Jump to content

User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notice posted on the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland is here

The notice posted on the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland is a roughly A4-sized piece of paper posted on the wall of the corridor of a ground floor of an apartment building at Hietalahti, Helsinki, Finland. The notice is printed in Finnish and reminds people that storing bicycles by chaining them into the mat cleaning racks outside the building is forbidden.

 This Finland-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

[[Category:Wikipedia administrators|Aaron Brenneman]] [[Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall|Aaron Brenneman]] {{User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items}}


Gibberish

[edit]

Richard Branson, Slim, or sacrificial?

[edit]
I like virgins. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you never fail to hit the dada mark. Is that some kind of performance art? ^_^
brenneman 13:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like what I can never get. What can I say? My actualising my like would be a performance, alright! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig

[edit]

If you move a page you should to clean up the links too, please. Kazu-kun 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, yes of course. However, since this was a page move requested by a user as "housekeeping" and no adminstratorial action was required in fixing up the huge number of redirects, I left a note on the user talk asking him if he minded doing the grunt work. I'm not anyone's slave, you know.
brenneman 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Test templates

[edit]
Now at Wp:an#Uprotection_of_many_test_templates_.2F_wikipedia_pages

Please don't unprotect em, they are high risk -- Tawker 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A)They don't appear on article pages, B) They are on the list of "always transclude". I mean, what's going to happen, some user's warnings get altered? We're not expecting these templates to appear on the Virgin Mary's page, for goodness' sake. If you're concerned, get a bot to subst them. Otherwise, propose changes to the protection policy that expands protection.
brenneman 23:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason those templates haven't been shot to hell over is the fact that they were fully protected. What's the harm in protecting them, the chances of it needing changes are next to nil and they are vandal magnets. The template is still widely used (unsubsted) on many many pages. Do you know what hell it is for the job queue when someone changes it (especially if it's vandalism) -- Tawker 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you're worried about the job queue than run some python or use AWB to subst them all. The harm is that we do not protect things "just in case" when there is any other solution available. Which there is.
brenneman 00:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no harm in protecting said pages. There is a major tradeoff here between resources (subst'ing templates by bot does eat up hard disk space and is generally discouraged due to load/diskspace issues) and the job queue on update is also a major resource hog -- Tawker 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I was born at night but not last night. Disc space is cheap, almost free these days. The developers are dead clear that performance is their problem not yours. You're suggesting a problem, but are unwilling to accept the reonable solution: This template should always be substituted, there is no reason for it not to be subsituted, the tools exist for it to be easily substituted. If you are the one worried about the job queue, then {{sofixit}}.
brenneman 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, you don't find out that the template is vandalized until you subst a monumental phallus on a poor sod's talk page. I have to agree with Tawker on {{test}} (not really due to job queue concerns, but more due to the social costs of vandal templates), but not about the "remove when AFD is done" template. That one shouldn't be protected, IMO. Titoxd(?!?) 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, how. I think I'd get murdered if I stuck more load on hemlock w/ a subst-o-bot, WP:AVB is already taking way too much of it's share :o - As for fixing the job queue, I don't exactly see any way we could optimize it, any suggestions? -- Tawker 00:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to, that's what Pathosbot does already. Titoxd(?!?) 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Titoxd, I understand what you're saying, but you're still talking about preventative protection. Which we do only in extreme cases. "Test" gets used more than the neighborhood bike, and (leaving aside the question of hitting preview first) any vandalism to it will get reverted super-quick smart. And there is harm in protecting these pages: The more we use that tool when we don't need to, the less resistance there is to using it the next time.
brenneman 00:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, please........ (/me throws in a cookie) -- Tawker 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, you get to feel the same way I do when 50 trillion +1 messages get posted on AVB's talk page. It isn't fun and it's pretty easy to miss stuff. It looks like some stuff is just too hot to unprotect but some stuff can be unprotected ok, the AN discussion seems to be helping a bit. Thanks for enjoying the cookie and the big apology banner (I made the cookies myself) :) -- Tawker 07:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of actions

  • Bold italics RED indicates protection has been replaced.
  • Bold italics GREEN indicates protection has been replaced where I was mistaken.


I'm pretty clear on that all I've done is blow the cobwebs off of an accumulation of protection crust. Out policies and philisophies are fairly clear on this, I did look over everything carefully prior to making thee changes.
brenneman 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work immensely, but this list is useful for admins and vandals alike! -- Renesis (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2006
I am about to sign off for a while, but no ownership extends to user talk pages: If you think it's best to edit/remove/whatever something on my user page, shoot first is fine with me. - brenneman 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've tried something! See how you like it. -- Renesis (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyrights

[edit]

I reprotcted Wikipedia:Copyrights too much legal stuff and can't really be messed around with, that should be permanent Jaranda wat's sup 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Seeking an Administrator's Help.

[edit]
Disposition

I am being accused of being a sock puppet of User:Deathrocker, by User:Leyasu. Can you please put a stop this? You can check my profile and all of it's links to assure you that I am, well, myself and not another person. I have a myspace, a legitimate e-mail address, and you can contact me via AIM. Thank you very much.

Sources

User:Mike5193

User:Leyasu

User:Deathrocker

User talk:Deathrocker/Archive 1

User talk:Sceptre/Archive9

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Evidence

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Deathrocker

User talk:Idont Havaname/Archive 005

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive2

Since it doesn't seem like anyone else has said anything...

[edit]

...welcome back! You've been missed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've always thought that a good adminstrator should be one you don't notice working. Thus I was unfussed that no one noticed I was gone, but am probably doing something wrong since I've raised such a stink coming back.
brenneman 04:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, appreciate the work you are doing. There's no reason many of those templates need to be only available to the "cabal" ;) -- Renesis (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His absence I did see
Quiet tho he claims to be

Now comes a force o'er the mountain
To arise passions ere forgotten

Welcome back, Mackensen (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Aaron! Hear me r0ar! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 13:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

[edit]

Jprobinson on deletion review

[edit]

Do me favor, go try out your information instead of jumping to conclusions. To let you know, The Trojan Tempo has been a growing newspaper in which a man named Jason Pfoutz is now a star music producer who has made many dollars appropriating and improving sound techniques. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jprobinson (talk • contribs).

SuperGrads on deletion review

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SuperGrads. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Davethehatter 21:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, noted. - brenneman 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JasperReports on deletion review

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of JasperReports. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John Vandenberg 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, thanks for the note. - brenneman 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On your juxtapositionally idiosyncratic sense of humour

[edit]
My reaction when I saw the test template unprotections! :D Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 11:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Good Humor
For being the funniest guy, I know. Just read your comments on WP:AN. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 10:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I get not funny "ha-ha" so I'll just be suprised and say 'thank you.' - brenneman 10:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Hitchers

[edit]

There is a need to disambiguate as there is a significant potential for confusion between the two bands of the same name. The Teesside Hitchers have an album on sale at Amazon, and they're releasing another album in January. Please don't delete it again. Cpmartin 12:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk. For goodness sake, not only does the band exist only in myspace, but their record label as well. Unless some serious sources are provided, this is going to get re-deleted. - brenneman 22:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're coming from that angle, The Hitchers from Limerick should be deleted too. Their record label doesn't even exist. See the talk page reply. Cpmartin 09:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. There appears to be some confusion with this band (from Ireland and in existence since 1989) and a band in the UK who are illegally operating under the same name; ‘The Hitchers’. I have added more release information and a link to the BBC John Peel Hitchers page and an NME review to help assuage any doubt as to the bone fides of the band. Airwave 15:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanians

[edit]

Good job on list of Romanians. That list was really getting out of hand. A lot of people were just adding any University professor they could find. Maybe some of the red links should be moved to the talk page, just in case they were notable? List of Romanian Jews also has the same problem going on. I put up one addition Meinhard E.Mayer for speedy delete. Please point out if you find others. LeszekB 21:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns for deletion

[edit]

My biggest theoretical worry is that bad deletion is just as harmful to the wiki as bad inclusion. There are a lot of influences, recently, where people are taking up the kind of attutude warned against here, the so-called "disagree by deletion". There are articles that should be deleted that don't get deleted and instead shuffled off to cleanup. There are articles that should be kept that get killed instead. SPEEDY deletions , in particular, are a source of worry for me, since some people don't know what they're doing. Any thoughts you have are very welcome. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the Phone

[edit]

Sorry. I just looked a the harasser's profile, and realized he was banned from Wikipedia. People must have found out he was just lying for attention. Thanks any way!!!

