User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/6

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

Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal[edit]

When you get back from your break, which I hope you enjoy, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal. Hiding talk 08:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. - brenneman{L} 01:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV: Userboxes[edit]

Thank you! Thank you! for clearing out DRV. The closure above was a bit strange as the page in question redirects to protected empty page Userbox. It should redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes (I think.) I'd do this myself, but apparently Userboxes remains protected too -- or, at least, I can't edit it. Hence, this gets laid in your able lap. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 05:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't tend to redirect from article space to wikipedia space, with the exception of shortcuts. See WP:REDIRECT and WP:RFD. Hiding talk 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I stuck my nose in where it wasn't needed. My best guess is that you closed this as is, so I'm leaving it alone until a word from on high, or yourself, whichever comes first. Hope you're well. Hiding talk 16:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left this "broken" on purpose and will try and work something out when I'm really back. - brenneman{L} 01:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since I'm "back" I'll try to think aout what to do about this. If there is no action in a couple of days, *poke* me. - brenneman{L} 08:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Alpha[edit]

I have requested peer review of this article because I intend to request Feature Article status and have made numerous changes regarding feedback from administrators and contributors. Once again, boobydoop and mikeandike have reverted the article to a version several months old. these users are not logging in but sockpuppeting to revert. Administartor Sceptre has reverted the first revert, yet, they summarily ignored his reversion to my last edit with one several months old, summarily wiping out all of my work. Can you get them out of the way? Ccson 14:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interactive right now, so I'm not a good person to ask. - brenneman{L} 01:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Overkill[edit]

Hey at least we know he's blocked. Better four people block him at once than no-one block him at all... -- Francs2000 11:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nndb template[edit]

I noticed that the template:Nndb_name (which I think you'd edited) was not showing indicated bullets before the template expansion when people used it, making those entries out of line with others in the external links area. I guessed that it was because there was an extra linefeed inside the included tags -- turned out that was the case... Just glad I didn't break things in trying to fix it!--Larrybob 00:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

domai.com[edit]

Happy NORTHERN HEMISPHERE Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)
Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope all is well with you. Missed seeing you around, things aren't QUITE as funny without you. I am trying to clear the decks of all article-stubs/drafts/falsestarts/realstarts that I have in my userpages as a precursor for a run at you know what. (I got Ashfork-Bainbridge Steel Dam out the door recently) So, did you want to do the domai.com one or no? If no, no worries, but I probably will do it myself maybe next weekend? That should give you time to decide. If yes, maybe a page move from my userspace to yours is in order, I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bump! I'll probably "do" this article fairly soon if I don't hear from you. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia[edit]

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

CHP pages[edit]

Aaron,

About a year ago, there was extensive discussion as to whether or not failed or minor-party candidates were inherently notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The consensus/compromise decision was that such candidates did not deserve separate bio pages, but that list pages would be acceptable. There is now a fairly well-established Wikipedia precedent in favour of allowing such pages, and several pages of this sort in fact exist on the project.

I recognize that not everyone will find the histories of CHP candidates important, but I don't believe there's any due cause for deletion here. I would request that you reconsider your afd request.

I hasten to add that I have nothing to do with the CHP, and that I do not support their ideology. CJCurrie 04:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not convinced of the notability of these pages, could I at least request that you defer from adding more to afd until the current discussions are resolved? CJCurrie 05:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As nicely as possible, this is really not the place for this discussion. I nominated the second page simply as a result of the faulty logic displayed by "we can't delete Foo if we keep Bar." That line of reasoning is simply begging for Bar to be deleted, and I'm only happy to comply. If people keep using equally deleteable articles as reasons to keep, I'll keep nominating them. - brenneman{L} 05:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On your "ref" changes[edit]

Regarding this edit, and other similiar ones. I don't see the purpose of this. I think converting to "<references>/<ref>" is great *if* you're going to include all the relevant source information, such as the article title, author, and date. This is very useful for articles, where the url goes, and informing readers who we base our info on (without making them visit the place); and is the reason for this approach. For instance "<ref>www.findarticles.com/<ref>" is useless. It doesn't even say the name of the publication ("FindArticles" is essently the equivilent of a library carrying a magazine, and Christian Century is what should be named). If this link dies, we have nothing. Now, I certainly don't expect you to personally add all the information to these references, as it's not your job to fix what others did. But, I suggest, instead of changing all these links, in multiple articles: doing it completely for just one or a few links would actually be more useful, and other people can fix the other links. To be clear, you didn't make things worse. I just don't see how it makes things better. -Rob 06:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a fair question. I tend to do this a lot whenever I see an article with more than a few external links in the text as "references." Often it's just the same page six times, and using the "ref" method makes this explicit. It also gives licence to cull the (sometimes long) list of other external links. I'll dig up an example, but as for now are you going to be bothered if I keep doing it? Because I have a few edit windows open right now...
    brenneman{L} 06:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, I think you're doing no harm. So, feel free to continue. No biggie. -Rob 06:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Afd spam boomerangs[edit]

Right, I had a look and left a comment. In return, you might find your attention being diverted to Wikipedia:Notability (memes)? I am remodelling myself as a wikipedian meme in a bid to gain an article based on the criteria suggested. Hiding The wikipedian meme 07:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Long time, no see[edit]

Why? One day i'm going to have an article on here, and I guess you or another one of these wiki-people will consider me "not notable". This place used to hold so much promise, but I can't help from looking at it and being disgusted for the past month or so. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 11:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that your wikilove is dropping. I'd have thought that my preference for a leaner encyclopedia was well known, and if you do some wikistalking *hint* look for edit summaries with "spam" in them* you'll see that I'm not so much screaming for deletion as looking for reasons to keep.
As to why: I like consistancy and order, and feel that (particularly with regards to Canadia) there is systemic bias out the arse. These pages aren't so much listings of election results as holding grounds on the order of "They'd get chucked out in thirty seconds otherwise." Additionally, every nomination for deletion is a little experiment, testing (and retesting) consensus. In this deletion debate I'm about 85% certain that we're seeing a strongly biased sample, but it looks like the only sample to be had right now.
Don't be a stranger.
brenneman{L} 11:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC) PS Note the explaining myself in this manner is a compliment, and only because I like you![reply]

Re: Fireweed Democracy Project[edit]

Hmmm... I'd suggest that the close of this might have had less to do with voting and a bit more to do with WP:V. Are you open to discussing this a bit more? - brenneman{L} 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, I presume you're suggesting I should have been a little more flexible in determining the outcome of the debate? I'm of course open to it in appropriate cases, but I don't think there was much more than numbers in play here. It seems that the only argument raised was notability, which is usually quite subjective, and thus unfortunately numbers tend to be fairly decisive. Of course, I would have been open to considering WP:V beyond the numbers had anyone raised it in the debate, but I'm not going to bring completely new arguments into play. --bainer (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help w/BiNet USA[edit]

Hi there not sure how I became Ms. Wikipedia for some of these topics here, but it seems that I have. With the clear understanding that I am not a professional writer, would you please tell me what I can do here to fix this up to be more appropriate, without being overly wordy.

For instance, as a start can you please tell me on your "citation needed" notations, what you would have in mind.

