I've always followed a rather mechancial interpritation of the rule which didn't leave much room for careing who people were.Geni 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this. It helps to relise that the primary function of admins is a janitors. To be honest most admins stick in one area (RC patrol, WP:CP ecetra) and don't get involved what goes on outside it. Dealing with admins abuseing their power isn't really an admin task. Dispute resolution isn't either although every editor is free to try that. Part of the problem is that there have been far far to many acusations of admin abuse so the whole crying wolf thing kicks in. It's not so much turning a blind eye as not haveing the energy to spend the time investigateing the 1296th admin abuse claim.Geni 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, my pen is broken[edit]

I can't fill in all of those forms. Will you accept multiple copies of adobe .pdf documents? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks![edit]

Happy belated Ducks in a Pram Day! Thanks for keeping a sense of humor during a tense admin battle. (Disclaimer: We're not disrupting Wikipedia; we're spreading wiki-joy!) --Tantalum T e lluride 05:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little positive feedback[edit]

I just wanted to say that I think you are doing a fine job of being firm, while also being respectful and not crossing the line into personal attacks. I know you've been baited a lot these past few months, but if anything has come out of it, perhaps it is the ability to see when you're being baited, and not walk in to the trap. There's a barnstar in here somewhere for you, once I figure out which one is appropriate. Thanks again for keeping your cool. It's almost always the right thing to do. Nandesuka 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted[edit]

I completely understand your frustration. I try to treat the rules as chains for myself too. It is a difficult problem how to deal with admins who don't treat them so, and I don't have the seniority to do much about it. I tried to balance the response a regular user would've received with what might actually stick, hence the single hour rather than 24; I did the best I could. -- SCZenz 06:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen[edit]

I don't think you quite understand the situation, when you reproach me for making fun of the Wilerding account's writing skills. User:Hollow Wilerding claims on his/her userpage to be in real life Courtni Wilerding of Toronto, aged 24, a teacher of English among other subjects. I have doubted this identity since I first came across the editor, as I simply can't believe a native speaker with that background would write such poor English. (Even though Geogre says that's just because I've never met any Anglophone schoolteachers.) I wanted to express that doubt and if possible winkle some illuminating response to it out of him/her. Toronto teacher Courtni Wilerding is according to Google a real person, and I suspect somebody (a student of hers?) may have chosen to step into an available identity, probably in something of a hurry on the day "Winnermario" was blocked and "Hollow Wilerding" appeared. It'll be trouble for Courtni W, and trouble for Wikipedia, if I'm right. This was largely in my thoughts, though also, no doubt, I had a low desire to get in a pinprick in response to the shitstorm directed at me. From your "outside view", it appears you're too wonderful to do things like that. I'm not. Bishonen | talk 06:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful[edit]

Your summary at RfAr is a beautiful work, to which I subscribed my endorsement. Thank you, Xoloz 08:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is really annoying when people you've pegged in a certain hole turn out not to fit that pegging, don't you think? Maybe I've got you all wrong after all! Several of your comments recently in the whole userboxes fiasco are just flat out amazingly well written and spot on, not just that one. I still disagree with how things went in the Checkerboard AfD and your hand in them, but I guess you're not uniformly evil after all, darn it. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway[edit]

I know, the thing should be deleted the way it stands. But having deleted it once (with a slight invocation of IAR there, not sure if it really met any speedy criteria...) I will wait for another admin to take it off. Oh boy, I feel like spending more time on writing and improving articles rather than RFCs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruining your gig[edit]

What can I say, great minds think alike! A few random comments:

I see that stoopid pigeon has a shiny gif image proclaiming its status as a winner of the "Boffo Webtoon Award." Should this be considered a "major award"?
I think the external links on List of webcomics might actually be useful -- it's easy to see right away if a webcomic is on keenspace or myspace or geocities.
My comment regarding the threshold being low enough to avoid problems with margin of error was based on the current threshold of 10,000.
The "These guidelines are primarily designed" line (which has been recently expanded) probably ought to be put in with the main intro, since if it applies at all would apply to websites as well?

-- Dragonfiend 15:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP: redirects explananation[edit]

WP:ASR sums up most of the problems with redirects out of the main namespace (which is where WP:FOO shortcuts are, since WP: isn't a real namespace), though not directly; it talks about non-mainspace templates and categories, but the same principles apply. Keep in mind that one of the database dumps we offer to mirror sites consists of just the main and template namespaces. All the cross-namespace redirects in these dumps will break.

That said, it's probably a hopeless cause, considering the hordes of WP: and even CAT: and WT: redirects that've shown up. —Cryptic (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding unspecified unpleasant consequences[edit]

Hi, Thank you for inviting questions on your talk page related to Wikipedia talk:User prerogatives. I am a bit surprised by Radiant's ominous language. I have looked at the links that Radiant has provided and do not see anything that looks remotely threatening. I also find the idea of "re-using" the comments and signatures of others in another context, where it is not immediately clear which context applies to be an unhealthy practice. Perhaps you could enlighten me on these issues. --BostonMA 01:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG, you agreed with me!!![edit]

How unsporting! We're supposed to not like each other. Now you're making me feel bad for all the things I said. Stop it! ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well good. Today certainly seems like a day where laughter is in short supply. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments on RfAr[edit]

As others mentioned above quite stunning and timely. Good point about the peer pressure too. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molasses[edit]

Christ almighty, you need to archive your talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 04:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for moving that mess from my user page to my talk page; your lack of sloth is showing! · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions[edit]

Thanks for the note. :) It's just gotten nuts around here, Aaron. The ratio of garbage versus good edits is starting to tilt in favor of the garbage. No more anonymous edits has made the problem worse in my opinion. Tried to be a hero, but I may have wound up looking like a jerk. Anyway, I'm taking a rather long, protracted and very welcome break from Wikipedia and I'll be concentrating more on the radio control wiki I've been helping with over at Wikicities. Relaxing, fun and totally uncontentious. Stay in touch, OK? - Lucky 6.9 07:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Never too busy to respond to a fellow wacky wiki-worker. The fort is in good hands. - Lucky 6.9 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting links to texts mistaken for spam[edit]