Michael 23:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Subst of tl in your comments

[edit]

Oh, it's totally fine. I was only joking. It was the way my thought process went writing my response: "just like the tl templates..." (<<looks up>> -- they've been subst'd! oh, the irony!) :) -- Renesis (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
File:Spam with cans.jpeg
I think the wise-guy was spamming ya. Should I drop the banhammer? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 14:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New year Prodego i wish you great wealth and fun time in the coming year! --The Dwarf_King 14:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while Prodego I am nüt, I'll take what I can get... So right back at 'ya, with a Ho ho ho thrown in to boot! - brenneman 14:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like messing around with your talk page. Can I do it every day? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 14:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A) It's meat, in a can... what's not to like? B) Repeat: I'll take what I can get. C) Fair-use hilarity is always welcome! - brenneman 14:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheapTickets

[edit]

I just created an article on CheapTickets, then while checking through things I noticed you deleted one a couple of days ago under CSD-A7. I don't know what that version looked like as I wasn't involved with it, but I think the one I just wrote (which is really just a stub) should pass WP:CORP since I did include references to a couple of Honolulu Star-Bulletin articles about it. The company has been mentioned many times over the years in that paper. If you think it still falls short let me know and I'll see what else I can put together. -- Hawaiian717 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Hawaiian717. Look much better, thanks for the note. I appreciate it. - brenneman 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lad in seine

[edit]

Ok, I've tried. It was really the lead that had seemed awkward to me, plus little ticky tacky things like extra spaces. The problem seems to be that there are two things being discussed in the article and all the articles that feed the article. On the one hand, we have the literal payaos, which is just a float and catch platform, and then the FAD, which is another kettle of fish altogether. It seems like the two terms have begun to take over each others' significance. The FAD is bad juju for fishes, but the payaos is no worse than a boy down at the ol' fishin' hole. If I'm right, then the article should say, flat out, "The payaos was initially a handline fishing platform. However, the term now encompasses all forms of FAD congregated together into a "fish house" arrangement. Therefore, although the traditional payaos had little to no demonstrable effect on fish stocks, commercial and artisan fisheries employing FAD's raise serious concerns about overfishing and over exploitation of natural resources." Something like that, if I'm right. If I'm wrong...well, it's just a normal day if I'm wrong. Geogre 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ophthalmology

[edit]

Hi Aaron, I see you've been involved in Ophthalmology articles. I've created [[Category:WikiProject Ophthalmology articles]] to generate more interest and edits in Ophthalmology related articles. I think the whole area as far as categorising and disambigs are concerned is pretty much neglected. e.e why does laser eye surgery/treatment not have an article of its own? frummer 01:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see why

[edit]

I cannot see why you're siding with a troll who's harassing a long-standing user. And this is clearly inappropriate. – Chacor 02:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the unusual stpe for me of responding on User talk:Chacor. - brenneman 03:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

[edit]

Would you be interested in acting as a mentor for me? Alan.ca 03:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. Mate, I've been blocked by three separate ArbCom candidates, had more than a few official warning, had my first request for adminship called "the worst timed ever," get abusive e-mails about my editorial conduct almost daily, am dragged before the board of inquiry at ANI/DRV/BFE maybe three times a week, the list goes on and on. Short-term advice from me is usually good to follow, and policy interpretation I'm slicker than a greased weasel on, but mentoring? That's crazy talk.
User:Tony Sidaway I know does mentorships fairly often, you might give him a buzz.
brenneman 03:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the referral. I figure those who have fought and lost tend to know more about the war than those who never experience a battle. Alan.ca 03:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently your advice yesterday was prophetic. I was given a 72 hour block a few minutes ago and I don't know if it would have been reversed had I not promised to abstain from conversing with the parties involved. Thanks again for the advice. Alan.ca 07:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement regarding tone

[edit]
Removed conversation duplicated on User talk:Chairboy. If anyone feels that this needs to be in both places for whatever reason please revert my removal. I'm just being tidy. - brenneman 05:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on my talk page per your request. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, Payaos, was selected for DYK!

[edit]
Updated DYK query On December 23, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Payaos, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man... That is totally addictive. - brenneman 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, you should try editing in mainspace more often. I hear it's pretty cool. Not that I'd know about that. ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AfD

[edit]

Hey. I will keep that in mind for next time. Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 23:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays !

[edit]

You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday#Petition_to_recall_User:Friday_from_the_position_of_admin. StuRat 13:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is making me regret my "I like SPAM" comment above... but oh well, I'd have missed it otherwise! - brenneman 23:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

[edit]

Octet truss and Monocoque

Re. I've undone an admin action of yours

[edit]

Copied back to User talk:Ral315.

Good to see you back

[edit]

I hadn't realized you've been here all this time..... stupid finals... Incidentally, your baby CAT:AOR is up for CfD - again. Be advised, be very advised.

Welcome back. Hope you never have to leave again. - crz crztalk 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Cheers big ears, brenneman 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David and Goliath

[edit]
Copied to User talk:Rebecca

A Poked nose get bloodied

[edit]
From User talk:Tony1

<nose poking>
Goodness, it's getting hot in here, isn't it? Since this doesn't seem to be heading anywhere good anytime soon, and since I've already been called "meddlesome" more times than I can recall, I'm going to pipe up with a few comments: There can be no doubt that everyone involved here has the long-term good of the project at heart. <Some|None|All> of the parites may be woefully misguided, but no one is trying to screw anything up on purpose. Fair use is a thorny question, one that we alternate between over-reacting to and ignoring. I don't see much disagreement on it being complex and subjective. An equitable solution is unlikely at the pace we're going now. Descent into acrimony almost certainly precludes a positive outcome. Is there any way that this can be pulled back from the brink at all? That we can return to discussin it all "hip-hip, I say chap" -like and less "I spit on your grave" -ish?
brenneman 03:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
</nose poking>

Pick your nose somewhere else but my talk page. It's going to be hot while (1) the seven-day rule is ignored, and (2) the FU rules continue to be worded in a way that requires extreme interpretation to support the contentions of the storm troopers. I've lost confidence in and respect for the FU rules now, because this office person Danny can apparently flout any rule s/he likes. Tony 02:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gay ga zinta hate, mate. My talk page shall continue to be open, always, for anyone who feels badly done by, and I hold no grudges.
brenneman 03:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Elliptical

[edit]

Aaron Brenneman wrote:

The whole "dare not speak of that which most have seen" is maddening, and I will of course respect it if you demure, but your comment was tantalising enough that I simply must ask: Not just December, or even the 6th, but 5:50? Related to this current imbroglio, or something else?
brenneman 02:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you the exact second at which I made my decision if you like; I just rounded it to the nearest 10 minutes. I left because I realized that the problems were escalating and that there was now no chance of things being turned around. The decision was probably triggered in part by events related to the ArbCom elections which were ongoing at the time – Gurch 12:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewdar on deletion review

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jewdar. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nydas(Talk) 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article you may have deleted is self-recreated

[edit]
Dj Disco Wiz

This user is fairly obnoxious about self-posting his own article and inserting his questionable claims in others. Is there any way to ban him? Ronbo76 22:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your persistance with this. My two cents:
.01 I'm the happy-fluffy-bunny kind of adminstrator when there is any chance that the person is simply new as opposed to malicious. "Banning" is what gets done to people who are either going out of their way to hurt the encyclopedia or have demonstrated (after a long time usually) that they do not work and play well with others. See the banning policy.
.02 This user has at least once used their talk page saying "tell me how to follow the forms required" so try giving him the benefit of the doubt and engage with him. First get him to use his talk page, then yours, get him to indicate that he's read the applicable policies and guidelines, etc. Just remember that we were all n00bz once.
Once you've tried communication and it either hasn't worked or he hasn't responded, then it's time to move from the carrot to the stick. As it were. Sticking with the bunny theme, I mean.
brenneman 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lizettefc may be a sockpuppet for DJ Disco Wiz

[edit]

User talk:Lizettefc has also been involved in the DJ Disco Wiz articles/insertions. On one of Watchpages, it shows she created another DJ Disco Wiz article at 13:55 PST today with an AES arrow to the left. I don't know what the arrow means, but I do know she backs DJ Disco Wiz religiously. Ronbo76 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dodge city's rap school

[edit]

thx for the heads up. now look at the article i deleted. it made no sense? it was obviously a prank and i tried to delete it and the bot reverted it. please check the "dodge city's rap school article to see what im talkin bout.--70.246.18.216 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a little too clean?

[edit]

Hey Aaron, did you intend to migrate your user categories into your archives? Check out the top of User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/10 to see what I mean... -- nae'blis 19:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - brenneman 23:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Taking Cydes

[edit]

I recently had occasion to read your discussion with Cyde on his talk page. I wanted to tip my hat to you for making a point about Cyde's approach (the white knight method) and what it implies about his evaluation of his beliefs versus others (or the community's). You approached the subject with a great deal of tact which I have heretofore been unable to successfully muster.

There's a recurring refrain in Cyde's actions, usually a variation on the idea that because what he's doing is "the right thing," process can be ignored. I've experienced this first-hand in some of his deletions, as well as his rearranging pages in my userspace, and in other areas. I think he acts from the best motives 99% of the time, but I think he is less successful at achieving a result that's good for the project as a whole, because of his penchant for ignoring established process and community consensus.

I'm still smarting from my run-ins with him, which is why I'm all the more impressed by your approach and phrasing in broaching the subject with him. I felt that needed to be said. I don't think we take the time to let our fellow editors know when what they write is so civil and devoid of even a scintilla of personal attack that it can only be described as impressive. Thank you for broaching this subject in a way I've been unable to. --Ssbohio 03:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. In this case it's more an infinite monkey style result than a sign of any particular breeding or refinement: I kvetch so much that sometimes I'm bound to do so gracefully. - brenneman

I suppose one of the side-effects of using IRC so much is that it can look like I am doing things unilaterally or without discussion. I can assure you, I am not. I don't really think the "white knight" comparison is appropriate in this regard. As for Aaron ... I do not know why it is that I am perpetually butting heads with him, but I can assure all of the onlookers, we've both gotten quite good at it. I suspect it's more for show than for anything else — we've certainly gotten in enough practice such that nothing really incivil or disruptive is ever said. --Cyde Weys 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the place where Aaron has it over me in spades. He is so much better at "taking cydes" (I can't resist a bad pun) with you than I am. When you and I interact, I get upset, and I'm smart enough to know that nothing good comes from discussing things without having a cool head. True, it sometimes look like you're taking action unilaterally, but where I get upset is when there is what I referred to above as the "white knight" approach. I haven't been here as long as you have, so I'm probably going to be wrong more often than you. When I've brought concerns to you, I don't always get a sense that you see the validity of differing points of view. I mean this nonconfrontationally, but I don't seem to have the brenneman knack for expressing that well. --Ssbohio 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children

[edit]