Thanks so much for your assistance CyntWorkStuff 16:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS No I am not working on behalf of BiNet USA et. al., simply an interested user, thanks again CyntWorkStuff 17:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should go on the article's talk page. I will respond there. - brenneman{L}
Have reworked entry & put comments re same on article's talk page. CyntWorkStuff 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of themed timelines[edit]

This article has just been recreated by someone who found a red link to it. Am I, as the nominator, supposed to clean up the red links or is that supposed to happen as part of the Afd process? --JeffW 17:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grrr... No, cleaning up the red links is my job. There were quite a few of them, and I was about half done when I tired of it. There's a section a few up from this one where I've left myself a note to complete the job. It's a bit unusual for a fairly obscure article llike this to have been recreated so quickly, but *shrug* that's what I get for leaving the job half done. I'll fix it up, thanks for letting me know.
    brenneman{L} 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed all mainspace and wikipedia links, but haven't done talk pages, user pages, or subpages. I never do those, but I'll ask on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion what the feeling is on that. Thanks for the red-link removal that you've done, by the way.
      brenneman{L} 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. I've been leaving user pages and user talk pages alone when dealing with double redirects after moving an article. I would think this would be the same. I don't think it's a real problem leaving red links on those pages. --JeffW 01:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, someone on the Afd talk page said that it was the nominator's responsibility to clean up the red links. --JeffW 01:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:List of Metroid series characters[edit]

"Can you remove the merge tag when you take off the {{inuse}} tag, this article has been deleted."

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I don't recall having used an in use tag, and I had no idea what was going on with the merge thing so I was ignoring it.--Niroht 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oi vey. I simply saw that you were the last editor to a page with an inuse, and didn't look further. My fault.
    brenneman{L} 01:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, no harm done. --Niroht 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Titoxd[edit]

LOL. So that's why you always contact me to look at AfD's? ;) Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African aesthetic[edit]

Ok, no problem. It didn't appear to me to be precisely the same content though, and there weren't any unsourced parts. Must be pretty frustrating eh... :) - FrancisTyers 01:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites nominated for deletion for a fourth time[edit]

The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note, but spamming is bad! *cough* I'm a hypocrit. *cough cough* Don't look at my contributions. *cough* - brenneman{L} 08:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Your behavior[edit]

I have two disputes with you:

  1. You deleted Hai2U.com even though there was no consensus for such an action
  2. You moved all of the material from List of shock sites to a subpage even though there is no consensus for such a move and even though you basically blanked the article even though consensus is for keeping the material

Your behavior is unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Primetime 06:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread as indicated above, I'm happy to respond there if you want to raise these issues in a wider forum.
brenneman{L} 06:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the satement "Once again it has been scientifically proven that this is infact fecal matter traveling from the woman's anal region" as being unverifiable, you can remove that statement without blanking most of the page. - Abscissa 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I'll start with that and continue to remove everything without sources, ok? Like I did already? While I'm sure that these sites are "shocking" to some people, I'm not put off by a bird standing on some's penis. I'd argue that tubgirl is less notable than cheeseman. Since we don't have any sources, you can no more disprove my assertions than you can prove yours. These are not things that are up for debate: verification is one of the most important parts of editing. Every time you edit, the link is right \/ there, above the edit summary. We must not only follow this guideline we must learn to love it. I'd suggest that the best place for this conversation to move is in the ani thread above. - brenneman{L} 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites[edit]

Thanks for starting with the cruft cleaning. However, I disagree with your closure of the HAI2U debate and have started a deletion review on it; I just figured I should let you know. Mangojuice 17:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that thanks. You may want to be on the lookout, though, as I saw some troublemakers threatening to revert the changes as soon as it is unblocked. - Conrad Devonshire 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Aaron. I got a lot of respect for you as an editor, but that was uncalled for. I mean, wikipedia has left the List of classic Soviet movies to work out on its own what is a soviet classic or not. Stuff like that can't be cited. It's up to the community to agree upon what is acceptable for inclusion. Dunno why I'm writing, whats done is done. Just wanted to express my displeasure with the "page blanking" I suppose.
Yours truely -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you took the time to let me know. For all my prolix bombast, I do take every criticism seriously.
brenneman{L} 08:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tag from List of shock sites/Uncited by User:Primetime[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is attempting to remove the tag [1] from List of shock sites/Uncited under the allegation that it is a "blatant censorship attempt". - Conrad Devonshire 03:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To this I'd say the same to you as I said to him: Choose your battles. I'd like the links to be de-fanged to avoid them being picked up by search engines, but this page has already been relegated to the dustbin of history. And (despite my strong stance) Primetime is making serious attempts to improve the encyclopedia, he and I just disagree on methods. I'm looking in my cupboards for an olive branch...
brenneman{L} 03:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites re-protection[edit]

You seem to have re-protected the wrong version. I recommend restoring your improved version and then re-protecting the article. - Conrad Devonshire 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh my. Can you please look over Wikipedia:Protection policy? - brenneman{L} 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we talk about this on IRC? You'd have to user /msg nickserv set unfiltered on, though, because I'm not registered.--Primetime 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not IRC-able for a while, sorry. Regular watchers may have noted that I haven't been there for some time now. And register! It's free and easy. - brenneman{L} 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, but you can send me e-mail, the only caveat being that it takes from thirty second to several days to get through my servers. - brenneman{L} 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just e-mailed you.--Primetime 02:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hasn't come yet. I've unprotected already, so it's probably been OBE. - brenneman{L} 07:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Conrad Devonshire[edit]

... has unilaterally, without prior discussion, moved List of shock sites to List of shock sites (uncited) and changed List of shock sites to redirect to Shock sites. This bothers me a lot because I was starting to get the editors who had been revert-warring talking, and it's VERY unhelpful. I didn't revert his edits, but I think they should be reverted. What do you think should be done? Mangojuice 02:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is unacceptable. I won't revert the changes, I'll leave it up to you to decide, but I think they need to be reverted and for him to be blocked after your warning on the talk page. VegaDark 02:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail why this has caused so much controversy. I have not removed any content from the article and do not intend to any time soon. I do not understand why the article was reverted to its uncited version after it was split into two articles. I did mention on the article's talk page that as the article "List of shock sites/Uncited" was now redundant due to this needless and undiscussed revert, I would redirect it to this article, though I did not mention the name change, which I felt to be insignificant. If someone insists on reverting the name change, I will let it be. If the fact that I inserted Brenneman's tag from the previous article into this one (which mentioned something about deletion) is what has made you angry, you should be happy to know that I altered it so that it read that the article may be deleted after sources have been cited and content imported to the cited list of shock sites, now found on the Shock site page (and even if that occured, the content would remain intact, so it would not make a difference; it would just be transferring content from one area to another, not a true deletion). I have also created a link at Shock site to this article which has an explanation of the current situation written beside it. - Conrad Devonshire 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's caused controversy because everyone was trying to stop the edit warring. You're an increadibly disruptive user, and you ignore everyone else in your desperate attempts to hide the information. I don't see how blanking an article is not removing content, either. It appears to me that Devonshire does not intend to abide by the truce you have proposed, Mr. Brenneman. It also appears as if you do not intend to block him in accordance with it. Since there are no double standards, I see no reason to restrain myself any longer.--Primetime 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It also appears as if you do not intend to block him in accordance with it" Give him some time before coming to this conclusion. I'm guessing he hasn't even seen this yet. VegaDark 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now, right here on this very stage...[edit]

I've asked for advice on how to proceed. - brenneman{L} 04:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KiloWatts[edit]

I see that you tagged this for AFD, but never got round to adding the subpage, which another user has now added (with a keep vote!) You might like to revisit it and add a reason for deletion. Cheers — sjorford (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link color for .sig.[edit]

The default color, or something other than black would make things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NNDB much easier to read. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-19t18:43z

Still messing with "List of Sexual Slurs"[edit]