Today you have been passing through articles on Early Christian writers, deleting external links, I assume, from your edit summaries, under the impression that you are deleting commercial spam. For instance, at Pope Cornelius you deleted a link that gives text in English of letters of Pope Cornelius. I'm at a loss for your motivation. I can only think you haven't actually clicked on the links you're deleting. Please do so now in the link I've given above. If you have a better link to text in English of these letters, please do substitute the better link. I shall hold off restoring these sensible links until I hear from you right here on your Talkpage. --Wetman 09:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responed mostly on Talk:Papias. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 10:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BG[edit]

Thanks, but I'm afraid that explaining it to the guy isn't really going to help. Check out the talk page of Wikipedia:User prerogatives and you'll see that some people (including me and Ambi) have been explaining things all week to him, SEWilco and permabanned troll Zephram Stark, and their reaction is invariably FUD, reiteration of their last statement, or more m:instruction creep. BG either doesn't understand or is ignoring the fact that both pages he refers to are in fact the same page, that has been renamed and rewritten since it started (which, after all, is the point of Wikipedia). Hence his comments are in the correct place, even if they are no longer relevant to the present version of the page. R adiant _>|< 10:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice user page[edit]

Hi, Aaron. I reverted your changes to Deeceevoice's user page, and I wanted to explain why. Several others have tried to tone the page down, as well, but they have been consistenly rebuffed. Due to the fact that Deeceevoice is currently the subject of an Request for Arbitration, it seems best to let her have her say. Her user page is her user page, after all, and all of the offensive imagery and wording there was originally placed there by vandals. Expect others to revert any changes that are made to it by anyone by Deeceevoice herself, at least until the Arbitration is complete. — BrianSmithson 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Moving Aaron's comments here to avoid fragmentation:] You said that really nicely, so please don't take this wrong, because it's going to sound wise-acre almost no matter how I put it: Do we suspect that the Arbitration Commitee do not know how to look at a page history? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RfArb is here. My point wasn't that those vandalizations wouldn't be visible unless Deeceevoice put them back on her page. I simply meant to say that until the Arbitration Committee rules that she needs to clean it up, we should leave her user page alone. If she had put that stuff on a mainspace article, I'd of course support toning down/removing it. For now, she seems to be using the page to help defend herself. (Others claim her attempts will probably backfire.) At any rate, the user page is an integral part of the arbitration process, IMHO. Whether for Deeceevoice's benefit or detriment is for the ArbCom to decide. — BrianSmithson 15:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I suppose that's not an insane stance to take. I don't agree with you, but don't see it as an emergancy or anything. I'll put the ArbCom back on my watch list and wait. Thanks for your input. I'm now at the stage of paranoia where I think everything I type sounds rude, so please be aware that I have nothing but wikilove right now. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have the same fear. Everything becomes a shade or two more hostile in the harshness of plain text. :) — BrianSmithson 21:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Link Spam"[edit]

I can tell this isn't the first time you've heard this, but I've gone through and re-added external links you felt needed to be removed.

Although you seem to have a strange opinion of what's relevant, I think it's safe to say that an interview with an artist is relevant material for a wiki entry. Although it is my own website that I'm linking to, I still defy you to prove that it's "spam" or somehow irrelevant.

--The GATEKeeper 00:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are hereby awarded The resilient barnstar[edit]

Awarded in honor of this: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed_decision#On_admonishment, and other notable writings of yours of late. You, sir, are truly a gentleman and a scholar. You have my sincere admiration. There are a number of people that could stand to take some lessons from that piece of prose, which I suspect must not at all have been easy for you to write. Bravo! ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(PS, it's been put on your trinkets page... ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

And I have to commend you as well. You've been awfully calm in this situation, even with the atmosphere in the project. By the way, I'm kinda back, but I think I just need to shoot a few aparoids over the weekend to relax the wiki-stress obtained over the last few days. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal[edit]

If you have to ask, you can't be a member of the cabal. Cabal? I know nothing of this cabal of which you speak. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mootstormfront[edit]

I've suggested merging Mootstormfront into Stormfront (website). A minimal merge has already been done, but there's been disagreement over making the redirect. I wonder if you'd be interested in popping over to Talk:Mootstormfront and letting us know whether you agree with my reasons for a merge. Friday (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Metal faith[edit]

Um... this could just be the Mountain Dew talking, but which article are you referring to? Mo0[talk] 07:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I didn't, but now that I did all that apparently links to it is its AfD and the log page that it's hosted on, and you apparently already speedied it... I'm puzzled now. Mo0[talk] 07:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. It's not offensive at all, I need that kind of kick in the pants to remind me how to do things right. I'm still new at this, and all. :P Mo0[talk] 07:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind you saying any of this. I don't care who's correcting me as long as I'm being corrected in the right direction. I always feel I could use that. As for The Left End, the reason I followed that procedure was I asked a couple people in the #wikipedia-en-vandalism chat room about what to do with it, and they told me that'd be the way to do it. Mo0[talk] 07:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good night, man. The reason I ended up asking there is because I've pretty much given up on getting help from #wikipedia, and I forgot #wikipedia-en was on my autojoin list. #wikipedia hardly ever seems to listen when I ask a question. :/ Mo0[talk] 07:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Left End[edit]

Crap, I just messed that up. I meant to restore the article so I could restore the edit history (you're right, the article shouldn't be deleted and recreated as a redirect) and ended up in a weird situation where it says "View 16 deleted edits?" but they aren't visible anymore. Grrrrrr. I'll probably have to make a request to a developer or something to pull them out of the DB, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Crap crap crap. howch e ng {chat} 07:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe I didn't mess it up. Looks fine to me this morning and there's nothing else in the log indicating anyone else had touched it. Coolio! howch e ng {chat} 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (websites)[edit]