I didn't want to add to the shouting match on DRV, so I'm coming here. I really am troubled by your argument there. We know (FACT) we have self-identified paedophiles active on Wikipedia. There will be (logical deduction) more that have not self-identified. We have already had one messy issue with a child receiving inappropriate communications from an adult through Wikipedia (anecdotal). We have a number of anti-paedophile activist groups who have complained about our tolerance and jammed OTRS with angry shouting in the past (may be news to you). Perhaps these categories will not be used for nefarious purposes - we can get paranoid. But, they serve no encyclopaedic purpose and have the potential to be extremely harmful and certainly to bring us into media disrepute. That means that the encyclopedia is undoubtedly better served without them. Deleting these things is all gain and no loss. You want to fight a process battle on IAR, please fight it on another topic (go through my logs you'll find plenty of material) not child safety. Do we need a real incident before we take action? Do you really want that on your conscience? Cyde can be right, occasionally. --Docg 10:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: User:Rookiee, though whether you interpret his block as a prime example of why we need this or a prime example of Wikipedia caving to vocal activists is up to opinion. Actually, that's probably what Glasgow is referring to. --tjstrf talk 11:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of it. But there's plenty more where that came from. Actually, banning users for their views is not something I generally support. That way lies madness - and it is detrimental to a free neutral encyclopedia. Lists of children, however, serve no purpose.--Docg 12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, you may be interested in this. Granted, it's Jimbo's personal opinion, and he says he's not acting on behalf of the Foundation in this regard. But it does seem like he supports my action to delete the category on sight. --Cyde Weys 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this is done and dusted. I am dissapointed in the lack of real debate. I am even more dissapointed in the suggestions around that I'd chosen this as an arbitrary point of contention. I don't play nomic with Wikipedia.
In the short and sweet, the category is near useless like a half-a-squillion others. That much we can all probably agree on. But the simple truth is that deleting it because of the "risk" has no basis in fact.
Deleting things just because we don't like them, that way lies madness.
brenneman 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPW shortcut

[edit]

Hi - I honestly don't see the need to delete it - for a start, there is no WP: namespace - it's just a prefix in the mainspace, so to follow that arguement, one oulw have to delete every WP: shotcut on Wikipedia. About the "not official project" bit - WP:VP2, WP:VPRF and WP:WDM are a few examples, along with hundreds of user-space essays which have the WP prefix, but which are by no means official (NPW has had quite a lot of interest (surprising amount, actually)). Also, if I were to delete it, it would be in cotravention of CSD, as I'm not the creator (and it surprised me to find it). Thanks, Martinp23 01:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll have a good think about it, then. - brenneman 01:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK :) Martinp23 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM #11

[edit]

Hi, I saw it but I didn't understand what I should do. --Sa.vakilian 03:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at RFC on Nandesuka

[edit]

Hi, Aaron,

About your comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nandesuka#brenneman -- I completely agree that if evidence were provided and the articles were under a barrage of inappropriate anon edits (as does happen in controversial topics, such as Objectivism!) then semi-prots would be in order. Evidence was what I had repeatedly asked for -- but Nandesuka repeatedly refused to acknowledge. I'm willing to allow the possibility that all the edits were from the same individual, who was banned from editing. However, making assumptions based on the notion of "quacks like a duck" (as Nandesuka has stated is his "evidence") is contrary to the ideals of WP:AGF. I know we all can occasionally fall into the habit of seeing anonymous users as being "suspect editors", but so long as Wikipedia holds that anon IPs be granted editing rights, we shouldn't jump the gun on thinking every unknown editors is some sort of boogey-man sockpuppet :) Regards, --LeflymanTalk 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like we're cross-editing :) Thanks for your comments on my page. I was originally going to place my responses at the RFC's discussion page-- but since they were principally personal replies, I thought it better to direct them to the individuals. I'd be happy to move them over there, if you think they'd serve the RfC. best,--LeflymanTalk 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: as to whether the RFC was the best dispute resolution step, you might note my addition of item 9 at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", in which Nandesuka basically stated he didn't have anything more to say to me.--LeflymanTalk 05:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PAIN

[edit]
Your have caused a lot of PAIN,
Although your intention was sane.
I think I should mention,
we don't like "intervention".
The you should fear,
may be studied fully here

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limericks only have 5 lines, and out to have a AABBA rhyming pattern. Try:

Aaron has caused us much PAIN,
And although his intention was sane.
We think we should mention,
We hate "intervention".
And so this, although much to our shame.

--Docg 12:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To sing about a soon deleted page
That once was full of such promise and hope
It stode upon the scene of this bright stage
But made some who posted look like a dope

I don't think I can do 3 more stanzas of this. Call it a minisonnet. Nandesuka 16:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Aaron bad manners did hate
They certainly made him irate
He made a new page
Where n00bs went with their rage
And many did think it was great
Now, one day, some admins got heated
(And Kelly and Tone were unseated)
The factions did fight
And 'though no-one was right
They said 'get that damn page deleted!''
Now, the moral of my story is this
(and I'm serious, not taking the piss)
When on IRC
We all need to agree
We can all shoot at Aaron - can't miss!

--Docg 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was hoping for videos of interpretive dance. —Cryptic 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Not a wasted effort, but excellent and long overdue. Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thanks for your compliment on American Nihilist Underground Society. I thought a re-write would lessen the chances of having another "GNAA-like" multi-Afd debacle. If the article survives, maybe it'll make the Signpost: "Trolling organization's article not deleted, Jimbo outraged!". No, really, I guess it's a valid article. Prolog 10:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million

[edit]

Many thanks for the unblock. I'd been waiting for a while (as I'm sure you know), and I was starting to feel unloved. It's good to be back in business!! AndalusianNaugahyde 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck AfD

[edit]

Thanks very much for the in-process close of this AfD. I was worried that I might be inadvertently escalating the situation - I hope that my actions weren't too inappropriate. Tevildo 00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No decision, just closed? Did you say "Fuck WP:SK?" :P CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (third nomination)

[edit]

Clarification request

[edit]

I replied with a clarification on the ongoing AfD for openoffice, hope that makes things more clear. It's a tricky issue I admit, though I'm usually a fan of letting decisions stand (the con law student in me I guess :p) I can see your concerns are completely valid. I'm willing to be persuaded either way, but as it stands I still don't know enough to formulate an opinion. Hope that helps. Wintermut3 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for that. ^_^ brenneman 12:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salt

[edit]

Aaron, I'm really sorry about any unintended implications of the "with salt" comment. As embarrassed as I am to say this, I still don't actually know what the analogy refers to, or where it comes from. I've seen it used when a topic keeps coming up, again and again. I hope I didn't put my foot into something; the "salt" word seems to have pushed some buttons, so I'd better figure out what the implications are. So sorry for stupidly using a term I've seen used, and don't really know, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor pointed me to salting the earth, so I now understand the analogy (I was trying for a food analogy); I'm still sorry if the comment was personally offensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I'm old enough and have been around long enough that I should have a thicker skin, particularly when it comes to something that I knew would be controversial. I spun something small on your part out into something bigger. No hard feelings either way, I hope.
brenneman 04:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm old enough that I should have known better than to use a term I don't even know - I feel pretty stupid about that, and it didn't help a touchy situation. And I really hate AfD - I'm pretty sure I've never set foot in there that I haven't made a fool of myself. Guidelines don't apply, consensus isn't consensus, and what applies on one AfD doesn't apply on another - arrrrgh - AfD and Images/Fair Use are two areas of Wiki I just cannot get my arms around. Anyway, still sorry for any unintended agida; no hard feelings here, because it was my fault. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software notability

[edit]

Following your move from Group Office to software notability criteria, I've added what i think of as a basis for notability at Wikipedia talk:Notability (software). It's not biased to open or closed source. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Despite being up to my arse in this deletion debate, I'm woefully underqualified to contribute much to the guideline! I'm mostly trying to facilitate more structured debate, while at the same time trying to avoid looking like I'm crafting the guideline to get the result I want in a deletion debate... tricky business. For me, if a consensus guideline emerges that has clearly defined borders about "distro" and that Group Office is kept as a result, that's a win all around. I'm having an almost identical debate at Able & Baker deletion review: Focusing on longer-term stability is better than hoof-and-mouth trench warfare over a single article.
brenneman 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Autograph books

[edit]

NO! You are completely wrong! See Jimbo Wales's quote used on Sd31415's Signature book. Saying you'll be a wiki-slave makes you look like a bit of a jerk. Why don't you stop not improving the project by wasting time writing that and then wasting my time by making me reply, and just go out and clean up and add references to an article without annoying people to delete a subpage. I see that you are so against it that you don't even have a userpage, except for many subpages which should perhaps be condensed into one main userpage. Userspace is to be seen, not attacked by other users. Reywas92TalkSigs 20:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the quote that you speak of: "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing." Wow, in that case, it looks like these signature books aren't in the spirit of friendliness, and should be deleted. Aaron spoke in a very cooperative and kind tone, and then look at how you responded! --Cyde Weys 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, Clyde is right; there was no need to lose control. Aaron did speak calmly and I applaud him for that. Now to reply to him: yes I would consider speedy deleting it if it were requested. Any concern/request gets my attention. It would, however, take a strong/good argument to actually convince to do it. I enjoy collecting signatures and signing other signature books and if I have to be miserable while contributing to the encyclopedia (which is something I try to do as much as possible), then I might as well stop editing. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 00:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

[edit]

Fine then... I will never ever use a templated signature again because even though I have that page on watch and I can check it when ever someone else changes it so that it never becomes a great place for vandals to mess with, and makes my signature 4 WORDS LONG I know it's a retarted idea and I should never try to fix my signature so that it doesn't clutter the Wiki-markup ever again. Thanks for your kind support in finding a way to properly fix this matter. :-) --Why1991 14:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Here. I made a new signature. It's not against any guidelines which don't even matter that much in the first place and I still don't prefer it over my old one.--γιατί Sign Here | ESP. 02:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why 1991

[edit]

Just put a personal attack towards you on his user page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Why1991&curid=5200426&diff=105254616&oldid=104494973 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jorcoga (talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Page Histories

[edit]

Is there a way to clear out page histories? (My user page's for example.) Kornfan71 01:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could have it deleted, but that wouldn't be done merely to clear out some page histories. Is there any reason why you want the history deleted? Is there something in there? If not, and you just want to tidy it up, really, don't worry about it. Every page on Wikipedia has a long history behind it; that's how everything is, and none of it is ever "tidied up". --Cyde Weys 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Mujahedeen KOMPAK, was selected for DYK!