I don't like the new reference format. It's harder to use and less clear. I'm the person who actually uses it. You also left out my page numbers. Can you go write an article or something?--Primetime 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also took a while to come around to the new format, and the reason it's a pain here is because of converting. But when it's time to add a new reference into the middle of a list, you'll be convinced. The page numbers are still there, just hidden. I'm trying to work out a way to display them.
When I'm finished, have a look and if you still hate it then revert and put a note on talk saying why you did. I'll argue the case there, I've used up my edit war quotient for the week fortnight foreseable future.
brenneman{L} 02:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further replies should be adressed to Talk:List of sexual slurs#InUse tag since this has been cross-posted.
brenneman{L} 03:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

I'm telling you that you're wasting your time! The new references don't give the page numbers and when people add new references, they have to retype the information all over again! Several of the references have the same number, so readers have to look at the list, then look back, count the number of references with the same number to figure out the letter, then look back at the list again! I haven't seen a single publication that uses that format.--Primetime 03:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please stop cross-posting the same comments to my talk and to the article talk. Please. I'm responding there.
brenneman{L} 03:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing protected pages, or wheel warring?[edit]

Were they aimed at me, or at Zoe? I saw two options - either unprotecting the page (and wheel warring) or returning the page to the version that it should have been, had an uninvolved admin protected it - you are supposed to protect the page as it stands, not revert it to your desired version and then protect it. Upon discovery of Zoe's dual violation, should I have unprotected it or reverted it? I figured wheel warring was the more serious offense, which is what I sought to avoid. Guettarda 03:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were lots of other options that you didn't have a go at. Zoe's talk page would have been a good place to start as opposed to notifying her after the fact. The article talk page(s) would have been a a good choice as well.
Had I been you, I might have placed a request for unprotection and placed a link to that request on Zoe's talk and both the article's talk pages. I probably would have done nothing without taking part in the discussions at deletion review first.
All that aside, it was unacceptably curt of me to comment in the manner that I did. I should have given you more credit for trying to do the right thing. I was scandalised by the "two wrongs make a right" logic I saw in your posts, but my incivility didn't help. I apologise.
brenneman{L} 07:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had entered the conversation at DR hours earlier, but that was a totally unrelated issue, AFAICT. As for requests for unprotection - I'd say that, given the edit-warring over that article, page protection was probably in order - just not page protection by one of the edit-warriors, and protection a page after reverting is totally out of place.
I realise that the best course of action would have been to post a comment on her talk page and wait for her to do the right thing, but based on her past actions (deleting the page after it closed "no consensus", re-deleting the page when it was restored; making no reply to my previous question about her use of rollback) there's no reason to believe that she would have been the least moved. Her latest actions, edit warring on a protected page, shows that she has no interest in behaving like a member of the community. Oh well. Thanks for your reply, by the way. Guettarda 11:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated blanking by Engjs[edit]

Hi Aaron. I've been involved in a long-running dispute over the article on John Brignell with User:Engjs who also edits using an IP address 125.255.16.233. Engjs takes the view that anyone critical of Brignell should not be allowed to edit the entry. (Apart from trying to push this view he does not contribute to Wikipedia). He took this claim to arbitration (following unsuccessful mediation) and was rejected, and has now resorted to regularly blanking all but the introductory paragraph of the page, stating that he plans to do this three times per day (the 3RR limit) and "If you don't like it, tough shit." I've made good faith attempts to deal with him, and much of the existing article was contributed by him, but all efforts have failed. I thought it might be a good idea to ask someone uninvolved to take a look, and, if you agree with my assessment that his conduct is unacceptable, take steps to warn him to change his ways and, if necessary, block him. If you see some merit in his position, I'll certainly take your views seriously. JQ 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Goodness. Talk:John Brignell/Mediation is 16,734 words, and Talk:John Brignell is another 4,979. While it's probably a sign of failing mental health, I'll look over it but if you're in a rush it's probably better to get someone else. If you have a look at this and then look at the history you'll see that I tend to work slowly on something like this. - brenneman{L} 07:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No hurry. I need to get away from this and make some proper contributions, so take your time. JQ 07:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny (2nd nomination)[edit]

Sure do, though it'll be in a few hours time given that I'm still clearing up some AfDs and my dinner's almost ready. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On that AfD, I would say that the opinons are split equally on both sides on whether the article should be deleted. There isn't any noticeable piling on of votes, and the editors involved are not new, so I would say no consensus have been reached. I don't read through every single line of the debate, but I do look through the text quickly, so-called rough consensus you can say. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV re: The Game (game)[edit]

According to this edit, you closed the discussion as "kept deleted, day closed". Unfortunately, no one listed the discussion in the "closed" section or did anything with the discussion sub-page. (You may remember that I moved that discussion off the main DRV page because it had become extremely long.) Apparently thinking that it was an oversight, someone else added the link to the discussion back to the DRV list.

The discussion is continuing but I think that no real new issues have been raised in a long time. (Some new evidence was recently added but I personally found it uncompelling.) I consider myself a bit too close to this discussion to close it. Would you mind taking a look at it when you have some time? It would be nice to get closure on this sometime. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I had noted the closure but that was removed. I've re-added the note to the recently concluded and closed the sub-page. - brenneman{L} 01:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game yet again[edit]

I could suger-coat this but here's the straight dope: I think that the close was sub-optimal at best. An incrediably contentious and multiply discussed and debated article and you've gone with vote counting? Its more than a little bit important that we help people to understand two things: 1) AfD isn't a vote becasue we're not a democracy, and 2) Some things aren't open to debate, like verification.

Your close tells the opposite story. Would you be willing to un-close this?

brenneman{L} 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been looking a bit closer at the keep comments and all but nineteen appear to be, well, outside the norm. "It exists and everyhere already lost it," "not hurting anything,"I don't have any sources," "I learned to play... at camp." If this goes to deletion review it will be a god-aweful mess, but if we stick to policy there's no problem: A single source in a non-english language that is only available by subscription does not pass the verification requirement. Actually, we don't have to go part the first phrase, as multiple reliable sources are the baseline. So I'm switching from "would you please" to "ultra strong lesbian penguin begging" for you to re-think this close. If you're not comfortable with making a Hai2U-style close yourself, just rollback and let someone else look it over.
I'll stop needling you now,
brenneman{L} 09:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with Brenneman, though for a different reasoning. The reason for overturning the third AfD was supposed to be the 'De Morgen' newspaper "source". But the only people it convinced were the people who were prepared to keep an article with no sources in the first place. So it really should have been closed the same way as the last one, which despite the lack of consensus in the numbers was proven to be a valid delete at DRV.
I know that reverting yourself would be sticking your neck out and you have no real reason to do it, but it would be the right thing for Wikipedia - the Wikipedia that's still "the free encyclopaedia", not the one that's "the place to go when five people commented on your latest blog post saying you just had a really awesome idea"). --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've de-closed it and am going to mention it on WP:AN. I am recusing myself from all further discussion on the topic, please don't ask me for any other opinions. Suffice to say that I cannot find any possible way that a consensus of editors can agree to delete this, without a massive invocation of admin fiat. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes[edit]

Oh dear. That is a fairly significant weakness in Cite. I haven't seen a workaround. The obvious method is to make a template like the one I just deleted, {{Multiref}}, but that doens't work because you can't pass template arguments to the extension. I haven't seen a workaround, I'm afraid. Perhaps the only option is to use an alternative footnote style. Or, perhaps, to establish the possibly-useful convention that page numbers to a multiply-used reference should be done in the way you suggests. It's a pretty sensible solution that would also minimise the work needed when Cite is eventually fixed up. -Splashtalk 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...but race really isn't that important to most people"[edit]