Hi, I've rewritten Wikipedia:Notability (websites), leaning heavily on Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for insiration. I've tried to make the guidelines broader so that they can be applied to any form of web content, rather than focusing on specifics. The goal shouldn't be to set bars to take account of particular examples, but rather to outline existing policy and consensus at various places. As someone who has expressed an opinion on the guidelines in the past, I hope you will read the new version and comment on the talk page. Hiding talk 12:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have enough babies in my life, but thanks for the thought. I just hope everyone is as enthusiastic as you are. It took all morning. I figure arguing too much regarding specific examples was getting the page nowhere, and is probably best left to afd. Hiding talk 12:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually get banned from the main namespaces or is it self-imposed? As to the page itself, what do you want to edit/change? Your comment implied there were changes you wanted to make but couldn't/wouldn't. It's seemed pretty stable recently, whether that's because people's attention has become diverted or not, I couldn't say, but I'm thinking of re-applying the guideline tag after a week of stability. Hiding talk 13:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man! No, nothing even close to a ban! All self imposed. My aggressive editing of a deletion policy page was very bad form, and shouldn't have happened, and the uncivil edit summaries were over the top. But if we started banning for that, we'd be short quite a few admins in not much time. I'm actually happy with the guideline being in the hands it's in now, I'm just afraid that it won't stick when it's actually tested. The webcomic fans are fairly well organised, and won't roll over based upon stuff like Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The whole arbcom was over me trying to stop, err, someone pushing POV into policy. But now that there is a broader base of people involved, it should be ok. Thanks for asking, though!
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you didn't get banned, like you say it would have been slightly odd for your behaviour to receive a ban when others didn't. As to afd, well, I appreciate I voted to keep Greeneyes, but then I am naturally more inclusionist than wikipedia consensus, so I'll probably need a gentle nudge in the right direction. I tend to come at it from the other direction to you, I pull hair at articles like Mary Welsh Hemingway and Roddy Llewellyn being listed as speedy on grounds of no assertion of notability being made. I've learnt to avoid afd like the plague. Hiding talk 15:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

It's good to know that there are those kind of people around, even if you're not one of them, even if I'm not one of them. :) The crazy world of wikipedia. gren グレン 14:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Jury duty[edit]

You wrote: I saw your comment about self-selection, random sampling, and consensus on RfA talk. Do you have any further gems as to how to make it viable? - brenneman ^(t)^(c)

The beauty of the current system is that it is based on the same mechanisms as article editing. I think any random sample mechanism would not be possible without software changes (and re-reading my post, I realize the last sentence should have ended "..., but I'm not sure there's a viable alternative to the current processes"). With software changes, virtually anything would be possible, for example perhaps active votes are listed on a (likely protected) page somewhere and every non-bot edit has some random chance of being asked to enter a vote on one of the active votes (avoiding vote stuffing might be technically interesting, but I suspect it's doable). The votes would need to be kept on protected pages (possibly even "special:"s). I think this would amount to a statistical survey, which I don't see any way to avoid if what we're really after is commnity wide consensus. This would avoid the "vote stuffing" problem I've raised lately at CfD as well, where folks are using membership in wikipedians who believe in X categories (via user boxes) to find and encourage like-minded folks to self-select into a CfD "consensus discussion". I actually think it's less of an issue at RfA, since I suspect at least 95% of users have good intentions (which is all that really matters) and any group of voters is likely to be able to recognize 90% of the rest who are obviously bad candidates. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a haiku?

Voting has evils

Although it's mostly okay

We can get weevils. -- Rick Block (talk)

Weird post on Kelly Martin's page[edit]

I have no idea as to the accuracy of this, but it was clearly uncivil. Can you please stop doing things just to upset people? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was uncivil? How on earth...? What's the matter with you? Bishonen | talk 02:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I see his point. Think double_entendre with a sexual flavor, not pretty. ;-) David D. (Talk) 02:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be coming off as exceptionally pure-minded, and me a student of Restoration comedy, but I still don't get it. Were the previous five people that posted in the "chain" also saying something dirty, should we revert and upbraid them? Or is it about the "procurement" in Kelly Martin's edit summary ? (That's a reference to the first item in the chain.) Or the chain itself? Should I be thinking bondage? Bishonen | talk 18:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hunh? I was promised a dirty joke, and there wasn't one! This is no fair. Not everyone knows that CoolCat is persona non grata, so saying X came from CoolCat, who got it from Kelly Martin, doesn't necessarily rise to the level of an incivil comment. Was it not from her? Was it from her? Is there a joke? Weird. Geogre 03:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i suppose its a British thing, never mind. David D. (Talk) 05:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitstorm[edit]

Aaron, we are in the middle of a WP:SHITSTORM, and no-one (myself included) is using their soundest judgement. There are some whiners who want to be 'free-speech' martyrs and stir up trouble, and their are others who (perhaps wrongly) don't give a damn about their opinions. This isn't going to end quickly, well I suspect not until the Arbcom elections are concluded. Problem with shitstorms is that, when the stuff comes down, it tends to land on the wrong people. Don't be the wrong person. I appreciate your calm questioning interventions into my deletions and blockings (please do continue to make me think about my actions), but you might like to re-read what you post to others before hitting the old 'send' button. --Doc ^ask? 02:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - stricken. I was tired, grumpy and talking crap, and we can't have that from 'one of the calmest, most reasonable admins we've got', now can we? ;) --Doc ^ask? 15:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: block[edit]

Hey Mr. Brenneman thanks for your message. Don't have time right now to post a longer message or examine issues more closely but I didn't intend to edit his user page, and I'm sorry. Will leave longer message for you and him later. Thanks — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I posted on WP:AN/I when I blocked if you unblock him please note there thanks — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to be nice; I think that's important. I recognize my block may have been controversial, but I think it is a bit over the top to characterize it as totally out of line. A user had been previously blocked for making an attack template. He agreed not to make any more templates referring to other editors, was unblocked, and promptly created another one. I hate to block people and you'll often find me arguing against others' blocks or spending large amounts of time attempting discussion with people to try to avoid their being blocked. Of course, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the block, I promptly reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack templates, as is standard procedure inviting review and feedback when making questionable judgment calls. The response was largely favorable. The reason I used a short block is that it did not appear that discussion was accomplishing anything; he immediately returned to creating a template.

If that's the point he's making, I don't agree that he has much of a point. It is naive to assume that praise and criticism can be treated equally. If a discussion is taking place and after I comment someone writes "I complete agree with Knowledge Seeker; as always, he shows himself to be a clear-thinking, intelligent editor," no one would be upset, if one were to write "That's stupid, Knowledge Seeker is a something something something [insert insult of choice; I'm not good at those]," it would probably be removed and the editor censured. Administrator status is irrelevant, with the exception that it is more difficult to take action against an administrator, although an administrator is quite unlikely to create an attack template in the first place. One may set one's standard for inclusion at different thresholds: perhaps both support and oppose templates (for anything) are acceptable; perhaps both are not, but there is certainly a wide middle ground where supports are acceptable but opposes are not. In this I make no judgment about the suitability of the support template nor of Ms. Martin's candidacy; however, the oppose template is clearly inappropriate.