[edit]
Updated DYK query On January 15, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mujahedeen KOMPAK, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, I am now officially a DYK junkie. - brenneman 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re Ilena

[edit]

That was unexpected and appreciated, your moving it to her talk page. --Ronz 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Able and Baker

[edit]

I like your closing, though I'd have liked to have seen those previous discussions mentioned a lot earlier during the debate. Now people probably weren't aware of them and probably haven't looked at them. *sigh*

I'm also not happy with yet another Deletion review in this case, since I'd deliberately been aiming to prevent one.

Too bad that no one has been talking with each other much. I did get people discussing with Phil during this AFD, but he claimed he'd gotten ill, so no more came of that.

So, I guess I'm just dissapointed that no one has actually tried to really make any work of a consensus, and most of what has happened is a lot of dry procedure with no actual human thought involved. Hence also the AFD/DRV yoyo we'll be seeing more of, I suppose.

So the situation is somewhat imperfect, but I think your contribution to it was very helpful :-)

--Kim Bruning 09:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Although I get at leat one e-mail a week from someone wanting help to "destroy" an article, my hatchet-man image is really unwarrented: I only want consistancy.
I believe that if Snowspinner would spend a little more time informing and less time lecturing, we could get some form of "syndication" into the fold. I also don't know what would be wrong with a large article, something like List of Dayfree Press Comics, with redirects.
I never understand the fetish for stand-alone articles, re:[[Sisyphus|SCHOOLS]], but I digress.
brenneman 12:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands

[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands, I've scraped together a fairly impressive set of references ... or at least I'd like to think. Clearly the article still needs a lot more work, which I'll try to get to when I can, but would you mind seeing if your concerns about the topic's suitability for inclusion have been addressed? Thanks! Serpent's Choice 09:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny

[edit]

[1]. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*snort* The funniest thing about the whole thing was anyone acting like there was even doubt it was me. - brenneman 12:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you was a finland stub. *snicker* — Nearly Headless Nick 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My status as a stub is well established, though. But can we not talk about the finnish?
brenneman 12:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

for the message. Hearing that one is appreciated is the best gift there is around here. I eagerly await the krumping video, which, reading between the lines, has just seen some production delays. I doubt you are right about the bad things getting better, but I also doubt the bad things will make much difference to the ultimate success of the project. They will, however, produce a never-ending line of embittered wounded outcast ex-volunteers, and some days I wonder if the human toll is worth it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


THB block

[edit]

Not a problem, I was simply making sure I would not be accused of blocking without ample warning (seeing as my card is already marked by THB as being among the "lump" of admins who have it in for him). That a totally separate admin issued a block is probably better for all concerned though, of course, you will forever be one of us now... Rockpocket 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Old South Road

[edit]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old South Road

I wanted to bring this up on your talk page before taking it to DRV. I did a head-count (dropping the six users with fewer than 50 edits) and I came to a 10 vs 10 split (not counting merges, and there were only a few of these). I definitely understand the closing admin's perogative of judging on the quality of the arguments, but keep in mind that there were several (I think) valid arguments on both sides (as well as an option for no-concensus). There is a legitimate point from WP:FICTION (from a larger notability standpoint) that small parts of a work should be merged with larger list. There is also a legitmate counterpoint, however, that Wikipedia is not paper. I find this latter argument particularly cogent considering the staggering impact of Tolkien's work and the great impact that even small elements have had on later work. Consider a comparison to the Bible (for which Wikipedia rightly has more detailed coverage than other volumes with lesser impact). I recall a statistic mentioning that The Lord of the Rings was the 2nd-most read book after the bible in the 20th century. Certainly that merits some detailed analysis. There have been volumes written on Tolkien's work, but it suffers in some ways from depth of external criticism because it is not an alegory but a constructed history, thereby diminishing its appeal among the academics circles of literature. Scholarly historical points can be brought up, but these are often mistaken as "cruft" whereas scholarly alegorical references rarely suffer from the same fate.

WP:Pokémon test was also brought up, for whatever that is worth, it is certainly true. As for the verifiability issue that was mentioned by some opposers: these are good arguments, but they were refuted by one of the socks (or new users) who provided verifiable (and highly notable) references. I can vouch for the legitimacy of those references and provide page numbers if you so desire.

I honestly think that the article should eventually be merged with Greenway (Middle-earth), but I voted for keep to avoid having bad precident set for the deletion of large swaths of Tolkien articles. Would you be willing to change your decision to keep and merge to/from Greenway (Middle-earth) based on those arguments (and the fact that Greenway and Old South Road really are basically a content fork? I would be more than happy to promptly perform the move. Best, Irongargoyle 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost always happy to restore material on any good-faith request. Looking at Greenway, though, I must admit feeling that even a merged article would be vulnerable to another AfD. Would you consider making a larger commitment and starting the "Geography of Middle Earth" as proposed in the afd? - brenneman 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think a narrower and more appropriate compromise would be Roads of Middle-earth, but I'm not really interested so much in the undeleted history to make a merge like that, rather the precedent that calling it Delete sets. Best, Irongargoyle 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
/* Rolling eyes like a mad horse */ Ok, I've:
  1. Reversed my decision based upon thinking that I was mistaken about the merge target's existance,
  2. Reversed my reversal when I realised it hadn't been in existance than.
I'll have a more considered think about it, if too much time passes (i.e. a couple of days) or anything happens (i.e. someone uses it as precedent) poke me.
brenneman 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The insanity of this place kills me."

[edit]
A brave man once requested me,
to answer questions that are key.
Is it to be or not to be?
And I replied 'Oh why ask me?'

Mike Altman

The rain is raining all around,
It falls on field and tree,
It rains on the umbrellas here,
And on the ships at sea.

Robert Louis Stevenson

Do you hear this praise of you,
Little park that I pass through?

Helen Hoyt

Thanks for the thoughts. Take care of yourself too. Hiding Talk 23:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batch AfD

[edit]
Moved to User talk:Blaxthos - brenneman 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Webcomics, A Return Thanks

[edit]

A big thank you for your comments as well. That's the kind of thinking I was looking for. Obviously we two are of different extremes in policy thinking on the matter, but I hold a strong respect for open-mindedness and a willingness to find new solutions, even if at times I may myself come across as overly stubborn. Despite the accusations, I feel I'm the one at odds with an army, and in such cases it often takes a little extra voracity and stubbornness to try to push forth even the concept of a middle-ground resolution. I do apologize for some of my conduct in that particular AfD though, there are certainly things I wish I could have taken back after I said them. Alas, I am only human (regrettably), and my frustration has peaked a few times throughout this event.

I've not operated under the assumption the article could be saved for quite some time, practically from the beginning even. It's been my intention now for some time now to try to get out the idea of a finding a different approach to such situations, as this does not seem an isolated incident. I bear no ill will to you or any policy writers, I simply seek a resolution that will allow users to find the information their looking for, and it seems webcomics is a particular area that has some trouble. I'm aware it may not come immediately, but if I may use the analogy, I'd like to get the biggest snowball I can and start it rolling down the mountain.

To bounce my ideas off you, lemme quickly tell you what's churnin' in my head for endgoals. First and foremost, a clarification on notability policy. Specifically, what counts as an "independent source" and how many of these does one need? When considering webcomics especially, because who else besides blogs really talk about webcomics? Second, the policy does seem to be a little less strict. There simply isn't many big websites out there that ever acknowledge webcomics. I would think that most would agree if a webcomic has like half a million active readers, it's notable regardless if it's been in the New York Times or not. The tough part of course is proving that reader base, as there's no magical counter to tell us that. Personally, I think traffic rankings, if pullable from an independent source (i.e. not the author's claim), should be taken into account on a small level. For example, something along the lines of "if Alexa shows it in the top 500,000" or "the site gets at least 3000 hits a day", then "this counts as a single 'independent source'". That way, nothing could be either kept or deleted based soley on that, but at will at least be acknowledged in the smallest way that it does have a decent reader base. The other change I would like to see is really just regarding what in my own opinion should count as "independent source", but those details can be discussed later.

Finally, I'm looking at Comixpedia with quite a few thoughts floating around. I think it would be beneficial for Wikipedia and Comixpedia to have a much stronger bond and collaboration. Comixpedia seems infantile and in need of a hell of a lot of work, but it's obviously a budding project, and not but yesterday I noticed Dueling Analogs spoke of interest in it. It may so happen Comixpedia needs to "grow up" a bit first, but still it seems to me a solid idea to begin some collab to work towards a point where the Wikipedia can hand less notable can be handled through Comixpedia somehow. I don't think a second set of guidelines for this case is out of the question. Thus, a hierachy is established to where highly notable comics get their own article (ex. Penny-Arcade, CAD, etc.), less notable ones (this would be the category I would say for ones that obviously have some solid popularity, but don't quite meet the notability spec) get a stub that simply provides a brief summary and redirect to Comixpedia article (ex. ExtraLife, Press Start to Play, F@NB0Y$, etc.), assuming a Comixpedia article exists for that comic that's within Wikipedia guidelines (i.e. if the Comixpedia can't even manage a quality article for the comic, then the Wiki shouldn't be expected to link to it) . Possibly even less notable ones could simply redirect to a section of a Wiki Comixpedia article, directing users to check the Comixpedia list to find what they are looking for.