  • I'd suggest, as nicely as possible, that 80% of the problems that you experiance on Wikipedia are because of your race-oriented paradigm, Deeceevoice. I know it's difficult to believe, but race really isn't that important to most people. Barring any actual evidence of Zoe's hood-wearing secret shame, it's best if you stop the personal attacks.
    brenneman{L} 08:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (permalink)

Howdy Aaron,

I'd almost think you were trying to get my attention. :) We've discussed this before, gently, and I'll take up the matter again, gently. With respect, I'd suggest that (even considering your own nation's history with indigenous people), you are not in position to evaluate the daily lives of folks of color in the Americas. In the Western Hemisphere generally, and the US particularly, the long history of slavery, constituting the greatest forced migration of people in recorded time, has scarred the psychology of just about everybody. This is not to excuse Deeceevoice, for I'm sure she can be abrasive, but her intent is a sound one -- to bring a differing, legitimate perspective in an effort to counter a systemic bias inherent not just in Wikipedia, but in most written works of history before very recent years. I think your comment above is an overgeneralization at best, and it is certainly grossly inapplicable to my own lived experience. If you'd like to carry on an extended discussion of race, my email is open. Best wishes always, Xoloz 15:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the buttinksi here, and you do have a point, but I think Aaron had one too. People to whom race is a very important issue are a highly questionable bunch. If everything turns into a race issue for some person, the problem is more likely with that person than with the world in general. Yes, racism clearly exists- among people who are mentally ill. Racism should never be responded to with more racism, that's how the whole thing got started in the first place. Friday (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response is at your talk page, Friday. Yours is not the most well-thought comment I've heard on the subject. Xoloz 16:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danger: Long post ahead.[edit]

I must say, it's a pleasure to have a little Xoloz on my talk page again! It's been too long. There's a conflation of three issues here: DCV's attitude about race, the attitudes of those she interacts with, and the shared perception of these attitudes. I was not attempting to touch upon the first two in any way. I'll do that now, but only to highlight that it's the final issue that's the important one.

DCV makes it clear that race in important to her. I not only do not but probably cannot fully understand her race-thoughts. That doesn't mean that I think that they aren't well founded: It's just crazy1 and alien to me. Thus I agree fully with your assessment here. But her POV is unabashed, and despite her bull-in-a-china-shop approach I'm always a sucker for a maverick. I've got a sweet spot for her, and my early efforts on her (first?) RfC were predicated by thinking that she could be a highly valuable asset to Wikipedia.

Zoe is the most ham-fisted, brute-force, kill-them-all-and-let-god-sort-them-out admin we've got. She's almost always right, too, but that's not why I love her. I've never seen the slightest indications that she cares about race. The fact that I like Zoe and make jokes with her doesn't mean I think that she's right, just that I can understand her motivations.

Any interaction between these two was going to be spectacular. But if DCV fails to understand that Zoe's worldview is not like hers than any succesful resolution is unlikely. If we fall back to my history with Nicodemus75, something similar occured: He assumed based upon his experiances that I was concerned about his race.

Old habits die hard. DCV may have a long history of interactions with people who actually are racist, misogynist, or both. But if that leads her to seeing these things when they aren't there then there's a problem. For her, and for everyone who come across her.

Thanks for caring enough to come and drop me a note, brenneman{L} 00:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. As in "whimsically strange; odd".

Well, your motive is fine, and your point is good, but... let me try to explain it this way. (I'll speak on DCV's behalf here as an apologist, because I have a history of trying to explain "blackness" to whites and vice versa, but I don't know how much of what I say represents her.) My guess that DCV has a very fine "bullshit detector" when it comes to talking to whites about race, probably with good reason, as she has likely encountered many white Southerners in her time. Whatever points you're trying to get across to her, avoid inaccuracies and overbroad statements, because she'll find them, and use them to undermine your credibility in her eyes. Be very careful, and recognize that she is likely justified (in general) in her suspicions, born of a lifetime of living under racism. You haven't suggested any defense for the statement that I highlighted to begin this exchange: I don't see one, anyway. With DCV, modulate language precisely, and avoid phrases that suggest race is irrelevant or unimportant. By no means should race be the focus of everything, but neither (thanks to the evils of racism) should it be ignored. DCV is not a NPOV person, and her edits are going to run afoul of WP policies more often than usual, but her perspective is important, and her production prolific. You will gain her cooperation through empathy, not by saying that "race doesn't matter." When one has been degraded one's whole life for the color of one's skin, that well-meaning suggestion rings hollow, if not idiotic. If you, Aaron, are truly so removed from the experience of the American South, South America, and South Africa, places where race very much does matter (unfortunately), than you should have the good sense not to say very much.
Point two is DCV's "project" here, Afrocentrism. Now, as it happens, I spent my academic life studying "white history" mostly, of the United States, as well as of Japan (long story), so I know pathetically little of African history outside of the modern era, despite my own African ancestors. I recognize, however, that Africa is the most likely "cradle of humanity", the place where the genus Homo, and our species, Sapiens, arose. The recent genetic work of Cavalli-Sforza only confirms this: humanity has lived on the African continent longer than anywhere else. Yet, since the rise of colonialism, it is the Europeans and their descendants who have written most of the history books, at least those available to speakers of English, the modern global lingua franca. I am not an Afrocentrist, but I respect that the history of the continent is a narrative largely untold, or mistold by conquerors of white skin tone, who certainly did believe that race mattered. Work to recover the lost history of Africa is undergoing at many of America's finest universities (including my alma mater, until some recent disagreements sent most of our African studies faculty to the enemy. Whatever her deficits in interpersonal relations, DCV's field of interest is valid, and brimming with academic work at present. She doesn't deserve to be handled with kid gloves (nor would she want to be demeaned that way), but she will respond better if you engage her with this essential understanding of the importance of recovering African history, and of role of race in it. Again, race isn't everything (and it is, sociologically speaking, probably a fiction), but it does matter in studies of history, it matters to many folks today, and, by Jimbo, the study of it and its effect are certainly the domain of any responsible encyclopedia.
I don't mean for my comments to sound harsh, but the quotation of yours above that began this exchange also struck my eyes strangely, and so I feel this discussion is important to have. Best wishes always, Xoloz 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do try, as much as possible, to avoid "saying very much" about things I don't know about. And please don't worry about being harsh with me, I can take it from you if from anyone. I re-read the post that (happily!) brought you back to my page, and I still believe it: Most of the people she's tarring with the broad brush don't give a rat's arse what colour she is. Or what colour anyone is as far as I can tell. I'm not trying to say that she's wrong to care about colour herself, but that she's wrong to think everyone does. I'm composing a note on her talk right now, and I will do my best to take everything you've said into my hat. Thank you again for your unending patience with my ignorance.
brenneman{L} 00:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes being nosy pays off, like when you discover a neat thread such as the above. I don't think I have much valueable to add but did want to share how glad I am to see the perspectives above. I've tried to live, and to raise my children in a way that brings forth, the world I hope for, one in which race actually doesn't matter. But it does, at least at this time. Unfortunately. Thanks again to all. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit quoting WP:EL reverted[edit]

It seemed appropriate to me, although possibly a sentence on the talk page might have been in order. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversies_in_autism&diff=prev&oldid=49078848 I assume the main thing was that tehre are so many of them and WP is not a list of links. Your edit was reverted twice (in between I reinstated it) by two editors who tend to work together on some things. THe first edit summary was typical of User:Ombudsman and likened you to Orwell's Big Brother, the second also characteristic of the other user who simply asserted the deletion was "unexplained". You may care to revisit it. If you were looking at users' talk pages, I would be interested in your view of several mentions of me by those two editors and one stubbornly known by a camouflaged IP address. Midgley 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sigh[edit]