I don't think it's that hard to admit a mistake, and I've certainly admitted them on Wikipedia before. But I still think the block was appropriate. I dislike blocking in general and try to use it as a last resort; perhaps in this case I jumped too quickly to blocking without first engaging in discussion. I realize that it might have been better to try to talk to him further instead of blocking first. All I had to go on, aside from my instincts, were that he had created an attack template, had been blocked, had agreed to stop creating templates about other Wikipedians, was unblocked, and then resumed. To me, that shows that discussion is not achieving its intended goal. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the admonishment and if this user continues to engage in inappropriate behavior, I will certainly attempt to see if we can come to an agreement over what is acceptable on Wikipedia and what is not.

I'm not certain why you're asking me to think over how the edit to his user page looks, since it took place after my comment and block and I'd had no additional interaction with the user since then. If you simply were looking for outside opinion, it would probably be better to ask someone not directly involved with this editor.

Thank you for the feedback. I am always eager to know if other users feel I am doing a good job or a bad job as an administrator and editor, and how I can improve. I look forward to additional feedback from you in the future. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right; I take no offense at your comment. You know, you're right: just because my actions are justifiable or logical doesn't mean that they were the best course possible. I agree that the timing of these events was unfortunate. Perhaps the situation can still be salvaged. I'll try to keep an eye on the situation and see if I can't contribute in a more constructive manner. Thanks for the advice. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was I thinking?[edit]

We start with a slightly tense situation. Doc had just blocked Dschor for making a personal attack template. Slightly edgy, no warning and all, but withing the realm of reason, and a discussion and unblocking followed. Everything is fine.

This Dschor makes another template. One that (I'm presuming, since I can't see its contents) was no more an attack than its (now deleted) opposite. If anyone got blocked over the creation of the "support" template, I'm not aware of it.

But Dschor gets blocked. While I do agree that his actions were ill-advised and inflammatory... wasn't the person whom he's just been blocked for "attacking" editing his user page also ill-advised and inflammatory?

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, see [20] and then consider whether this is worth your precious breath. I'm thinking of a word begining with T and ending in a roll (and I don't mean you, btw). --Doc ^ask? 00:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm through flogging this one. It's just another example of things getting blown out of proportion, and us (collectively) not doing what it takes to make things cool down. I'm now more concerned about the impression bishon has gotten of me than anything else!
^_^ brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is kind of inexplicable without the context. A few words could have helped. The userbox was incivil, because it was a "we don't like Kelly on ArbCom" box, and someone said that it came from Kelly Martin, but it wasn't that comment that was a block justification. My feelings on the user box support/oppose are known. People need to write articles more and focus on personalities less. Geogre 03:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I was just mystified by the "double entendre." I looked hard but couldn't crack it. (There is all sorts of pettiness floating about these days. Editing a blocked user's page is pretty near vandalism, actually, whether it was for a "good" or "bad" cause, but this edit was kind of antagonistic rather than gloating, really. At any rate, all this conflict gives me hives. There are fewer conflicts on the article production side than on the formatting and boxing and categorizing side.) Geogre 03:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winnacunnet High School[edit]

Hey, I don't like it any more than you do (I tried to have it deleted), but the deletion vote was to keep. Dyslexic agnostic 07:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wpspam invite[edit]

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. -- Perfecto 08:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, on my watchlist now! - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the pile-on...[edit]

No no. :) Just with the scrutiny from WP:AN/I, and his creation of {{User fed up}}, I was afraid things might just go downhill, but his latest edit was a pleasant surprise. --Interiot 09:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else seems to be going downhill, so I'll take what I can get. I've been resisting the urge to plot the number of non-anonymous blocks over the last month, because the huge spike I just know I'll see will only depress me more. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:30, 8 January 2006

I'm going to bed[edit]

Man, it's like an hour and a half to sunrise now, and I'm tired. I'm going to bed. I'll see about shortening that description tomorrow, since nothing obvious comes to my sleepy mind that doesn't feel painful to do after all that work and detail I put into the current version. Definitely feel free to delete this after you have read it.Tommstein 10:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Fads afd[edit]

glad you liked the comment :) Grutness...wha? 12:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to laugh[edit]

I just noticed your comment accusing me of being a tad aggressive. I'm not sure if that's not a compliment coming from you. :)

And next time you get yourself nominated for admin, let me know, I don't tend to watch that page. I don't think I'd have been much help in the last one, but if you can stay out of trouble a few months, who knows. Hiding talk 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Slurs AFD[edit]

Way I see it, the entry consists of two parts: part A is the prose that takes up several paragraphs and would be well-placed in an article about sexual slurs. That's actually been copied into Sexual Slang already - my only objection to that is that I think an article specifically for sexual slurs would be better. Part B is the list, and that content I do object to preserving. The list, I don't think anything should be done with besides deleting it, but the prose: absolutely, merge it somewhere and redirect it. The Literate Engineer 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anagram[edit]

Hey, I like it! - Dyslexic agnostic 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

You have a reply. Xoloz 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that it has yet to arrive? Whoa... weird AOL. The essence of it, "Huh? Tell me what you want me to do and I'll do it." Xoloz 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it a second time for good measure, through WP's forwarding thing. Xoloz 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diff[edit]

It happened on #wikipedia IRC. I can probably get a log if you want. --BRIAN0918 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off into oblivion[edit]

I have now finished, so I'll be seeing you. I do not expect a good outcome, and will send my thoughts on that matter to you, once we've established that email can circulate between our antipodes. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixing afd link[edit]

thanks for fixing that. I couldn't figure out why the link wasn't showing up and all I got was {{afd}}, and then realized I hadn't used "subst:" -- but you beat me to it. whoops! bikeable (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfC[edit]

This is a pre-emptive strike: I'd offered to help Tommstein put his statement in order when it had barely poked its head into user space. While I'd imagine that you neither knew that nor actually cared (and why should you?) I just wanted to make it clear that it was only because I hate to see anyone going off half-cocked. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aaron: Thank you for your message. I do fully understand; indeed, I have no objections to criticism of my actions, and indeed if criticism must be made it should be made properly. Indeed, well done for helping Tommstein out. However, I might have appreciated some notice that the RfC had been filed; that was more something Tommstein should have done, however, and wasn't your fault. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not kidding![edit]

I don't deserve to have anyone take the time she spent creating that userpage for me. There are lots of folks here that deserve it more than I ever would. I am very surprised to say the least...kind of without words.--MONGO 06:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expected no less!:)--MONGO 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're not gonna get jealous on me, aren't you, Aaron? ;-) Okay, let's see if this helps... Not that you had a ton of material at your user page to work with, but a veeery slight enhancement might help. I really hope you like it! Cheers! -- Phædriel ^*whistle* 10:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policywonkaholics[edit]

Funny. I didn't mind what you said a bit, the ArbCom platforms really were getting to me...