Well, that's my two-cents. That's of course not an overnight job, I realize. But that's what I myself would like to see begun to be worked towards. There are a lot of little details and small things that need to be worked out for all that, but those can be discussed as their come to. I welcome your thoughts and opinions on the matter and any suggestions on as to how to move forward.

Thanks again. --Nmaster64 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm digesting this, and reviewing lots of older talk on wp:web before I make a reply. - brenneman 01:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nmaster64

[edit]

He's announced a zero-tolerance policy with people like me on his talk page. It's difficult to get any work done when another editor is going to express hatred towards me. -- Selmo (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I have zero-tolerance with "people like [you]", than you must be admitting to being quite close-minded. No argument can degrade to a point I am not willing to try and take a step back and work towards a mutual resolution, assuming of course the other party can take that step as well. I don't hate you, you simply offended me and I responded in kind. Feel free to discuss it with me, it seems a bit silly to be posting to brenneman about it... --Nmaster64 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Fuck

[edit]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for doing what I dared not to and cleaning out the crap in that article. Strad 22:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl has been taken to Deletion Review

[edit]

I thought you should be notified that the Everywhere Girl has been taken to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Everywhere_Girl, your actions have been attacked by several users, some calling for your banning. Dionyseus 01:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're both internet famous, d00d! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review: T.H.E. Fox

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of T.H.E. Fox. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GreenReaper 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help - disambig needed

[edit]

Hi. I see you deleting articles, so you must be an administrator. I have created an article: Arkona (Russian band). Properly, should be maded a disambuguation page at Arkona (now redirect to: Cape Arkona), with Cape Arkona and the band. But I wont do it by myself, 'cause I just don't know how. Can you do it for me please? Regards Skyforgerquestions? 04:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Och aye, give me ten minutes to finish with the aformentioned deleting, and then I'll have a look. - brenneman 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I misred that: It's easy to do..
  1. Click on "Arkona"
  2. Click on Arkona again in "Redirected from Arkona" which gives "&redirect=no" in the url
  3. Click on the "edit this page" as per normal
  4. Create the disambiguation page.
If that's not clear, let me know.
brenneman 04:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance

[edit]

I have redacted the offer, as requested. Hope this helps. Thought I was doing a good thing. ThuranX 05:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reposting, as I state on my talk page. ThuranX 05:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion nominations

[edit]

Hehe... sorry. I'll remember to space out my Christian rock band nominations next time. ;) --Candy-Panda 06:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cryptic

[edit]

Kd345 Hkst84 YA718 Drbq79 1cor1313 Jtb550 Bdm87 Zmf123 Cdd727 Vru85 Riq24

... OK, I'll bite. Huh? —Cryptic 07:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving the history

[edit]

I just noticed this. Glad to see someone else cares about the history. Thanks for that. Carcharoth 13:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of DLX by brenneman

[edit]
Moved to User_talk:DLX#A_warning_on_your_use_of_language.

Funbrain's usage stats

[edit]

I found Funbrain's usage stats here: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=www.funbrain.com&url=funbrain.com

It has more visitors than Maddox, so it seems to be a very notable website. WhisperToMe 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also found http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/313431 WhisperToMe 07:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found evidence for Funbrain

[edit]

http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/313431

This shall be my source for Funbrain claims! WhisperToMe 06:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light current

[edit]

Thanks for reaching out to Light current, and I wish you well in your endeavours. I hope that he will heed your advice; you might want to keep an eye on this thread, as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JJay

[edit]

Hi, I noticed your problem with JJay. Please view: Name It and Frame It? and Talk:Name It and Frame It?. Others are having the same problems. FGT2 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi

[edit]

You don't owe me anything; in fact, I owe you a great deal, but I would be very grateful if you gave your opinion here. --Ideogram 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. I have nothing useful to add at this time but for the obvious suggestion I give anyone whenever friction arises: Go do something else for a while and remove all related pages from your watchlist. It should be noted that I only take my own advice about 25% of the time. - brenneman 06:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


FanFiction and FanFiction.net

[edit]
Moved to User talk:Academic Challenger

Go to my talk page for another comment. Academic Challenger 07:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCCA

[edit]

Well, you started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award, but apparently considered the discussion over after about... one hour (time between your first and last post there), so you most likely never noticed my post. While my post there is more detailed (and I'd be happy if you read it), the basic thought is: I was (and still am) really wondering about your judgment in that case since you pretty much completely dismissed the two notable, independent, non-trivial sources that have been named in the Discussion Deletion. I assume you had a good reason for deleting it despite having multiple notable third-party sources, and I would love to hear it. I (and quite a few others) reasoned that the notability guideline had been fulfilled, so obviously we had been wrong somewhere.

If we weren't wrong, I would really appreciate an undeletion of the article... :) --Sid 3050 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/* I eagerly await comments from the "quite a few" other people on this. Please don't attempt to bulwark your case with the royal "we" because it makes you sound like a git. */
The print article's comparison to the oscarsTM is clearly facetious, and everything that gets coverage on every show (however small its audience) doesn't automatically get an article. If you're unhappy with this close, take it to deletion review. But make some mainspace edits first, please, or uncharitable souls will apply the {{spa}} template to you.
brenneman 06:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the last four Keep votes were based on the existence of the two non-trivial sources. And they came from established editors, from what I can see. So I'm not exactly "bulwarking" or trying to "sound like a git".
Even without the Oscars quote, the NYT article still covers the WCCA in a non-trivial manner. And Attack of the Show is a notable show in my eyes. It's at least notable enough to get its own article (and never went through AfD since its creation almost two years ago), so I figure it counts for notability if an entire episode covers this event. So I really don't see how it still fails the Notability rule, and you haven't answered that question, either.
And no, I most likely won't push this to Review since I have better things to do than artificially increasing the size of my Wiki-Dick just so my point of view actually counts.--Sid 3050 12:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of fact, there's pretty widespread unhappiness with Wikipedia over its treatment of webcomics with accusations of bias occurring pretty frequently. There's even something called "Wiki Watch" that's getting geared up[2] because they are of the general opinion that "several short-sighted, empire-building editors" are acting badly by their habit of deleting webcomics that have been long-lived and award winning. One of the tactics that seem to be used is to destroy notability by knocking out industry awards like the WCCA and then turning around and further deleting articles that rely on the now deleted awards for notability. I don't make judgments as to who is sounding or acting like a git. I don't have a good working definition for one thing, but it doesn't sound like something that raises the tone of the conversation so could we leave git and other insults by the door? TMLutas 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that came across as an insult, I didn't mean it that way. There is a large gap between saying something like "editors User:Foo, User:Bar, and User:FUBAR all commented thusly" and "I (and quite a few others)..." the first has falsifiability the second does not. To be frank, I could give a rat's arse what some other random website has to say. I've worked long and hard on webcomic guidelines, and am more than happy to hear suggestions that do not start withthe assumption that webcomics need special pleading. We suck at deciding what webcomics to keep? Then go to the webguideline and help build a new, better guideline.
brenneman 06:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCCA again

[edit]

Can you explain your decision in the AFD on the web cartoonists choice awards? From your editorializing, it looks like you overrode consensus for WP:V concerns, which is fine, except it bothers me that you seemed to be applying an unnecessarily harsh interpretation of WP:V - which seems to against the "When in doubt, don't delete." clause from WP:DGFA. Can you explain this better for me perhaps? --Random832(tc) 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funday PawPet Show

[edit]

Bias

[edit]

Your DRV nomination sounds a lot like sour grapes, and is beginning to leave me (and a lot in the furry community) wondering if you and Wikipedia have something against furries. Is there a reason this has to be judged again so soon? Why not let it lie for a while? -- Jay Maynard 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Monkey Boy!
Anyone who suspects me of bias based upon the tragically small sample of my recent furry-related-deletions really needs to understand that the world is larger than their own concerns: Have a look at my overall deletions to see that I hate all of God's creature's equally. It's worth pointing out that articles in a similar area (like cosplay, or webcomics, of ninjas) tend to actually link each other so it should be no suprise that nominsations and deletions are "clumpy." If I recall, I began gettin the "why do you hate furries so!" e-mails after closing several AfDs on the webcomics notice board. Perhaps the community should vent it's spleen on whomever it was that nominated them, since they're the one who started me on the self-destructive but seductive path of wiping the furry scourge from the planet. ^_^
brenneman 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - That last bit was sarcasm, I could care less what an article is about, as long it is propoerly sourced.
Funny you should mention webcomics...the webcomic community is about to conclude Wikipedia is useless because of the recent mass deletions there. See, for example, [3], [4], [5], and [6], especially the comments.
Is Wikipedia going to be considered relevant in general? Rampant deletions just irritate people, and drive them away. Is that what you want to see happen? -- Jay Maynard 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm painfully aware of the flame-fest that accompanies the deletion of whatever-the-groundbreakingly-important-webcomic-I've-deleted-today. It's ironic that the dark lord of Webcomics regularly impugnes my character by painting me as a "webcomic hater." (Like I'm a furry-hater, I guess.) I think you'd be hard pressed to find many who have worked harder on creating sensible, consistant guidelines for webcomics than me. There's no argument that the current guidelines exclude the vast majority of webcomics... the only argument appears to be that those comics that are "clearly" important to the webcomics community resist any sort of metric as to ehy they are important. Snowspinner wants to include anything he says is important, for example. That's clearly unworkable, but some new debate at the web guideline is always welcome. That would mean new debate, of course, as opposed to re-running old debate. Oh! Or here!!
brenneman 07:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. At this point, the webcomic community is convinced Wikipedia is not interested in including webcomics, after witnessing the cluster**** that surrounded Evil Inc. (a comic that has real-world publication as well as a web presence). Getting them to work with Wikipedia is going to take some serious bridge-building from the Wikipedia side. They've already written Wikipedia off. Jay Maynard 15:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratchpad - Improve webcomics coverage!