I really wish you'd publish a schedule so I can keep up. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rgulerdem[edit]

As clerk to the Arbitration Committee, I have removed some threaded discussion from the application for leniency for Rgulerdem. If I inadvertently removed something you wished to raise in your statement, please feel free to add it back as part of your statement. Please keep the application clear by refraining from threaded discussion of other editors' statements. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please pay more attention when delivering such advice to ensure that it is received by the appropiate party. As demonstrated by the link I've added above your comment, it was unneeded here. - brenneman{L} 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

to Aaron for his positive attitude by Rgulerdem

Hi Aaron, I would like to thank you very much again for your strong support regarding unblocking my account. I do appreciate for it... Best, Resid Gulerdem 03:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Hi Aaron, I hope you are doing fine... We are about to finalize the revision of Wikiethics proposal. I was wondering if you have some time to review the last form of it. Any comments are appreciated. Best, Resid Gulerdem 01:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock puppet from User:Rgulerdem[edit]

Hi, there is a suspected sock puppet of User:Rgulerdem. Probally User:Mokotok is him. If you look at the history and the discussion page of the page, he behaves same as User:Rgulerdem. I know User:Rgulerdem has been unblocked after his words as you discussed here but I guess he found another way to continue on his misbehaviour. ~JesseK~

Greetings Aaron Brenneman, this RFCU filed by User:Azate should be of interest to you. Netscott 10:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in article Bisexuality section Social status of bisexuality[edit]

a "download the e-book" has reappeared.

"On the other hand, there are bisexuals who marry or live with a heterosexual partner because they prefer the complementarity of different genders in cohabiting and co-parenting, but have felt greatly enriched by homosexual relationships alongside the marriage. See, for instance, a book which can be freely downloaded from the author's website - Coming Clean about Bisexuality by Garrett Jones, 2000. "

Thank you CyntWorkStuff 06:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Jisme[edit]

No, one group is Licinius, NSWelshmanThe man from OZ, J_is_me and now numerous abusive sockpuppets; the other group is Jebus Christ, Jimididit and NSWelshman. The latter group is the one that you wanted to reform, and we've hardly heard a peep out of these accounts this month. What's causing the confusion is some socks of Licinius are trading on my original belief that the two groups were one by trolling around claiming to be NSWelshman, even signing posts as NSWelshman. I have blocked Jisme indefinitely as a (self-confessed) troll sock of blocked user Licinius. Snottygobble 07:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the first group was Licinius, J_Is_Me and now numerous sockpuppets. I'd be more than happy for another sockpuppet investigation if you think that I might be any of the new abusive sockpuppets. NSWelshman 13:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant. My apologies. Redacted. Snottygobble 23:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSWelshman again[edit]

There is evidence presented here, by Licinius of all people!, that Jebuschrist/NSWelshman/Jimididit is also Factoid Killer. On further investigation, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible. For example, this edit, where FactoidKiller edits un-logged-in from the acknowledged [2] IP of Jebuschrist/NSWelshman/Jimididit, then logs in as Factoid Killer to change his signature.

Even when NSWelshman was apparently coming clean and owning up, he continued to claim that he never used his socks to stack the vote at Talk:Football; this is now shown to be false, as both Factoid Killer and NSWelshman voted. Furthermore any suggestion that NSWelshman is a reformed user is repudiated by the fact that the use of multiple accounts continues: both FactoidKiller and NSWelshman are active. You have been totally gamed by this user. Snottygobble 02:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Campaign promises[edit]

From your RfA: "Re: Adminship overall Accountability is paramount. If promoted I will open a "Use of administrator privileges" RfC on my three month anniversary and any time after that if five editors requested me to do so. If I'm doing the job right, for every irritated problem user there will be five happy good faith contributors. But if the community loses trust, stepping down should be even less of a big deal than being promoted."

It's probablhy time for that soon, eh? I'll be happy to help you with it if you want a third party to do it. ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bloody champion. I've been gearing up for it since the 10th of March. I've also been kicking the tyres on ye olde wikipedia a bit hard lately, so I'm sure it will be interesting! For appearance's sake I'd prefer to be the one who actually creates the page, but I'd love it of someone (anyone!) filled in User:Aaron_Brenneman/Scratch#RfC_doodle_area with something of a starter.
brenneman{L} 03:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorm (public)[edit]

  1. Should this follow the traditional RfC format?
    • I say "no" because I think it's the most broken system we have on wikipedia right now. I've tried before to break away from it, with some succes I feel. - brenneman{L} 03:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Should I say up-front under what conditions I'll step down?
    • A.k.a. How big a set of stones do I really have? I'd prefer not to simply re-run a nomination in order to get some arbitrary percentage, but to actually have a space made for dialog. Hey, look over there! It's WP:DFA! - brenneman{L} 03:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Should I spam anyone?
    • My natural inclination is to tell everyone who'se ever been peeved with me. - brenneman{L} 03:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While a noble thought, a lot of people have been very upset about talk page spamming in recent months, and so I think doing it, even with good intentions, even to people you think would vote against you, would be unwise. Nandesuka 04:37, 26 April 2006
        • Hee, you've made 66.6% of my notes to you stored below redundant. How about a link in my signature than? That was found to be quasi-acceptable with the "manifesto" dust-up of recent past. - brenneman{L} 04:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of themed AfD's[edit]

Thanks, Aaron.--Primetime 03:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome[edit]

Hi Aaron. I actually stopped using User:Sango123/Welcome sometime in 2005, and all my new welcome messages have been subst'ed for a while. Would you prefer that I go back and subst for older welcomes as well? Sango123 (e) 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

List of sexual slurs[edit]

Please join me in user conduct RFC. `'mikka (t) 02:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration[edit]

Hi, could you explain the purpose of your recent alteration of my clerk summary? --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said in my edit summary, it's just your opinion and doesn't need clerks' imprimatur. - brenneman{L} 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also going to replace the NPOV heading until such a time as there is consensus on the page's talk . I'd ask you not to revert again without discussion at the thread linked above. - brenneman{L} 03:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked (And your little IP, too: 144.53.251.2.)[edit]

I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please do not edit other people's sections in arbitration cases, particularly those of the arbitrators or clerks. Phil Sandifer 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. That was a suprise. - brenneman{L} 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


04:13, 26 April 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "Aaron Brenneman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Mucking about with clerk notes)
04:13, 26 April 2006 Phil Sandifer blocked "Aaron Brenneman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Altering other people's sections on RFAr)
  • Hey, and it was tag team! Even more fun, I haven't had an all-guy three way since that time in the Columbian prison.
    brenneman{L} 04:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (After two edit conflicts...) Bah, I was unblocking before you put the template up. I find it immensely silly that this went beyond a single revert. It shouldn't have. That's for both of you. Come on guys, we're all mature admins here. That was a waaay inappropriate block. No matter what the problem is, there is no excuse for a block that's punitive, not preventative. RFAr can function perfectly even with an edit war over a section heading. No warning was given and both blockers have been involved in previous arbitrations with Aaron. Please discuss this on the talk page, also. Absolutely unnecessary, all of it. Dmcdevit·t 04:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. And, just for the record, I had already started a thread on the talk page and linked it in the edit summary of the edit in question. I was even spamming it for wider input when I was blocked. - brenneman{L} 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you're correct of course. I can admit it was an over-agressive on my part without affecting my opinon of anyone else's revert. - brenneman{L} 05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocker[edit]