It's probably a lousy time to wonder if you might like to pass an opinion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries? --- Charles Stewart 11:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I should maybe also say I'd never heard the phrase "policy wonk" on WP: it was entirely a term about news nerdery to me. I should say that I lean towards legal formalism: better spend an hour wonking policy than two hours wheel warring, leaves more time for writing the encyclopedia.

I'll reply re the Nandesuka stuff a bit later: I'll just say now that I'm fine with what you're saying, even if I'm not really convinced.

So, onto the...

Gallery gimmicks[edit]

It's a nice idea. It'll be a great thing if:

Slideshows are not too fiddly to set up and maintain;
The templates support pleasantly formatted commentary: maybe the layout of the image pages is a problem?
We have them in addition to galleries...

I'm guessing you want to announce the feature on the gallery discussion page? Maybe not until you have a smoother demo?

The deleted gallery was Gallery of Socialist Realism: I'll put up a userfy request on DRV. --- Charles Stewart 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel encouraged then! I've posted User talk:Dsmdgold with the link to your prototype; he's thought much harder about the presentation of visual information than I have. --- Charles Stewart 19:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries again[edit]

1. On the WP:NOT thing, do consider supporting DES's restricted version of my proposal: I think it covers your doubts.

2. I've put in the request at WP:DRV.

3. I don't think you can just pass a numeric parameter to tenplates and have them work in the way you propose, since you'd need something I think templates can't do, that is arithmetic on numbers. --- Charles Stewart 11:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why you came...[edit]

Yes, that DRV is trying my patience a little, relying as it does mainly on petulance and a generalised complaint about the whole of deletion, rather than arguing for some error by AfD, regarding either procedure or product, with the article. My sarcasm to Kingturtle probably wasn't the best response, although what he is suggesting is plainly unreasonable (and, like I said, is just making noises about the deletion process generally, which he's entitled to hate but he can go hate it somewhere else). My last response...hmm...I see what you mean on re-reading it, but it does lay out several truths that appear to be otherwise in danger of getting overlooked. And I'm just about to add a sentence to it as well...I'll be careful. -Splash^talk 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your comments on the talk page of the Nandesuka vote[edit]

I'm somewhat surprised to see you openly use the term "you're being sold a bill of goods" to describe the evidence that I presented to Charles Stewart, which you may note represents the full and complete dialog on Theresa Knott's user page. My part of the dialog in turn contained rather compendious evidence, all of which can be checked, to support my claim. The term you used normally denotes dishonest intent. Are you sure that you intended to se this term?

Another thing that I find puzzling is that you question my presentation of the information in a form that shows the complete dialog as one piece. Instead you suggest that I should have used two links. Why is this? There were three segments: Nandesuka's original request, my own elaboration of my case, and Nandesuka's response. This is how they appear on the page. Why would it be better to present them separately? It seems to me that you're again suggesting dishonesty.

Thirdly, you state, without presenting evidence to support it, that you "have, in fact, watched the entire drama unfold, and have seen Nandesuka attempt, on several occasions, to reach some accord with Tony." Where did he try to do this before I told him that I would not be letting the matter drop with his denial and his trollish imitation of my original request that he tone down his rhetoric?

It seems to me that you're almost going out of your way to allege dishonest intent, here. Please clear this up. The election period should not be marred by personal attack upon personal attack--no not even, I'm sure you'll agree, statements having the appearance of personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be as brief as I can, Tony, as I must admit I consider every keystroke here a wasted one.

We assume good faith, but we're not suckers. You lined Nandesuka up but good. He's a hard working, conscientious, and thoughtful editor, and I imagine that you were pretty sick of him pointing out to you the error of your ways.

He tried very very hard to engage you, to discuss what he saw as issues with your behavior. You rebuffed, in your inimitable way, every one of those attempts. It's unfortunate that his frustration was expressed in ways that made for pithy diffs.

He'll learn, in due course, not to be baited into providing you with ammunition to use against him, but perhaps not today.

I'll leave you with this edit, and hope that you'll think on it. But I doubt it.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 17:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I've asked you to tell me where Nandesuka made these attempts to engage me, which I purportedly rebuffed. I'm asking you to present your evidence.

Your reply is not helpful. Having given the appearance of accusing me of dishonesty you compound it by confirming, with words such as " I consider every keystroke here a wasted one", "We assume good faith, but we're not suckers", "You lined Nandesuka up but good", and so on. Instead of presenting evidence so that I can know what approaches you're talking about, you present an edit from someone else who agrees with you.

Aaron, I'm not asking for you to prove that some people agree with you--clearly some people agree with me, so we're not better off. So that we can make progress, I'm going to ask you, once more, if you will comply with my request. Where, specifically, did Nandesuka make honest attempt to bring issues with my behavior to my attention? You refer to my evidence as "pithy diffs". Well yes, they're pithy, and I think do show a prima facie case. I'm asking for you to help me to progress this by establishing that, on the facts of the case, there is a side to this other than Nandesuka's persistent denigration. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me an easy task:

The first exchange of yours I find was one where Nadesuka commented on your removal of his signed comments from the ArbCom workshop. Here you charmingly close with ""fuck it" [...] your words were just clutter".

Moving down a few sections to Nandesuka's second attempt and his third we can, indeed, hear some frustration creeping in.