[edit]

Metric should be :

  1. applicable
  2. objective
  3. consensual

drv process

[edit]

It's also an abuse of the DRV process. I quote: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." Nardman1 16:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare me, I wrote those words. The nomination cited two guidelins that sked for multpile sources, the "keep" crowd ignored that so the closing nominator made the mistake of counting votes. Very simple.
brenneman 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember The Milk

[edit]

Why did you delete the article on "Remember The Milk"? Simply because the article doesn't "assert the importance or significance of the subject" does not seem sufficient justification for deleting it outright, IMHO (the question is whether it is significant/notable, which is different). Also, why did you not follow the AfD procedure? Neilc 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if there is confusion, but that is sufficient justification, per the speedy deletion criterion. - brenneman 23:04, 6 February 2007
Well, fine: those guidelines say that if there is likely to be controversy about whether an article is notable, it should be discussed via AfD. I don't think this is a clear-cut case of a non-notable site, by any means: it seems just as notable as, say, Bakotopia, Hotpads.com or Netvibes to pick a few examples at random: AFAICS, none of those articles "assert their own notability" any more than the Remember the Milk article did. 90% of Category:Website stubs could be speedy-deleted with just as much rationale, I think. I think you ought to lean on the side of preserving content, or going through the AfD procedure when you're considering speedy-deleting something. Neilc 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I delete those now, will you think I'm just being mean? The easiest thing to do is to re-write the article at User:Neilc/Remember The Milk providing evidence of notability from reliable sources so that the web inclusion guideline can be shown to be satisfied. - brenneman 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to speedy-delete those website articles, I would think you'd be inappropriately using your admin powers, not "being mean". If you were to nominate those articles for deletion via AfD, I would disagree that they should be deleted, but I wouldn't have a problem with the procedure you used. As I said before, I think you should err on the side of only speedy-deleting content that is clearly non-notable -- for articles for which there might be controversy, I think AfD is the appropriate forum. As for the RTM article in particular, the notability guidelines for web content suggest that a site is notable if there have been "multiple non-trivial published works" about the site. RTM certainly meets this requirement: it has been the subject of quite a few different press articles, been mentioned on TV, etc. Googling for "remember the milk" task yields > 100,000 hits. RTM is plainly either notable, or not so obviously non-notable that speedy deletion is appropriate. As for improving the article, I'll see if I can find the time (it wasn't me who rashly deleted it!). I think a reasonable start would be to just restore the deleted article, which is better than having no article at all. Neilc 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally missing the point:
  1. The article said in effect "here is a thing ,it exists."
  2. The speedy deletion criterion is, as you say, for uncontroversial cases.
  3. This was one of those cases.
  4. There's no burden placed upon a speedy deleting adminstrator to do any detective work when deleting something.
  5. The burden in on the individual who wishes material to be included to provide sources (or in this case, even just claims.)
If you're bothered by this deletion, or want to have any other deletions of mine re-examined, please don't hesitate to use deletion review. But I'd suggest that you first look over the archives, to better understand what's the standard when it comes to adminstrator action of this sort.
brenneman 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me:
  1. The RTM article was pretty bad and incomplete, but the subject is sufficiently notable to deserve an article.
  2. Doing a minimal amount of research would have confirmed #1 (e.g. using Google, or reading the RememberTheMilk.com website).
  3. Improving the article to "justify its own notability" could have been accomplished in a sentence or two. It seems much more sensible to me to, say, add those two sentences, or flag the article as a candidate for deletion, than just to delete it outright.
  4. I think the burden of proof is on the deleting admin to justify why this case is an uncontroversial violation of the notability criteria, beyond just asserting that this is true.
  5. Leaving aside the question of Wikipedia policy for a moment, my objection is more that you shouldn't have done what you did: you should have at least nominated the article for deletion via AfD, or even done a bit of research first. Deleting valid albeit imperfect articles without even using the AfD process does not benefit Wikipedia, IMHO. Neilc 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite happy to keep having this discussion, but there's a real gap in your currect understanding. You can be utterly 100% right about RTM being article-worthy and I can still be utterly correct in speedy deleting it. The whole rest of your thesis depends upon this misconception.
  • If, for example, I wrote an article "Elvis Presley went to my school, and he could really sing. He's dead now." that would be speedy delete-able.
  • The theory is somewhat infinite monkey-like in that it presumes that if an article "deserves" to be written someone will write it regardless of if there's a crap article there first or not.
The idea that a speedy deleting admin should do some "research" prior to deleting things, or that they shouldn't be allowed to delete things that aren't tagged, have been suggested many times and rejected every time.
As I said, I'll keep talking about this, but you might be better off trying deletion review or the talk page of speedy deletion or afd to get a wider audience.
brenneman 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfC deletion

[edit]
Moved to User talk:Redvers.

Nude Universe

[edit]
Moved to User talk:Infrogmation


iWoorx wiki Spreadsheet

[edit]

Dear Mr. Brenneman:

It looks like you removed iWoorx, www.iwoorx.com from the online spreadsheets reference.

Can you let me know why you did this?

Steve Kohler Skohler 14:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes. You're talking about this edit, I finally figured out. Most adminstrators make a lot of edits, so it always helps to include a link. (See Help:Diff for how.)
Anyway, there is a guidline at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) that states that "entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article." I know there are caveats, but in almost every case, make the article first and then put it in the list.
brenneman 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aaron. There was an article, but I guess it did not have enough attribution so it was removed. Even though I am a noob to this process, I understand the need for attribution. <personal rant> It does seem however that many software-ish article are long on advertising and short on attribution.</personal rant> We have a few article from online magazines (not blogs) that mention our site favorably as something new. We really do have a new "species" of online software. We have just released pre-beta, so I think that is not bad for validation. Can you point me in a direction to learn how an article must be posted to NOT be removed? I would greatly appreciate it!

Sincerely, Steve Kohler Skohler 13:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... embarrasing. I looked in the logs and I'm the deleting admin admin! See what I mean about "we do lots and sometimes they run together?" I've examined the history, and the content of the deleted page, and here's how it happened:
  • I ended up on the IWoorx page. I like to click randomly and see where I get, so who knows how I got there.
  • There was nothing in the article to demonstrate signifigance, or even to claim it.
  • Thus is fell under article speedy deletion criterion seven.
  • I deleted it, and went to clean up the incoming links, one of which was the List of online spreadsheets.
  • While there I did a general clean-up.
Which is fascinating I'm sure </saracasm> but doesn't answer your question, does it?
The best place to start would be the software inclusion page. It's not "official" yet, but it's a start. Also, of you don't have a copy of the article before it was deleted, just ask and I can restore it to a subpage in your user space to work on.
brenneman 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the help and direction. I would appreciate it if you could restore the previous version for me to work on. If you could point me to it, I would also appreciate that. I will add the article references, etc. and do some more research about what the article should look like. And thanks for your quick and complete responses to my questions.

Sincerely, Skohler 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now at User:Skohler/IWoorx. I've also left some useful links (in a form letter) on your user page. If you have more questions, my talk page is always open. Oh yeah, is you use the "my perferances" tab at the top right, about four in, you can adjust your signature to display how you'd like. - brenneman 00:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. I noticed you also edited the wikiCalc article and removed articles from ZDNet and some other third party publications that were probably important. Also removed were some references to Dan Bricklins blog. I think he would be considered clearly one of the top experts in the domain of spreadsheet software, and therefore his blog comments could be referenced. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Steve Kohler Skohler 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly remove items from the "external links" sections that could, perhaps, become decent references. The links guideline has a nice blurb about this: Make them into proper references. (Soory to be short, interacting with the real world for a change.) brenneman 03:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

opinion on adultery article

[edit]
adultery

Hi Aaron, thanks for your offer previously to act as a sounding board. Well, it seems that I have offended another editor in the "adultery" article. I won't bias your view by describing one side of the situaton. But, I think our end result is to have an NPOV version. Any advice or comments that you would like to offer on the talk page would be appreciated. Atom 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look now. - brenneman 05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of text. /*Points to timestamp of this post, suggests casual readers subtract from timestamp of above post. */
brenneman 06:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not going to enter into the quagmire on that page. It's already in mediation, and I don't want to be accused of being spammed for support. (I haven't even looked at the actual article, just it's history and the talk page.) I'll comment here on both your position and the way you've handled it, since I reckon in the longer run that's what's important.
  • With regards to the actual definition: I beleive that you're correct. That it's fairly important to give a long-term historical view, and the lead should reflect the article asa whole.
  • With regards to how you've carried the point: I think it could have been handled a bit better.
    • You (like me!) tend to be prolix, and that can make it hard for people to come to grips with whatever issues are at hand. Concise is better. Two boxed-off versions of the lead would have saved a few hundred words, for example.
    • I understand your frustrations, but "Give me a break. What is your problem?" is never going to help. This is coming from someone who knows better. Really.
How about next time you give me a hoi a little bit earlier into the drama?
brenneman 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance. Your comments, especially regarding keeping it brief are helpful. Atom 13:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of Aaron Brenneman

[edit]
User:Vicarpeter2/Freebutchery

Freebutchery is alive and forever will be! Please do not silence our voice! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vicarpeter2/Freebutchery—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.2.216 (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, we are all around. We will rule the world. All Hail the Three-In-One! 67.70.45.114 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His day shall come as it is written in the Holy Bible of the Freebutchers. Aaron Brenneman you will be smitten to death with the holy wrath of Meatzus. The land of Wikipedia shall be one step closer to a pure race of Freebutchers, we shall rid the land free of the unbelievers and the defilers. Long live the free butchers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.2.216 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do I get to choose what I'm to be smite-ed with? Because if so I choose bacon. Presuming that "naked girls" wasn't a choice, of course. - brenneman 05:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AARON BRENNEMAN (if that is your name),
We will play at your little game,
Until the time when you're the fool,
And butchers unite earth to rule!
Vicarpeter2 03:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...

