User talk:Friday/archive3

Whoa, scary

I just read your "Personal biases" section. Looks like we agree on just about everything. (Well, I prefer a good Hefeweizen, but that's splitting hairs.) android79 01:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hefes are only perfect during summer. A good strong Belgian dubbel is in order these days -- if you're stateside, that is. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!! Waahhhhhh!!!! Friday (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No way, I was here first. android79 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more stuff to the RFC, mostly prose and not diffs (cuz that's easier!). I'm also lazy and didn't yet figure out where the diffs you provided should go. More help would be greatly appreciated. android79 02:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How cute. 65.32.159.187 03:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

*Insert indignation here*

Friday! I don't know now if I can continue to AGF! Meow Katefan0 23:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. Err, my browser was acting up, I mean. The sun was in my eyes. Umm.. Look, something shiny! Friday (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Seth Ravin

You voted in the DRV for Seth Ravin, and I wanted to let you know that the article is again at AFD: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2. Thanks. -R. fiend 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

New AMA poll

Please have a look at the proposed election parameters under the section entitled An election proposal... and cast a ballot. Wally 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of service...

Don't even know what reminded me of that. Just one of those odd things, I guess. Enjoy. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Cartridge data project

You're one of the people I've noticed editing cartridge articles, so I'd like to invite you to join a discussion on creating a template for cartridge data, and generating tables for a large list of popular cartridges. The discssion started due to a comment here:

Talk:.50_BMG

and has been continued here:

User_talk:Avriette#Cartridge_load_data_for_cartridge_template

If you have any comments, or would be willing to contribute data, please join in. If you know of other Wikipedians with a knowledge of cartrdiges, by all means copy this to them as well. scot 16:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

THANKS!

Thanks for the redirect WikieZach 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

BBK

The BBK is the best gang in the world. Four eighty seven.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Maojin's odd behaviour regarding VFD tags

I don't know whether Maojin/Maoririder is mad or bad, but they are certainy disruptive. See this abitration decision as regards Maoririder. Maojin seems to be a sockpuppet of Maoririder (who is, I think, blocked). It's getting beyond a joke :-{ Tonywalton  | Talk 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, find another hobby

Made me laugh out loud. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

EarthBound Articles

I'm actually writing some things just to consolidate them later (such as Magnet Hill, as you pointed out). All the Your Sactuary locations are going to redirect to Your Sactuary. --Malevolyn 04:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Friday (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I've only made the one article and right now I'm writing about the rest. I'd just like to note that a couple of the small articles on items are there simply because they're referenced in another article. So, you know, I'm not going to write separate articles for each item. I just like to be thorough. Maybe a little too thorough sometimes... I'll try and keep things toned down. --Malevolyn 04:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:HAC?

I'm afraid that would defy the whole point of a code of conduct. There are frequent complaints about (1) admin abuse, and (2) unclarity of what admins should or shouldn't do; and there are frequent reports on WP:ANI about the precise points the COC seeks to address. The WP:HEC hasn't worked much towards reducing disruption and edit wars (and in fact I know several people who purport to subscribe to HEC values, but in fact frequently engage in edit wars or personal attacks). This is really the same thing as "voluntary re-application for existing admins" - the (few) people for whom it's actually necessary will simply ignore it. Radiant_>|< 15:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, HEC hasn't worked very well, people don't seem too into it. I was thinking a voluntary association might be useful in a public opinion sort of way. Those who chose not to join (or who joined and were removed for not following the principles) would be hanging a big "I am too heavy handed with my use of admin tools" sign on themselves. I was hoping the social pressure would help, but you may be right- the people who are the problems have already gotten social pressure and they've ignored it or even responded with scorn. Anyway, I think I'll start removing people from HEC who don't follow the principals. I doubt anyone will even notice, but you never know. It seems like interest in that has mostly gone away. Friday (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Could use some help here

Not only is User:Elonka proceeding with her demands to remove everything she objected to on talk pages, but apparently Philwelch is joining in reverting back to her version and locking pages. Just happened on Template talk:Mesopotamian mythology and might move elsewhere. This is absolutely ridiculous. We've got a rogue admin here making up his own rules and going against what multiple admins said on AN/I to support the histrionics of an editor who thinks she runs the place. DreamGuy 19:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic

I noticed your message at User talk:Dynamic; everything he's done since you left it has been reverted, mostly because it made no sense (including this--oy). He also tried to impersonate Bishonen at RFA, which is not the first time he's done so. Durin thinks he's a sockpuppet of a vandal/disruptor who was popping up a few weeks ago; I'm not convinced of that, but I'm not sure what to do about him. He does seem to be having trouble understanding how things work around here. Guidance would be welcome. Chick Bowen 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Deletion_pre-review

Since the page has been so busy, this might have dropped off the map a bit. It's been suggested (be me!) here that we slap {{inuse}} on a complex XfD while it's being worked on, thus giving time for deliberations on the talk page by experianced closers, as opposed to creating a new process. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds very easy and very reasonable. I like it. I think we'll make life easier at DRV by encouraging tricky ones to be reviewed by more than one set of eyeballs before closing. Friday (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Chase etc

I don't oppose you duplicating content, I oppose Chase becoming a redirect rather than being a separate article. I hope that is less confusing. Out of curiosity were you born on a Friday? I was. Have a nice one today, SqueakBox 14:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember, I was quite young at the time. Thanks for the clarification. I don't get how someone could not be opposed to duplicate content, but that's another issue. Friday (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Emily Adams

Your unilateral decision to deleted article Emily Adams was probably misguided. I wanted to ask the community if they deemed this person notable and then proper article cleanup could take place if keep was decided upon. Please go easier on articles, as someone may disagree with your opinion. Colby 18:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. :) Colby 18:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think what's easily done can be easily undone, so I'm happy to undelete things (whether I was the deleter or not) if there's objections. Friday (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on talk:Emily Adams. Colby 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The heck?

 Why did you remove my Stickworld article?  What was in your head?

I have restored the article, but put it up for proposed deletion. The reason is given there. Friday (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, no big deal. It was borderline anyway. :) Ambi 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a question

Are only admins allowd to add tinyurl links to articles now? Just wondering....

I wrote a makeshift goodbye cry to tinyurl...

   Homage to Tinyurl
   -----------------
*beating the ground with bare hands*
*how could they*
How could they>?
My precious....
My precious tinyurl... gone ... gone never to be linked again
It's been there to link to sadness
It's been there to link to hapiness
... and now... gone.... 
.
                              ~tinyurl fan

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Adams

I was confused by your comment here. Do you mean the article should be deleted because you haven't heard of her? Friday (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified my vote on the page. Stifle 17:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Chase

I suppose you noticed what happened with the Brian Chase article. I suppose it would be unbecoming for either of us to gloat, but I do think we should consider outselves quite vindicated. *High five*. -R. fiend 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord

A final decision has been reached in this arbitration case.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rollbacks

Please stop abusing your authority on the Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) article. [1] [2] I have read the discussion like you asked and the majority has stated they wish to keep this page separate. Fromoutthere 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see it as an "abuse of authority"- anyone can turn an article into a redirect without any special authority. However I've already gone one revert past my normal custom - I guess we'll have to wait for someone else to revert you, then you can take up this issue with them. Friday (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, that didn't take long. Friday (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I can see that you already had your mind made up as you are giving R Fiend high fives. Fromoutthere 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean there, but yes, I've been of the opinion for a long time that a redirect is the obvious right thing to do here. This should be clear from my comments on the talk pages. But, as I said, making a redirect requires no special authority, nor do I have any special authority. Friday (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Konami Code Games

Please consider restoring this list. I was looking for a way to clean up the Konami Code article. I've made further arguments at the List of Konami Code Games talk page. --Measure 16:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I just saw. Feel free to undelete, I won't edit war over it. Friday (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

XD is historical?

I labeled XD historical because it appears most activity stopped mid-December, and the most recent activity was to mention that PROD was being tested. Feel free to remove the tag if you think it is going to become active again. — TheKMan^talk 17:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a friend in common?