I'd point again to the evidence that he was, essentially, correct about the results of your attempts to steer the ArbCom, but you've already erased that from your user page once. I'd go on, but what's the point? You won't be listening.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I said, in full, in the first instance, was the following:

You've got a point there. I am technically (having deliberately joined the case because that's what I do if I'm going to comment on an arbitration case) a party to the case, while you technically (although you're doing much the same thing) not a party to the case. I did wonder if it was appropriate at the time, but decided "fuck it" and that your words were just clutter anyway. [21]

It's easy to miss nuances between an internal process that is expressed in retrospect (it was my opinion that I was only removing useless clutter from the workshop--an activity that the arbitrators had encouraged in my discussions on the subject) and an outright declaration to Nandesuka: "fuck it, I was removing your clutter." I might have expressed myself more clearly. You will, I presume, readily admit that I did indeed apologise for the inappropriate removal at that point, and duly entered a remedy censuring myself for over-eager factoring, which was however rejected by the arbitrators. These additional details certainly give the lie to any erroneous reading of the above as some kind of deliberate slur.

On the second instance, you mistake the circumstances. The approach was not made by Nandesuka to me, but by me to Nandesuka. Here on 27 December at 20:46 I made an edit on Nandesuka's talk page titled "Your recent conduct on Wikipedia" in which I listed two separate instances that had occurred in separate contexts. These were inflammatory, snide and unhelpful. Nandesuka's response was apparently an attemot to inflame matters even more:

"I have merely tried to extend to you the same amount of credit, assumption of good faith, and comradeship, that you have extended towards other editors, such as Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Zoe, Geogre, others, and myself. I have simply followed your lead in carefully choosing my language (your own prose, for example, is replete with terms such as "cronies," that most people would view as a personal attack.)"

I had of course removed references to cronies as inappropriate and unworthy more than two weeks prior to that, so Nandesuka's decision to invoke my use of the word as some kind of excuse--however disingenuously and trollishly he presented his defence, for it was all of that--is most puzzling.

You state that you have presented evidence of my having attempted unsuccessully to steer arbcom but that I have deleted it. While it is true that I deleted your statements as inappropriate and unproductive, and apparently attempts to talk to third parties through the medium of my user talk page, it is false to claim that your presented such evidence. This is the extent of the material that I removed. What you did present was a table of webcomics-RFAR-related stuff, which you assured unnamed onlookers contained evidence that my own presentation of specific, verifiable citations was revisionism. But you stopped short of presenting any refutation.

You state that I won't be listening if you do present such evidence. Try me. I assure you that I shall be listening very hard indeed.

But perhaps the best way that I can refute your vague claims that I'm engaged in revisionism is to point out that most of the findings of fact in the arbitration case, and the whole of the remedy applying to you on consensus and policy, were drafted by one single person. That single person was me. The words that you read when you were informed that you must seek consensus when making a policy change--those were drafted by me.

Now there's the matter of one of the remedies in the case, which is either closed or about to close. The reason I think I should remind you of it is that you don't seem to be sticking to it:

All parties cautioned to remain civil

2) Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.

You slurs on me are breaches of this caution. In the claims you have made against me of dishonesty, and in their presentation, you have failed to observe this caution. Please let's progress this case further by correcting this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, oh Tony, I'd quote from WP:CIV: "[I]ncivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress."

Is there anyone, anyone in this entire Wikipedia who is involved to a greater degree in conflict that you? I there anyone whose daily existance is littered with people, of every stripe, telling them that they aren't making things better?

You may not have noticed this Tony, but I get along with everyone else. We disagree, we have misunderstandings, sometimes we are rude, but we're able to work things out. I do not observe you working things out with anyone. Conflict that you are engaged in seems, on the whole, only to deepen. You are, as I ironicly note that Nandesuka spent a good deal of time trying to tell you, the uncivil one.

You are also, and this is a simple statement of fact, an impediment to the continuing functioning of this encyclopedia. You waste my time, you waste your own time, you waste everyone's time. The multiple requests for comment, the infantile requests for arbitrarion, the endless bickering. God's teeth, the tremendous energy that several productive editors had to divert on the bloody arbcom is documented here.

So, go away. I won't be responding to you anymore, directly or indirectly. I won't read what that you have written, I won't even bother to delete it. I have no idea why you are here, although the above seems to indicate it is for self-aggrandisement. But I have an encyclopedia to write.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 20:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only pleased that you've finally indicated that you will stop denigrating me. That's all I wanted. You're welcome to your odd, unsupported opinions, as long as you do not express them again in an inflammatory manner. That is incivility. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!²[edit]

The whole exchange is going into the blast from the past section of this talk page. Scroll up to the section LOL! and we find the following:

"As for new pages patrol, I am staying well away. People are putting more effort into complaining about deleted single sentences than they are in making real articles, or so it seems. We persist. Anyway, thanks again." - Lucky 6.9 19:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Just an observation/rant. If people patrolling Afd for one sentence delete spent that same time writing new artciles.....imagine the concept. Rather than saving junk they could add what they believe is most important. We all know they think everything is important but they must acknowledge that some holes are bigger than others.

The same goes for Rfc, and POV pushing. Both are an almost complete waste of time, yet many many users seem to spend their whole time pursuing these futile tasks." Why would one do this? David D. (Talk) 19:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop/Withdrawn. More than 14,000 words!!!!!!! Enough said. David D. (Talk) 20:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sir, have now exceeded the safe limit for good humour! Please take two of these, that should fix you right up. And stay off the exclamation points, they can breathalise you for those now.

And thanks. For everything.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted Words Awards of 2006

Category:Should this have been brought to Arb com

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop/Withdrawn. More than 14,000 words.

Category: Unverifable schools

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genius_home_collegiate_school More than 4500 words discussing if it can be verified.

Too strident, eh?[edit]

You weren't too strident and I was glad you made your point because I didn't think I clearly addressed similar points raised by others before you. It gave me a chance to clarify what I was trying to say. By the way, I do think that the AfD procedure is not scaling very well. Over the last few months, I have cut back my time on AfD drastically as the number of articles listed daily has continued to grow, even with the loosening of the standards for speedy deletion. The answer that interested editors should keep every article on their watchlist is not realistic, either. I have thousands of edits but only about 200 pages on my watchlist. I don't want to miss edits to articles that I have a great interest in by having them outnumbered 10 to 1 by articles that I made drive-by contributions to. That doesn't mean I would like to see an article I spent time cleaning up tossed out unceremoniously by two or three editors, particularly when it frequently seems that many editors are not really looking at the articles or its talk pages and history, but merely going on the comments of the nominator or other voters. I don't have a better solution but I do think as we continue to grow, the faults of the current AfD process will become more transparent.