[edit]

Not sure why you're letting a death threat stay on your talk page, but meh... – Chacor 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCTIS

[edit]

Per your edits here, I must remind you that you are not allowed to complement inclusionists. "Pig-dog" is suggesting they are a vertibrate lifeform, which violates WP:No Complementing The Inclusionist Scum. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above post, and indeed Mr. Brenneman's comment to the Vile Dark Lord of Inclusion, are both intended as humor. Sarcasm impaired individuals should refrain from comment. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zanbatō

[edit]

When blanking large sections of an article (like you did at Zanbatō), please don't remove categories any other content at the bottom of the page. --- RockMFR 01:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oogly googly, that's such an easy mistake to make. Thanks for fixing it up for me. - brenneman 02:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCCA DRV

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
You knew that one was coming. With the amount of dismay going around, any idea why it took so long? Much more importantly, is it acceptable to notify commentators and AfD participants? I was significantly delayed by real world issues and imagined ADHD, and fear that several of those who felt that the decision was unjust have already resigned to it or might not notice. --Kizor 01:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction to this was indeed "Well that took long enough." The only reason I can posit is that many of the current webcomic agitators are fairly new accounts. (This isn't meant as any sort of insult, just a statement of fact, we were all new once after all.) So they may not have been comfortable with (or even been aware of) bringinging something to that forum. I sometimes notify one or two people, but it's usually asking for trouble to ping everyone from the afd. If you put a note on the deletion discussion's talk page, though, then it would show up on their watch list. There's also the wp:web talk page, as well as the comics deletion notice board. All of those would be acceptable "canvassing" I think. Thanks for the note. - brenneman 02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was on the verge of mass-messaging when I thought better of it. Those are all good points, and I'll follow them, though I'll also ping one or two people from the recent WCCA category deletion debate.
As for your self-degoratory humor in the DRV, hey, there's more than one editor here whom I both respect and resent. --Kizor 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WCCA couplet

[edit]

When Aaron an AfD closes,
He never, no never, counts noses:
He just makes up his mind,
Oft-wrongly, I find,
But that we'll all move on he supposes.

David Mestel(Talk) 11:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCCA years

[edit]

diff. I added these because they were deleted according to the same AfD (check those pages' deletion logs), and it was that AfD, not the WCCA main article, that was under review. --Random832(tc) 04:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was inappropiate for them to be added so late in the discussion. Bridge under the water, now though. - brenneman 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCCA re-write

[edit]

Well, that's the article I feel can be written on the subject. [7]. I'd appreciate your thoughts, good or bad. It's all sourced, it balances the views and it doesn't overstate the case. It satisfies WP:V, which is what I had in mind when I rewrote WP:WEB, so I think it satisfies WP:WEB. Hiding Talk 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erfworld

[edit]

ou've deleted a page devoted to Erfworld, a comic hosted by the same guy who does parcicality clips.

Therefore, I am writing the following in rhyming couplets in an effort to change your mind:

Deletion's the last recourse (not tool),
Of one who cannot see reason (a fool).
The thing you deleted should have been kept around,
The crime you've committed makes me want you drowned.
I was looking forward to explantions,
Now that I find none you fuel my frustrations.
You're quite clearly some peice of work,
A world-class trigger-happy jerk.

The jerk bit I threw in because you mention insults specifically. Anyways, bring back the article! TNUK 17:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! The goggles do nothing! ^_^
I've restored this to User:Totalnerduk/Erfworld. If you can add citations from third party sources that indicate notability than I'll move it back to mainspace.
brenneman 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks. I will add this week TNUK 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Eek. You're asking a lot if you want me to add "indications that this has been discussed in other published works", I mean, this is a webcomic for crying out loud. Sure, it's notable because it's part of what is considered by many a "breakthrough" medium, because it's one of a small number of webcomics to attract mass audiences, etc. However, it's not likely that something as new as Erfworld has featured in other published works as yet. I suggest that you refine your criteria. The pages that you reference set out specifics that many such articles on Wikipedia do not meet, and do in fact say that whilst certain standards are not subjective, there should be exceptions made in objective cases. This is clearly an objective case. Notability may be hard to reference via third party sources, but a valid argument can be made for it nonetheless.

I will ask the guys on the Giant In The Playground forums to assist me in collating all possible arguments on why and how this meets the standard of notability required by this wiki (according to the spirit of the rules, and also the letter if you take into account that the page on notability is notable in recommending that exceptions be made sometimes).

We will get back to you. Once again, thanks for listening. TNUK 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again I'm back. A cursory glance would seem that it meets notability conditions set out on this page of wikipedia, as it is hosted on the Giant In The Playground website, itself considered notable by wikipedia. Furthermore, the site itself conforms to more than one definition of notable.

This means that I must now make a case for the "notability" of the article on Erfworld 'in its own right,' I assume? I'll be back shortly. TNUK 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Done (some). Take a look. I can supply more if needed, but this should be enough for you to re-instate the article so that the fan community for the comic can work on bringing it properly up to the wikipedia standard. TNUK 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Just two things: If I made it appear that an article has to meet the web criteria to avoid speedy deletion, that was not my intention. Something only has to make a reasoble claim to signifigance to elude instant death. Secondly, a copy-paste move isn't a good idea, it violates the GFDL for the article. When it was done, I'd have happily moved it back for you... We self righteous agenda-driven shithead goosefuckers aim to please!
brenneman 12:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the history. I wasn't the one who copy-paste moved the thing. There are other people reading this page. Since when did I call you a "self righteous agenda-driven shithead goosefucker", anyway? I happen to think that you've been extremely reasonable about providing support to myself (and the unseen others) who wanted the article re-instated. There are others active on wikipedia who are far less approachable, and far less helpful. TNUK 22:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Replied on User talk:Totalnerduk). - brenneman 06:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here too: I knew you didn't slag me off, and I'm not het up at anyone who did. I was just having a laugh at my self. - brenneman 06:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok

[edit]

Dear Errin' Brenneman: no problem. Joyous! | Talk 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too long-a-talk

[edit]

You need Werdnabot. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 12:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one welcome our new bot overlords... and I'm waiting until I get to WP:100-SECTIONS. - brenneman 12:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In need of help

[edit]

I need some serious help. I only know how to use Wikipedia as far as editing pages is concerned, and I have no idea how to use any of the report forms to report vandals. I see that you're an admin, so I'm hoping you can help me out. My talkpage has come under attack by either a bunch of vandals or just one who's using a bunch of different IP addresses. I know where these vandals are coming from. If you could block those addresses from editing my pages, that would be fantastic. Thank you very much. You can view the addresses in the history tab of my talkpage. Shot and Botched 14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put semi-protection in place on your user page, but it's probably no longer required... people get bored quite quickly. If you have any more problems, leave another message here. - brenneman 06:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a banana

[edit]
The Working Man's Barnstar
I feel guilty that I offended you even for one nano-second, so have a barnstar. You do a wonderful job at afd and I don't doubt you weighed the WCCA no better and no worse than any other debate. I just disagreed with you that once. Well, I've disagreed with you before, but not on a deletion close. Anyway, have a working man's barnstar because of all the hard work you do in not only closing afd's, but in being reasonable. Oh, a rhyme, damnit! "Run, tell your ma, Hiding done awarded you a shiny barnstar! Hiding Talk 11:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomics purge

[edit]

Good move. Very good move. Suggesting that there's a "purge" against $ARTICLECLASS when a bunch of them are nominated, as well as being a failure to WP:AGF and maybe WP:OWN, is rather like accusing me of engaging in a purge against faecal matter every time I flush. For dispelling the myth, I award you a gold-plated faucet and toilet paper holder set (it's the best I could do on such short notice, sorry). Also a bonus, a poem I wrote on supposed "deletionism":





Keep up the good work. Nice to see common sense (attempting to) prevail. Chris cheese whine 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. John cage would have been proud. - brenneman 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

http://designer--s-kid.freeonlinegames.com/

Delayed reaction?

[edit]

Man are you sloooooow! Thanks! have a good one.--MONGO 11:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DfA

[edit]

Newyorkbrad 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ?palindromes no AfD eht fo esolc ydeeps ruoy no VRD a tseuqer I dluohS[reply]

Mr DradKroyWen,
A eddy-spay out-trap-slay would oprab-alay ork-way.
namennreb
[edit]

I reverted your removal of the remaining two external links in furry fandom. Those specific links had previously been partially reverted by another user from your earlier removal. Fred Patten, author of the Yarf! Chronology, happens to be a respected leader and historian of fandom in general and of furry fandom in particular. The editor of Best in Show should know what he is talking about, and it is a resource worth pointing out to our readers. I appreciate that this was not clear, so I have highlighted the authorship in the link. As for WikiFur, I claim that it has "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors;" it has been around for over one and a half years despite numerous and occasionally sophisticated attempts to vandalize it, and has an active administrative team. I think both links offer significant value to readers, and I can prove it for WikiFur - the average user referred from the furry fandom page to WikiFur over the last 7 days (sample size: 503, source: Google Analytics) visited over 12 pages in total on the site, 5 more than the average Google Search visitor. GreenReaper 07:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of palindrome examples pages

[edit]

Hi Aaron

I notice that you appear to have deleted a number of pages of examples of palindromes (Palindromic words, Palindromic phrases and Palindromic phrases (English)). Before the deletion discussion was moved or removed (I can no longer find it), I counted 9 votes to keep, 10 votes to transwiki (which I understand to mean move to Wiktionary) and only then delete from Wikipedia, and 8 straight deletes. If these pages have been moved to Wiktionary then I wonder if you would be good enough to restore and update the links on the Palindrome page. If they have been deleted outright then please either restore them or explain why you have made this decision contrary to the majority opinion in the deletion discussion. Please reply here. Thanks, Matt 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

I have also restored the semordnilap page which I have just noticed you seem to have effectively deleted without discussion. Matt 00:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

I've now discovered that there is an appeals process. I have added the templates below as the instructions tell me to. Matt 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lists of palindromes. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review..