{{unblock}}

The message I spammed to two people[edit]

I fear that the line between clerk busywork/vanilla user/junior arbom is being blurred, and would appreciate your comments here.
brenneman{L} 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too think it was a statement (an absolutely correct one, but nevertheless just a statement), not something official, and I see where you were going with changing the tagging to reflect that. But geez Brenny, why couldn't you ask someone else to do it for you, man? You and Tony just need to avoid each other. Doesn't matter who's right/wrong/whatever. Just don't do it. Sorry, in an ideal world... but this is the real world. Don't let your massive good work elsewhere get axlewrapped... ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, I had simply underestimated the level of ownership that aparently went along with being a clerk. I had thought that linking to discussion would encourage, um, discussion. As opposed to blocking, I mean. I also notice that while I'm still blocked neither one nor the other of the blocking parties brought this to ANI for public scrutiny. They also have failed to comment here, and the discussion thread I created has also failed to solicit input from them. - brenneman{L} 05:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least one other person on IRC indicated that it's the topic of some discussion there so... hang in there brenny. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still blocked[edit]


Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Phil Sandifer for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Aaron Brenneman". The reason given for Aaron Brenneman's block is: Altering other people's sections on RFAr.
Your IP address is 144.53.251.2.


I'll try this template while I'm at it. - brenneman{L} 06:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you. :P But as someone also caught in the autoblocker forever seemingly at times, you have my sympathy. :D —Locke Cole • t • c 06:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit unblocked you, Aaron, so it was just the autoblocker that caught you, I think. I've undone it. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the helpme, all should be well now.--Commander Keane 06:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone. - brenneman{L} 06:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, looks like you're all fixed. My advice is let it go. Even though you could perhaps ask for other things to be done, it would not be for the good of the project. All the best, my friend. Remember if there is anything I can do you have but to ask and I will try. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded—and sorry, I only just noticed this; I seem to have been doing other things the night this business happened—I always miss all the fun. Anyways, move onto greener pastures, eh? See you around.--Sean Black (talk?) 02:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A distraction from Tony[edit]

Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three, I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be. This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red. My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life, My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father's wife. To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy, I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad, And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad. For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother Of the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.

Father's wife then had a son who kept him on the run, And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son. My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue, Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother, too.

Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild, And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild, For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa! --MONGO 03:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC) =[reply]

DRV on Fred Moss[edit]

Have put in my input. NSLE (T+C) at 06:00 UTC (2006-04-27)

Tony Sidaway[edit]

I see you have issues with him. So do I. I am largely clueless to this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve/Evidence, and the exchange I had with Sideway at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I also came across with your exchange with him in his mail, as well as another arb thing.

I am getting the idea he is an abusive admin. Before go any further with this, I think I want to involve you, at least in telling me what the hell is going on. I'm guessing it's about noon your time, tomorrow (it's 11:12 PM in the American midwest). --FourthAve 04:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: further trawling indicates he is really is considered an abusive admin. I don't know what an admin clerk is. He will likely block me just for spite; he's threatened in so many words.--FourthAve 04:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lar's RFA[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lar is now active, just so you know, and you need to re-sign your support vote if it's going to count (you can't have a vote be cast before the voting process goes live). Just a reminder--cheers! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lar's RfA[edit]

Just a friendly reminder to stick a timestamp on your vote :o -- Tawker 00:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My Deleted Article[edit]

Hello Aaron, You had dropped a note on my talk page a week or so ago offering to take a peek at my article which was speedily deleted. I am getting pretty close to wrapping it up and have added a few more verifiable sources. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at your convenience and give me some feedback.Thanks, Hamilton Styden 03:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

message from Hamilton Styden[edit]

Hi - Did you not notice the message from Hamilton, above? He's wondering what to do next. As fas as I can tell, the band qualifies for an article under the featured in multiple non-trivial published works clause of WP:MUSIC. He's looking for other opinions as well. I'm sure he'd appreciate a response. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thank you for getting back to me on this article. I am very open to the use of the footnote system, however I find the WP:footnote page somewhat confusing. My best learing on the site usually comes from observing really well written articles and observing their specific use of a particular format. If you could, I would appreciate it if you could point to a few articles you feel are great examples of proper use of the most current WP footnote procedure(s).I can see how this would be extremely helpful in specifically pointing a reader directly to a veried source rather than have to go through all links to find the cooresponding article for the section they may be looking to source. How do I resubmit this as an article once I place the finishing touches on it? I am anxious to improve my knowledge of proper format and acceptable or user friendly style so that I may help to improve some articles out there that I believe could be spruced up in certain music catagories. Thanks Again,

Hamilton Styden 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much![edit]

Thank you, dear Aaron!

I'm truly sorry about the belated reply, but I really really wanted to thank you - your concern in my absence and your get-well wishes really mean a lot to me. Sometimes, well - life can be tough on us, but as long as good friends like you are there, I'll always have a reason to cheer up. You rule, Mr. Brenneman!

Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Horrible[edit]

You're almost as bad as I am...see for yourself--MONGO 07:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of External Links from Wikipedia Data Warehouse entry[edit]

Hi Aaron, I was going through the entry on Data Warehouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_warehouse) and I feel that a lot has to be added to it to make it useful. The information currently in there is not sufficient or detailed. I wish I knew enough about the subject to improve the entry.

Reading the Talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Data_warehouse) I figured that some other users have also found the information insufficient. However, I did find a lot of good links in the External Links section (which you have moved from the main DataWarehouse page to the Talk page).

I am sure that Data_Warehouse is a very important topic that a lot of readers like me would be exploring. However, very few of them would be going to the Talk page to find out about these links. I went through the Wikipedia policies for external links as well as recommended by you.

However I feel that in the absence of more robust content, we should at least let some of the useful External Links stay on the Data Warehouse page. Some of these links have a lot of good information that Wikipedia readers should be able to get easily on the main Data Warehouse page instead of the talk page (which a lot of people don't even know about).

What are your thoughts on this? I'd think we should move the External Links back to the main page.

I'm not Aaron, and I don't even play him on TV, but users who want to find websites that have information on data warehousing are better served by Google than by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Nandesuka 10:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


For no reason at all[edit]

Tiktaalik Devonian transition fishapod (lobefinned fish)

So there. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC) PS, how's that .com article coming???[reply]

there is movement at the station. - brenneman{L} 05:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Adminship Renewal[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Adminship renewal, something that I wrote up. - Mailer Diablo 13:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hmmm, well adminship renewal just isn't it. In several sports (chess, go), repetition of moves just leads to boredom. It won't actually make for a better game.

Same for discussions. Repeating the same discussion over and over won't ever actually resolve anything ;-) You have to try for new ideas instead.

It helps to "think outside the box" from the outset. :-)

One thing that might help the diverse adminship discussions would be if people were to clearly write down what should be expected of admins, and gain some kind of consensus over it.