How very mysterious of you to allude to a friend in common, without sufficient clues to guide me to the identity of said friend. I enjoyed reading your User section, and, like you, have added myself to the category Chaotic Good. Wendy Wendy 06:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation in regards to your question on my Manifesto

I put an explanation of what I meant in regards to the legislature idea. Hopefully, you can lend us your viewpoint to help refine it even further if we need to -- after all, collaboration is what Wikipedians are good at :-) Karmafist 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

JSTRUBS

Friday, you'll understand. The flat-earth pages will have a point to them. Please don't delete them anymore. Send your reply as quick as possible. USER TALK: JSTRUBS

Flat earth

You didn't seem to get the point. I will tell you now. The flat earth weird pages are a communication corner. Anybody anywhere can talk and make friends with others. Several of the people are characters that I made up myself. It does not have much sense to it yet, but if you and your WikiFriends help to keep it safe, it can develop super duper and get really cool. After all, There are worse things on this site than my stuff. One person has a usertalk column with nothing but curses written all over. That makes me sick.

JSTRUBS

PS. DO you know LONGHAIR? He sent ROCKER, my friend, some major mean stuff in USERTALK.

Jstrubs LONGHAIR WAS BEING MEAN! AND FOR YOU'r INFORMATION, WIKIPEDIA IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC! DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ARTICLE ON YOU'RE "ENCYCLOPEDIA" THAT IS CALLED "I SMOKE GRASS" AND IS ONLY ABOUT HOW TASTY ILLEGAL DRUGS ARE? YOU SHOULD PAY MORE ATTENTION TO CURSES AND ILLEGAL STUFF INSTEAD OF "FORUMS". IT'S A FREE COUNTRY, HAVEN'T YOU HEARD!

Jstrubs Sorry i'm so vocal about my feelings. All of those were true facts, though.

I can't find that article. If you can provide me with a link to it, and it's really junk, I will delete it. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not censored, nor do we let antiquated notions of "vice laws" in certain uncivilized countries determine what content we do or don't cover. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox. If you wish to contribute to the encyclopedia, please do so. Friday (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

that user talk you were asking for from me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%21%21%21%21%21%21%21Linuxfaggot_is_a_fucking_cunt

that user talk you were asking for from me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%21%21%21%21%21%21%21Linuxfaggot_is_a_fucking_cunt

FROM, JSTRUBS

---

You better delete this junk, because i'm not going to come to WIKIPEDIA if there's stuff like that.

Jstrubs making decent articles

I have just recently added an article on dome magnifiers. It is not that informative yet, but i'm working on it. Hope you're well.

Send LONGHAIR my apology and tell him he better apologize back to me. I'll forgive him if he forgives me and ROCKER. Ask him how the legislature is doing.

Rocker developed some chat sites. Tell longhair to renew one of them, the MATTCHAT, but keep the rest deleted.

JSTRUBS

I don't think you understand. Pretty much any "article" you make who's purpose is to be a chat room is going to be deleted. Not by me specifically, but by any one of hundreds of different editors. See what Wikipedia is not for more info. Friday (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But the Joe Came Back...

Don't know if you remember me, Friday, but I was one of the "fallouts" from the userbox debaucle. Like you, I tried to stay away, but have decided to come back, albeit carefully and slightly grudgingly. --Joe Sewell (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

From LCIstudent

No one likes you Mr. Friday, I can add whatever information i want to my school's website, you bg NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB. Thank you. LCIstudent 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You sure can, if your school lets you. However, wikipedia.org is not your school's website. Please write about food fights elsewhere. Friday (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please kill yourself. LCIstudent 16:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

By any means necessary, right? LCIstudent 16:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:LCIstudent

Hmm. To me, calling those remarks a "death threat" is realllly stretching things. This is just some high school kid who doesn't know about Wikipedia, and he thinks school food fights are appropriate content. I wonder if being so harsh on this kid will only make him more likely to return under a different account. Friday (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page of said blocked user, you are welcome to reverse the decision if you see fit. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney

You voted "Redirect to Internet slang". The content has recently been added to List of internet slang. Would you consider changing your vote to delete? Savidan 21:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty is: one know what "somewhere useful" means. I'd be amenable to almost anywhere you can suggest. Savidan 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In my comments on the afd (look lower down, I edited the discussion more than once), I mentioned a couple likely places. Friday (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WArp should not be deleted

hello. Give me a reason for deleting WARP?..WARP is a famous tech club in india...it deserves a place at wikipedia..deleting it would be against the policies of wiki

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response to my block request. It was driving me nuts trying to keep up with that guy. Kafziel 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not usually quick to block (particularly permanently) but this looked to me like an obviously vandalism-only account. Friday (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how, but he's back - and he has vandalized your comments on his talk page. I'll leave them for you to see. Kafziel 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

People can edit their talk pages while blocked. Friday (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous species redundancy

Yes, you're right. this was my first foray into Wiki and I hadn't realised it had a dictionary. I have entered and voted for its deletion.

Alex & Brett Harris XD

Hey -- you might want to check out the discussion at User talk:AlexHarris about Alex and Brett Harris. It seems their website is notable, and I've suggested that Alex Harris, Brett Harris, and Alex and Brett Harris redirect to the page for the blog once it's done. Mangojuice 17:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't personally feel that one newspaper mention makes a website encyclopedic, but it's sure better than no references at all. But, you're right, if the blog is their alleged clame to fame, it's appropriate to have an article on that rather than individual biographies. Anyone is free to write about the blog and change the other articles into redirects. If some editors don't feel the blog is significant, that's a matter for Afd I suppose. Friday (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello again

I am writing this, not to sound threatening, but in a quest for knowledge. Hi, TeeCue here, and I am sorry about my earlier "indiscretions" but it was because I was baffled as to why you deleted the Foodfight information from the LCI web page? It was not relevant to you? Was it? just wondering.

Check out the welcome message on your talk page. It contains useful links. A good introduction is the five pillars. The very first pillar is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". That means it's NOT a place for everyone to write a personal column about the goings-on in their corner of the world. Very few of the articles here are relevant to me, but if it see someone messing them up, I fix it. That's what editors do. Friday (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Camberwell 21:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Er...I have no idea what you are talking about. What is the Foodfight information on the LCI web page? What is the LCI page? I'm not sure that you intended to leave a message on my page or why I'm here writing this. Can you explain, please.

I'm confused also. I don't see where I left you a message about the foodfight or the LCI page. Friday (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Dianetics

Thank you for communicating with me. I have replied where you posted, on my talk page at: User_talk:Terryeo#Talk:DianeticsTerryeo 01:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a non-issue to everyone but Terryeo and SpiritofMan. They keep digging it up, and I'd like to bury it and stick a stone slab over the top. The consensus on this subject exists already, they just can't recognize it. If they disagree with that, then they can take it through Dispute Resolution. Tenebrous 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate issue

The verifiable articles researched show a very different history of this band than what Ed Douglas and his PR manager have been posting in their press releases. The posts they keep reverting to are highly self-promotional, do not list any of the founding members, and do not reflect the actual history as researched by several other editors. See history for the actual research, then look at the blatant (and admitted) self-promos being constantly reverted to by Midnight Syndicate and Lizstjames. According to policies for Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines and Wikipedia:Autobiography, the vanity stuff should have been Afd a long time ago. Now it's simply a matter of looking at the research, the actions of these people, and deciding if it even warrents a page at all. I checked the AMG and Vargo is listed. He is also listed at Amazon and on the US library of Congress search page. He is also credited as both producer and executive producer on the album. The booklet for Born of the Night states that all music is produced by Midnight Syndicate. Vargo was a member of the band during the time the album was produced and he was also the creative director for Realm of Shadows the following year as evidenced in that albums' credits and copyrights. Likewise, the article referenced by Jay lists Vargo as the producer. It is evident that Vargo has rights to this and was a significant member of the band and for a good deal of it's success and notoriety, considering he is a popular figure in the genre dating back to 1991. It seems to me that Douglas is simply unhappy about the prospect of a competitor. That does not change the man's credits. Honestly, I vote for AFD. This seems to be big PR campaign for Douglas and whomever is working for the band. GuardianZ 16:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lethbridge Collegiate Institute