I agree we have to get rid of the junk, but I am very concerned that we are alienating good editors, which ultimately is our most valuable resource. The user box dust-up, overly negative oppose votes on RfA, speedy deletion of articles without notice to the article's creator, and many other things we have done recently cause me to worry that in our quest to concentrate on "building an encyclopedia" we are undermining our ability to do just that. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 20:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature (3rd nomination)[edit]

Thanks man, that's a much better section title. One of these days i'll get some tact :-P Oh yeah, when do you plan on archiving? karmafist 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish?[edit]

Sorry, but this was too fun to miss. Here's what came out in the RC feeds of the CVU:

<pgkbot> User Aaron Brenneman, Possible gibberish? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hartman (2nd nomination) (1970) Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles%20for%20deletion/Laura%20Hartman%20%282nd%20nomination%29&diff=0&oldid=34543530 "Laura Hartman - Delete unless evidence of notability satisfying Wikipedia:Reliable sources presented per WP

:P Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of my edits are gibberish to a certain degree too... ;) Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Hartman[edit]

Poor article. We can't seem to decide what the hell to do with it. :) howch e ng {chat} 00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: There is no tone of voice...[edit]

Take it as mixture of both. While I don't approve of what I would term wikilawyering, I do approve of anyone trying to keep people's heads clear and minds set on doing what we're doing, whilst being calm, collected and civil about it. Rob Church ^Talk 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, you do seem to becoming something of a wiki-'public defender'. That could be useful. If you are sticking up for folk who have been treated harshly, or who could perhaps be made into good editors with a little more encoragement from the community and TLC from admins - then you are engaged in a worthy task. However, just be careful you don't end up defending obnoxious trolls against some well-meaning admin who's forgotton to cross the Ts on the search warrant.--Doc ^ask? 01:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, I've just been doing my normal stuff: goofing around on talk pages, doing tidy-work, talking to people who seem confused, trying to be good. (Also shooting my mouth off, redacting, using <s>... </s> here and there. Normal stuff for me, too.) Heck, I've offered a really angry and clueless user help in drafting an RfC against myself before.

But all the sudden my talk page is running hot. Not just mine: As an unrepentant snoop and avowed wikistalker, I can't believe what I'm seeing. "Threats" and "warnings" on WP:ANI, talk of "blackmail", RfXs and blocks flying thicker than cream pies at a Three Stooges festival.

I don't want to be a public defender. I don't want any extra attention. I'm just doing what I thought that we were all meant to do: Look out for the encyclopedia, and look out for each other.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

brenneman[edit]

I think you must be taking me wrongly in this. While I am still a bit annoyed, it has become fairly funny. I don't particularly expect my vote to count after having it drubbed out twice. But I do wish for it to be known that it was drubbed for a lack of 11 votes. I would like it known for many reasons, first of which is that whoever put up the arbcom election notices should probably put the requirements there. If I had known I needed 150 to vote, I would have had 150. Perhaps this situation won't occur for someone else in the future. Secondly, and this point I only mention here to air it out, is that the whole allowing anyone to edit thing is really getting tossed. Leaving aside semi-protection, I myself have been here for almost 2 years editing anonymously. I am annoyed that those contributions mean nothing in the judgement of whether my opinion on who should serve on the arbcom is heard or not. Lastly, as I said in my earlier comments, I rather agree with the interpretation of the requirements that most are using. I am admittedly being contrary, because I believe my vote should count because of what I've done here, not because my logged in account has(had) 139 edits. Arkon 03:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping you sense of humour is the most important thing. We just seemed to be heading really rapidly into "dead horse + flogging" territory. Did you edit anonymously from the same maching/isp as the one you have now? Those edits could amount to "special pleading" is they can be tied to you. (He says, knowing full well that now he's wiki-lawyering.) It's also been suggested that if you've got any deleted edits, that should count towards suffrage. Have you ever tagged a page for speedy deletion, or otherwise edited a page that was later deleted? Not sure that those edits would not have been counted, but it's worth asking.
Or conversly we could just let it go. Flogging and all.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I do not know if this IP is the -exact- same one that I've edited some from. I know its not the majority as I used to be dialup. If you don't mind, can I come here in a bit and drop a non logged in message to check the contribs? Oh, and nah, I don't think I've done any deleted edits or anything, but I don't suppose I'd notice. Arkon 04:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, only 2 earlier edits on this IP. Semi-static it seems, as I know I've had to reset the dsl a few times. Honestly, I think my objection is well enough heard, I don't particularly wish to go digging just to have my opinion count in this matter. Arkon 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if I laugh now? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I'd feel bad if you didn't. It's becoming increasingly clear that it is almost impossible to convey humor and levity in the Wikiworld. Arkon 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, discussed[edit]

As you suggested: WP:DRV#User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure. -- Jim Apple 07:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{oldafdfull}}[edit]

Wait, this is supposed to go on Talk: pages of redirects too? I always make them redirect to the talk of the redirect's target. :{ Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see some logic for doing that, but you'd have to make it pretty clear that it wasn't the target that had been nominated, but the redirect. And even then, there has to be something on the talk page of the redirect, because any old coconut could come along and undo the redirect, and the connection to the record that it's been AfD-ed before is broken. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie. Johnleemk | Talk 08:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs[edit]

Hi, I'm tempted to revert the changes you just made to this list. Firstly, I can't make the slightest sense out of your edit summaries. Secondly, I think blanket removals should be listed on the talk page for referencing. That just seems like common courtesy. Finally, why did you feel compelled to remove a term that I had just recently footnoted? -- JJay 09:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brookie[edit]

Thanks for the note - it was a cracker of an insult - one to treasure! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Troops, Support the USA, King Kong, and This user listens to Goa/Psy trance.[edit]

Policy[edit]

I appreciate you giving your reason for an oppose on my Rfa. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I am of the view "if it isn't broke, I don't try to fix it", and that I don't try to fiddle with policies I feel are working well does not mean I don't read them. I did add a bit on religious bias to the wp:bias page, and I have been active in the current Rfa discussion, and have contributed to other discussions as well. I would appreciate your comments on this - thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KC -
Thanks for the note. I also appreciate that you brought this here rather popping a bullet point under my vote. I haven't been frequenting RfA much, and but was sucked in by your username. Which is a bit unfair, because my default position is "strong oppose". I looked over your contributions thoroughly. I didn't find anything objectionable, and you do good work. In some ways, RfA is RfC on the small. In that light, take my tokenish "weak oppose" as a reminder that we've got a zillion+three policy pages and that they change all the time.
You'd have to delete the main page for you to fail to get promoted now. Despite my failings with regards to civility, I'm pretty au fait with how things work, so I'm always happy to look over your admin actions, just ask.
Conratulations,
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your response. And rest assured, if I am promoted, I may very well give you reason to regret your kind offer of assistance, for as you note, there is a great deal of policy to know and it is changable.