NWA Virginia Alpha Heavyweight Title History page

[edit]

Why the quick delete??? It's the secondary heavyweight title for NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia. It seems the delete was done awfully fast without notice. Thanks for your help. JeffCapo 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me the exact title that the article was under, or even when it was deleted? I'm afraid that I don't recall it, nor was I able to locate it the logs. - brenneman 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men in Skirts

[edit]

The external links for Men in skirts, which were removed by you, have been restored. They contain plenty of supporting references for why the title of this article should be capitalised to describe a movement, rather than a mere phrase. Please change the name back to capitals. Bards 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

[edit]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 02:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me[reply]

Block review

[edit]

An IP you indefinitely blocked is requesting review at User talk:146.145.37.154. Essjay posted the original year-long checkuser block, but that was in December and Essjay is gone. At the very least, you might reduce the block or stick a reason in the block log, but I'm not sure if there's any reason it should stay anyway. Your thoughts?--Chaser - T 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else handled this. You appear to have gone inactive. I hope you'll be back. I've seen you around. It's nice having you on WP. Cheers!--Chaser - T 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Barnstar

[edit]
The Working Man's Barnstar
Here is ANOTHER working man's Barnstar, for your tireless efforts! Anyone who looks at your edits will probably give you yet another one, so be careful!

Sue Rangell 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[citation needed][reply]

George Albu, 1st Baronet

[edit]

Hi Aaron, Please could you move the article above which I wrote back to George Albu. I've asked 2 admins but nothing has happened. Many thanks Paul venter 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Xyzzyplugh 15:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of AntiVirus Software: Comparison

[edit]

Why did you decide to delete the List of Antivirus Software Comparison section?

Claudia Hanna

[edit]

Hi,

I am alaa abdul hadi and I wish to file a complaint against the article of Claudia Hanna where the article depicts her as Miss Iraq 2006 and states that she has won Miss Iraq 2006 in Sharak Al Sheikh and took over the title from Silva sahagian is false

Silva remained as the official Titleholder of Miss Iraq and did not resign

this article is false

Claudia Hanna took over the Miss Arab World title and NOT Miss Iraq 

     http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1825659
  http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article357651.ece

This is the article on Miss Claudia Hanna

http://www.google.com/search?hl=ar&q=Miss+Arab+world+2006&lr=

please either have the article correct its content or delete it

Regards

Alaa Abdul Hadi Nimrod1976 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Greeneyes

[edit]

Hello, I've seen you deleted Greeneyes after this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greeneyes_%28second_nomination%29

I respect that concensus decides deletions, but I'd still like to keep the wikicode of what the article was, so that I can reuse it under the GFDL. I'd hate it to just be lost, since I did most of it and took its time. Please, if you can, provide it to me or redirect me to the right place.

Thank you.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision to delete the article on 'Rising Talent Manga' was unjustified. The reasoning behind it was poor, or at the very least very poorly explained. Please provide a more full explanation of the reasoning behind the deletion of the article, or otherwise bring it back.

Until June

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Until June. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wikimachine 22:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:'Gorky Reading to Stalin' by Viktor Govorov.jpg

[edit]

Hello, Aaron Brenneman. An automated proccess has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:'Gorky Reading to Stalin' by Viktor Govorov.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-SPEAK TO ME 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aleksandr Ivanovich Laktionov - Portrait of Stalin.jpg

[edit]

Hello, Aaron Brenneman. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Aleksandr Ivanovich Laktionov - Portrait of Stalin.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alexander Tschemissow - Farmers' Revolution 1905.jpg

[edit]

Hello, Aaron Brenneman. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Alexander Tschemissow - Farmers' Revolution 1905.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alexander Tschemissow - First of May..jpg

[edit]

Hello, Aaron Brenneman. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Alexander Tschemissow - First of May..jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alexander Tschemissow - Life has become more cheerful.jpg

[edit]

Hello, Aaron Brenneman. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Alexander Tschemissow - Life has become more cheerful.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Igor Klein - Naked Woman on the Beach.jpg

[edit]

Hello, Aaron Brenneman. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Igor Klein - Naked Woman on the Beach.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Karel Stehlik - Building of a Dam at the Moldavia.jpg

[edit]

Hello, Aaron Brenneman. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Karel Stehlik - Building of a Dam at the Moldavia.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 16:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Karp Demyanovich Trokhimenko - J.Stalin and S.Kirow visiting the Wolkhow- Gidrostation.jpg

[edit]

Hello, Aaron Brenneman. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Karp Demyanovich Trokhimenko - J.Stalin and S.Kirow visiting the Wolkhow- Gidrostation.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sculpture Swords Into Plowshares.jpg

[edit]

Hello Aaron Brenneman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Sculpture Swords Into Plowshares.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sergei Alekseevich Grigorev - Stalin at a session of politicians at the Kremlin.jpg

[edit]

Hello Aaron Brenneman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Sergei Alekseevich Grigorev - Stalin at a session of politicians at the Kremlin.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vasili Filippovich Ivanov - Lenin II.jpg

[edit]

Hello Aaron Brenneman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Vasili Filippovich Ivanov - Lenin II.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vasili Filippovich Ivanov - Lenin I.jpg

[edit]

Hello Aaron Brenneman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Vasili Filippovich Ivanov - Lenin I.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vasili Filippovich Ivanov - Vladimir IlyIch Lenin.jpg

[edit]

Hello Aaron Brenneman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Vasili Filippovich Ivanov - Vladimir IlyIch Lenin.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wladimir Gawriilowitsch Krikhatzkij - Farmer.jpg

[edit]

Hello Aaron Brenneman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Wladimir Gawriilowitsch Krikhatzkij - Farmer.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wladimir Gawriilowitsch Krikhatzkij - Look outside, the world is red!..jpg

[edit]

Hello Aaron Brenneman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Wladimir Gawriilowitsch Krikhatzkij - Look outside, the world is red!..jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wladimir Gawriilowitsch Krikhatzkij - On the Beach..jpg

[edit]

Hello Aaron Brenneman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Wladimir Gawriilowitsch Krikhatzkij - On the Beach..jpg) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anthem of the peoples love.JPG

[edit]

Hello Aaron Brenneman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Anthem of the peoples love.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Tuesday

[edit]

Hi - the Wiki needs a page on First Tuesday but when I went to create one I founded a page had previously been deleted by you. You could check the page I wrote and let me know if there are any problems? Umptious 14:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please check your mail

[edit]

You mailed someone about something, they copied me and I replied to you... Can you check your mail and get back to me on how to proceeed? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 10:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User:Aaron Brenneman/Avy Scott (Second nomination)

[edit]

About the time that you stopped contributing to Wikipedia, you created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avy Scott (Second nomination) but never posted it on WP:AFD. Someone else stumbled over the orphaned file and was asking what to do with it. I have moved it to User:Aaron Brenneman/Avy Scott (Second nomination). If you ever come back, you can decide what to do with it.

--Richard 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Wikipedian

[edit]

Hello Aaron,
I used to be part of the defunct, Esperanza group, and i found your name listed as a missing Wikipedian, what happened to you? If you can read this, drop me a line at my talk page, thanks. --RebSkii 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV notice

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patrick A. Reid. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of admins

[edit]

Hi Aaron Brenneman. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a wonderful thing to see happen, but given that Aaron has unfortunately not edited since February.... :( Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

[edit]

The guinea pigs having said this is good enough, I'm working my way through the A's ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brenny I wish you'd come back. It's not the same without you! ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say hi

[edit]

Hi. Take it easy pal. Hiding T 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a change you made about two and a half years ago...

[edit]

This change seemed to completely alter the meaning of the third sentence. Is this the academic understanding of the term as it relates to pedophilia? John Nevard (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment made my day. Very amusing I must say. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Someone opened a Wikipedia account with a known username of mine...and it is not me

[edit]

Hi. I have been using the username "packedby776" for approximately 7 years now in a variety of venues. To this day, my primary / professional e-mail addresses contain the handle in question. However, when I went to open a Wikipedia account with the aforementioned handle, I discovered that that "user already exists." Further investigation (in the form of a username search) revealed that, while someone obviously took the time to create an account using my known handle, they never actually edited any articles or did anything else with it. Literally the only page that exists for the handle is the userpage. I am wondering if you (or another admin) can help me. #1: I do not want someone else having the ability to impersonate me and #2: If possible, I would like to open a Wikipedia account using this handle. I can be reached at packedby776 [at] Gmail [dot] com. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.130.66 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Npa5

[edit]

Template:Npa5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

[edit]

I am trying to find a wikipedia administrator who would readily do an interview for a research project I am conducting from the perspective of a wikipedia insider. If you'd like to do this, please email me at goat77 (AT) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat77 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman/Archives/11&oldid=1249257794"