Mind you, I suspect that the first draft would require admins to be demigods... so it might need some tweaking ;-)

Kim Bruning 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be expected of admins but that they apply the policies. IAR was okay for a small wiki but it's shit when you have thousands of editors. IAR should only apply to not stressing noobs out with a whole bunch of policy they have to obey or perish. It should not be a licence for the likes of Aaron to do what he likes without let or hindrance. Grace Note 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever called upon that clause to justify any of my adminstrative actions. Usually when I do something controversial, it's the verification policy I call up. And I'm continually amused at how much we agree what with you still wanting to roll me in kibble and feed me to the Chihuahuas. Help me come up with a tool for twisting the nipples of admins whom are too big for their boots, even if just so you can use it on me. - brenneman{L} 08:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just was dropping by to point out Wikipedia:Adminitis#Treatment, where it says that starting an RFC on yourself can backfire, if all your friends find out about it ;-) Only then did I notice the message from Grace Note, which I shall answer promptly. Kim Bruning 13:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning[edit]

I find your warning to be unnecessarily hostile and confusing. I've already received threatening email over this stupid matter, so I'm in no need of your attempt to kick me in the groin. I have no clue what you are referring to with "fox-hunting and similar antics". In short, I feel like you wrote to me just to be a dick. If I've misunderstood you, I apologize... but you could have made an additional effort to understand before picking up your stone to throw. --Gmaxwell 14:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding this new and delicate persona of yours some what off-putting. I liked it better when you were calling me an arsehole and telling me to either stay out of wikispace or preferably leave entirely. But, to be fair, I'm as changeable as the clouds myself. Anyway, I'd listed the "antics" that I was referring to on your user page, but you chose to blank that. If you ever actually want to attempt to talk, as opposed to the startling combination of fabrication and obfuscation we've had to date, my talk page is always open and unblanked.
brenneman{L} 08:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Civil a.k.a. Human[edit]

No one has any excuse to lay into someone on Wikipedia, and we'd all do well to try a bit harder to be nice, eh? And no one has any excuse to butt in on affairs on which they have little understanding, and we'd all do well to try a bit harder to be keep informed, eh, Nanny Brenneman?

Even assuming I accept your characterization, keep up: most of the guy's major contributions -- probably ALL of the them -- have been plagiarism, and his response to being caught has been to lie, lie, lie, and lie some more. In between the lies, he puts up a series of ludicrous rationalizations, excuses, and justifications, ranging from (to paraphrase, with some duplicate refs) it's a conspiracy by my enemies [3] [4], they're prudes trying to censor me [5], it's okay if you're not caught [6], I give money to Wikipedia [7], it was hard work making my plagiarism look nice [8], Wikipedia would probably make out okay in a copyright infringement lawsuit (direct quote: So long as Wikipedia does not encourage [emphasis mine] the copying of material, it is not liable) [9], your deleting of 'my' articles makes me feel bad [10], and the frankly bizarre -- direct quote here -- …but it seems as if you only like the [Wikipedia policies] that enable you and your publishing-house buddies to delete stuff. This guy has wasted everyone's time, and has not only exhausted every last shred of good faith, he's taken out a second mortgage on future uses. We've given him the opportunity to come clean: his responses have been obfuscation, legalisms, and some outright lies. My tolerance for bullshit is limited, and if you have a problem with my attitude, file an RfC and be done with it. And chat with Jimbo, while you're at it: Primetime's comments indicate he's communicated with Jimbo, and I suspect he's gotten a similiar (albeit more politely phrased) message from him. --Calton | Talk 08:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The manner in which you've chosen to speak to me is completely unacceptable. Of course, this being wiki-space, there's very little I can do about it but to think that you are not a very nice person. You might take a small hint from your own message: Jimbo's daily dose of "bullshit" is delivered via high-pressure firehose, yet he still magages to respond to Primetime politely. If you are unable or unwilling to emulate him in this manner, it might be best if you confined yourself to Wikipedia activities for which lack of social skills are not a hinderance. Happy editing. - brenneman{L} 11:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional subpage MfD[edit]

See my comment for an explanation of why it is ordinarily a bad idea to allow users to develop fictional pseudo-articles in userspace. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages[edit]

Well...most of them do have a strong disclaimer now... CoolKatt number 99999 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight to keep my userpages[edit]

Please try and get more people to vote keep... CoolKatt number 99999 04:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

RfA Thank You! (and more)[edit]

Thanks Aaron,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I have come across your self RfC and am supremely impressed. You are the leader in opening Wikipedia to responsible and honest self-assessment, a central skill in any scholarly enterprise. I praise you for "speaking truth to power", in a wiki-way.

PSS. Without becoming involved specifically, I must also commend a comment of your not too far above this one for its gumption. I would lack the nerve and the wit to put things so incisively.

Deletion "votes"[edit]

Er...sorry, but the truth is I really don't know why they sometimes appear. You raise a good point (although I might add server stress as another reason), but I don't know why AfDhelper randomly inserts images into some votes but not others. I'll keep an eye out for further image usage, however. Would it be a good idea to remove others' images as well, or would that be considered rude? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right! Thanks for the advice. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Subpages[edit]

When you have a minute, I'd appreciate your thoughts. Especially on step 9 which to me seems like magic. I couldn't make your technique work. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --MONGO 07:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!Gotcha! Peace out brother!--MONGO 11:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should take something away from the fact that I found it not-that-hard to believe I'd been blocked again? I think we've all learned a little something here.
brenneman{L} 11:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cunt[edit]

Easily done. I completely agree that the popular culture section was pointless, given the ubiquity of the word. Paul B 13:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teressa Ferrara[edit]

Hey, I deprodded this b/c this is about a notable criminal, in fact, one of the real-life people Goodfellas was based on. The article title is mispelled, though, so I proposed it be merged to Teresa Ferrara. Just letting you know. Mangojuicetalk 14:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I like PROD. Good save, and thanks for the heads up. - brenneman{L} 06:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

taken my page off your watch list??[edit]

ack, say it's not so. Anyway I've answered Cyde (what, long term, is to be done is not clear to me there, I see you were trying to reason with him, as did I, but he just archived without answering) and you. User_talk:Lar#Ref_conversion ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I can't manage the rhyming couplet; for that I apologize. I noticed that on mboverload's page you left a backhanded comment about Tony. I don't know what it is with you two and frankly I really don't care. But, as you said on the noticeboard, we have a responsibility as administrators to set a good example, and sniping at other users behind their backs really strikes me as inappropriate. Which isn't to say, of course, that I've never done it myself, but it's something I strive to avoid, and I hope other sysops do too. Anyway, just a thought. Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to look at what I said now, thanks for that. I always appreciate a tune-up, escpecially one as polite as that.
brenneman{L} 13:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the very small joke "I'll block you if you do" on User talk:Mboverload is what you're talking about, it takes a pretty good stretch to make that about Tony, as he's not the one who blocked that fellow.
  • If "by playing tag-team with Tony you're hardly walking with the angels?" on User talk:Cyde is what you're talking about... It's pretty mild, really. I could make a long list of vituperation that Tony's directed at me in the last few weeks far worse than that. However, in deference to your polite request, I shall attempt to moderate myself further in the future.
    brenneman{L} 14:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring to the bit about the block log, but it's a small matter in the end. Thanks for you consideration. Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

My Userpage[edit]

Greetings. I would like to thank you for trying to be bring some peace to the chaos. I would also like to ask you if there is anything that can be done to restore my userpage (long enough to modify it to Cyde's liking). I feel it was unfair to delete it without warning first. I haven't tried to settle this with Cyde because frankly, I don't think he would listen (and I don't trust him). If you don't want to get involve, I understand. Thanks for listening! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 19:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde & Userbox TfDs[edit]

Your comments at Cyde's talk page are right on the money. Process is important. It's all we've got to make sure that the structure of this project changes in an orderly, consensual way. I never much cared about userboxes before, but, seeing how a small group of people have gone after them, I sure have changed my mind. They're my favorites, all of them.  :-) I've asked Cyde to talk to me about these deletions, but received no response. Ignoring consensus like that simply brings more fighters to the battle, which is the last thing we need. OK, it's all out of my system. I'll step off my soapbox now. But, before I go, consider this entry from his request for adminship:

I'd just like to make one thing clear: I've never deleted a userbox and I don't forsee myself getting involved with that in the future. Why? Because I now realize that my actions weren't helping matters, so I've decided not to get involved with that anymore. There's plenty other stuff to do on Wikipedia. I'll leave the userboxes up to other people. --Cyde Weys 20:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So, if he's leaving the userboxes up to other people, what is he doing effectively mass-deleting them, albeit one by one?--Ssbohio 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He answered already, I forget where, saying that his expectation was that "other people" would have solved the problem by now and when they did not, he felt it necesssary to step in and do what he thought was right. I can't necessarily fault him for that, doing what you think is right is a good thing, nor for what he thinks of the boxen (I've come around to that thinking myself). Where I think he's in the weeds is in the implementation, which is a bit dodgy. (to say the least) "the ends do not justify the means" etc... ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde & I part company on the issue of userbox templates. I see this push as an attempt to solve a social/behavioral problem with a technological solution. Without getting into the WP:BEANS, there are other ways of accomplishing the same kind of networking that those against userbox templates seem most vocal about. That's the way it's always been with using technology to regulate human behavior. Put up a wall & people find a way over, under, or around it.
That said, here & now my only issue is with Cyde's taking unilateral action while the rest of the community is trying to reach consensus. If he chops down all the userboxes, there won't be a point in having a userbox policy. Also, since userbox deletions are currently allowed, but userbox creations aren't, actions like Cyde's exacerbate the power imabalance between those favoring userbox deletion, and those favoring userbox retention. It's offensive to our community standards.--Ssbohio 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Please be sure to check for older vandalism that you will only enshrine with too quick a reversion, as happened on Love. Also, it may be time to make an archive page and move some of the older stuff here to it --- isn't this talk a little long now? =) -- Saaber 11:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I had seen the older vandalism too, but also saw that I was going to make some other small changes, so I hit rollback anyway. Which of course makes no sense, but I'm just describing my thought processes... Yes, my talk is starting to get a little bit big, isn't it? - brenneman{L} 12:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry[edit]

Just a reminder about wiki policy on Talk:Freemasonry.

Thanks (Simonapro 14:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, will do. - brenneman{L} 14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, it's a whopper, isn't it? I am still reading and thinking. - brenneman {L} 14:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

I will withdraw Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hiding if you mediate us fairly and impartially. What else do I have to do to withdraw? Where are better (lower level) ways to handle something like this one? I tried RfC because I could not find somewhere else or another admin who would be willing to mediate. Some admins are unwilling to mediate others' conflicts.--Jusjih 14:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm famously careful in mediation, and although I've worked with Hiding before I'm about as impartial as they come. One thing I am not, however, is fast, so you may want to take that into consideration. I'll look over the history of it if you unlink it from the main RfC page. You can copy the body of it to my talk, and we'll work from there. Dropping him a note to make sure he agress to me mediating would be a good idea. - brenneman{L} 14:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mediation is probably an idea. It seems to me that wires have become crossed here, and I'd gladly offer an apology if that wasn't thought to be inappropriate. I had attempted to say that I wasn't being critical in any way, only that the tag which was used was an incorrect tag, although the fault for that was in the than in the user's actions. The problem seems to be in the conflicting advice at WP:CSD and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Do I need to respond to the RFC or do I wait until it's been certified? I've never been through one before.
  • On the issue itself, I clearly failed to understand Jusjih's points, much as it appears he failed to understand or address mine. User:Jusjih came to me stating that the template appeared to suggest his usage was correct, I responded that the speedy criterion conflicted with this, and then we simply seemed to restate our positions to each other. I didn't fully understand the point User:Jusjih was making at the time, that the two pieces of advice were conflicting. I had hoped that by pointing Jusjih to a forum where discussion relevant to our situation was being discussed would broaden out the discussion, allow Jusjih to better understand my angle on things and also allow a forum where other users could contribute. I still stand by the comment that anyone nominating an article or image for speedy deletion has the burden of proof on them to show why it meets one of the criterion at WP:CSD. This, I believe, is established in the text at that page which states "These criteria are worded narrowly, and generally so phrased that, in most cases, reasonable editors will agree what does not or does not fall under a given criterion." The image does not meet any criterion listed on the page and so I feel I was correct to state that "the burden of proof is on you to show me how this meets any of the speedy deletion criteria". Had Jusjih simply told me he didn't wish the image deleted under the criterion, I would suggest this whole issue could perhaps have been avoided, and we could have explored other options, such as {{fair use disputed}} or listing the image at WP:IFD and opening the discussion there. That said, I should have attempted better to seek a happier resolution. Hiding Talk 08:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the notes at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hiding and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct that I am withdrawing the request for comment now. Shall any links be delinked? Anything to be blamed would be the relevant project pages with unclear instructions. Hiding, I do not blame you now and you need not apologize, though we shall think of how to review image copyright status and whether any unclear instructions should be clarified.--Jusjih 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pleased with the progress so far, and will devote more time to this in the next couple of days... did I mention I'm slow? With regards to the RfC, it's probably fine to leave it laying around, if no one else does anything about moving it on I will, er, but I'm slow. - brenneman {L} 14:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2 FAC[edit]

Heya,

I added a ton of references to address your plot concerns. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2/archive2? Thanks! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok[edit]

ok--Irishpunktom\talk 13:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAIN[edit]

I will do what you recommended on my talkpage. Anyway, thank you again for taking the time to look into these matter. If you don't mind then I will notify you if the problem isn't solved and he start calling me names again. I don't expect that will happend though, as he now clearly know that such behavior will not be accepted. -- Karl Meier 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couplets[edit]

It isn't... an insult, exactly, but the metre works.

Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/18

-GTBacchus(talk) 06:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! You're trying to get me into trouble, aren't you? ^_^
I'm glad that my inclusion policy is 100%, thus allowing me to put this into the case without commenting any further on it's content.
You cheeky monkey.
brenneman {L} 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig[edit]

- [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]][[Special:Log/Aaron Brenneman|<span style="color:#000000;" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}''' </sup></span>]] 14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

- brenneman{L} 14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vs.

- [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks"> [{{fullurl:Special:Log |user=Aaron+Brenneman}}<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}'''</sup> </font>]</span> 14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

- brenneman {L} 14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks the same, but I managed to kill off some of the size and make it wrap better (YMMV). Kotepho 11:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty seconds after reading this: brenneman{L} 11:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forty seconds after reading this: brenneman {L} 11:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, my kilometerage did vary - when I saved it this became
-[[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks"> [{{SUBST:fullurl:Special:Log |user=Aaron+Brenneman}}<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}'''</sup> </font>]</span>.
Which of course automagically turns into the original... Still, the effort alone deserves the following. (I refuse to put my sig in here any more!)
+1: Cool.
fullurl: is a m:Help:Colon function/magicword. It doesn't have the cost of a template call, so there isn't a need to subst: really. Kotepho 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, -> I <- didn't use subst, when I copied it into the preferances box it *whoosh* became subst when I hit save... but I'll try again. If there is a chance I'll break something, I usually do. (I make a good system tester for just that reason!)
    brenneman {L} 12:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • $cleanSig() (which forces {{ to {{subst: and removes ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~) was added in... January. I'm behind the times it seems, sorry. Kotepho 12:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman/Archives/6&oldid=1145848637"