Sympathies on your "small" experience. That must have been rough.

I'm unclear on the UName/unfair comment - is it my username which is unfair, or your position, or am I being terribly obtuse and it is something else? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... being overly cryptic is another flaw of mine. I meant that, when I begin with the stance that I will oppose unless convinced otherwise, having my attention drawn to your RfA by a clever username was like being punished for being funny. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, another member of the concise-to-the-point-of-obfuscation club. I have been guilty myself. If I understand this correctly (humor alert) then if I start meddling with policies which are not broken and select a less witty username, you will be more inclined to judge me fairly as you do everyone else, and give me a Strong Oppose as usual?

Sorry, I could not resist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs2[edit]

Look, I don't know what redact means and I also don't understand your comment here. Could you please explain it?. -- JJay 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You've pulled me up a few times when I've stepped over the line, and I appreciate that. I know I can be unnecesarily sharp, a habit that alas extends into real life. I felt that in this instance your comment only served to increase tensions a little... it was a smack. Which I don't see you do much. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques[edit]

Excellent! I wrote my first 20 articles needing numerous edits to put it together...you create an article in ONE edit...good show! Don't ever downplay your contributions to project space...your skills there far exceed my own. I think adminship is in the cards for you, I see no reason to oppose.--MONGO 04:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<blush> Thanks. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one edit improvement...Painting oil and the modest edit summary "re-wrote a little bit, added reference"...I would say you rewrote a lot, added a number of references and an image too. Nice job! I never doubted you.--MONGO 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do...[edit]

With a user for whom over 60% of their contributions are to XfD, 25 out of their last 100 mainspace edits were reverts, and whose idea of WP:CITE is a single word in a book available online?

Start an RfC? User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Stadium external links[edit]

Aaron, I see you removed two links from the Busch Stadium article. I would point out that (1) Wikipedia:External links is only a style guideline, (2) Wikipedia talk:External links clarifies that in some cases such links are appropriate, (3) it is almost impossible to convey the months-long demolition without the time lapse photos, and (4) I like the links (I watched one of them several times when it was first posted). I think that they add tremendous value to the article.

I agree with you that the web cam of the new stadium should not be on the page. Whether it should be at Busch Stadium III is a debate for another day, since I have never edited that article.

I propose to add the other two back, but I do think that the one should be moved from the main text to the "External links" section.

If you have a strong objection, I will post my arguments on the talk page before I take the action, but if you don't, I would like to just do it. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to the talk page is fine, although User:Wahkeenah and I seem to be the only two non-IP editors who have regularly edited the article during the last six months or so, with dozens of fly-bys. I don't expect much in the way of comments, but who knows. Let's see if he at least chimes in. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Thanks for commment on my talk page[edit]

Thanks for the nice comment on my proposal in the Sexual Slurs talk page. I'm new and appreciate the positive feedback.StrangeAttractor 17:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism[edit]

You've got it. --- Charles Stewart 18:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the link to Dsmdgold. --- Charles Stewart 02:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

New Age[edit]

I reverted the restoration of the links. Wikipedia is not a link farm (and blatantly calling Scientology a cult is not on). I think you ought to stay away from JJay or you'll be accused of Wikistalking. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I've never had anything featured either, normally because I don't get so involved in things once I've started them. :) Plus I write about obscure films and actors that I can't find very much on. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prank flash[edit]

It seemed pretty inevitable that it would be reverted again. At first it appeared as if User:69.233.40.145 was just a sockpuppet of User:Tenka Muteki (using the same general reasoning, same professional sentencing in edit summaries, etc.), but after the anon just reverted the how-to back, Tenka removed the section when he/she removed the list of screamers to add a link to its own page. I'm not sure if that was an accident, or if it's just coincidence and not sockpuppetry. Nufy8 02:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenka blanked List of Screamers after you AfDed it. I believe it can be speedily deleted now if the creator wants it deleted and no one else has edited it but the creator (your AfD addition aside). Nufy8 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since they were flagged for deletion, I had them all deleted from the main article. I might add, I have two computers, but was only signed in on one of them, and forgot this detail when I posted.--Tenka Muteki 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

godmode-lite[edit]

Yes, I've heard of it, but lupin's popups adds such a rollback feature as well. (what I really want to do is find godmode.js, its got to be in someone's monobook file), but I plan on accepting one of the nominations for admin I've received soon(sometime before February), and that will(if I succeed) add true rollback, among other features and responsibilities. I hope you will vote there.

Prodego ^talk 13:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/KM[edit]

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note about my Rfa[edit]

I appreciate your input and feedback on my recent Rfa. I have been made an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) and if there is ever anything I can do to assist you in that capacity, please let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Thanks for checking in, Wikipedia's alot better when you just see it as a hobby. I've been wondering whether or not to reduce the ban of Mistress Selina Kyle (talk • contribs) from indefinate to 15 days so the arbcom can decide whether or not to block her forever, she's a good kid with Asperger's Syndrome who has a fiery temper and get very angry at Tony and Kelly's behavior(understandable), to the point that she does things that get her in trouble. Eh, whatever. Even if I did, if she doesn't chill out, the arbcom would just call her a British anti-Kelly Deeceevoice and indef again, i've tried my best to chill her out, but the cabal has claimed another victim I think.

Later man, gotta go to a political event. Karmafist 19:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dang Thi Minh Hanh[edit]

I've written an English version. Borderline notable now. Tearlach 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]