Hello Friday, I have just tried to use Wikipedia at the school and it does not work, it seems there is an indefinate ban on LCIstudent. It would be much appreciated if it was you that blocked the schools IP or if you could get someone else to unblock them. You are blocking a school of 1800 kids from editing on wikipedia for class assignments and what not. Thanks you very much and i hope you find a way Peca37 03:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused about how a school assignment could require editing wikipedia, rather than reading it, but still, we want to avoid collateral damage whenever possible. I'll look into this. Friday (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ShadowThief

Hey Friday,

I believe that the article on "ShadowThief" has unfairly and unjustly been deleted. In the experimental deletion policy, you may have accidentaly deleted this topic. ShadowThief is a quite important, famous and verifiable website. The forum has 77 registered members who have amassed an aggregate total of almost 10,000 posts. People from all around the world are registered on ShadowThief, from places as far and wide as Colombia, USA, Australia, China, Canada, England and more. I believe that ShadowThief deserves much more credit than 'experimental deletion process', so please, at least consider restoring the topic.

Thank you.

Article by Albino Ibis, 2nd top poster on ShadowThief.com Albino Ibis 20:45, 24 February 2006 (AEDT)

I saw your message on Talk:ShadowThief. We have guidelines for inclusion of websites, see WP:WEB. This forum appears to fall far short of the kind of significance we expect from websites. But, I used a reversable, transparent deletion process, you could undo it if you wanted. The article could be send to WP:AFD for a full deletion discussion, and the results would certainly be to delete the article. Friday (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Neglected Mario Characters

The curtness has nothing to do with Aaron's disagreement, and everything to do with Aaron's condescension and decision to use preformatted newbie messages against his political enemies. Which is, frankly, being a dick. Phil Sandifer 17:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete my song

I like the song it has a nice melody please do not delete it it is so nice.

I didn't do anything to the song. What I deleted was a small, unencyclopedic stub. If you really think this song should have an encyclopedia article, you can try to make a proper one. You may want to look at WP:MUSIC, a set of guidelines for inclusion of musicians. If the group that did the song doesn't have an article about them, that would be a better place to start than an article on an individual song. Friday (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Steven Perkoff

Please Stope Deleteing The Article on Steven Perkoff

You wrote: Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Friday (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My response: That article is not "Nonsense" and has proven helpful in aiding people that post on Usenet. If you took the time to check the links posted in it you would see it is 100% Fact, there is no fiction whatsoever. Wikipedia is meant to help people and that artice was helping people until the admins began deleting it. Now if it's nonsense and vandalism please provide proof that it is. I have provide factorial links in that article to support it and it's still repeatedly censored out by the admins for no proven reason other then personal biased opinions.

Thanks for your support

rƒa · ɐƒɹ

Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Transparent deletion revisited

I finally, finally got 'round to putting a few words at Wikipedia:Transparent deletion. I think this idea is worth pursuing by itself - people objected to PWDS for several reasons, but I don't remember seeing transparency as a major one. I'm not sure whether what I have in there right now is an essay, a proposal, or something else, but it's a start. Friday (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you for setting the stage. I will contribute and monitor with great interest. ∴ here…♠ 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Badock Hall redirect

Hello, thanks for your comments on my talk page about Badock Hall. You seem to be an experienced Wikipedian, so I'm confused as to why you thought you should remove this article. Best to leave this sort of stuff alone in my opinion. I apologise if the word vandal offended, I accept that it was inappropriate in this instance. Dave 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the response. Friday (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for unblocking Guanaco

My faith in admins is slowly being restored. StrangerInParadise 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Communication

Communication is why. You are an admin, and I expect better of you and the rest. Evilphoenix is likewise a respected admin, and you two ought to be able to discuss this rationally. Just don't skip that step because you have the buttons (so does he). Explain yourself. To do otherwise was disrespectful, even if he ought to have been unblocked. It's the same reason I thought Guanaco's rollbacks were disrespectful. That anyone can do it has no bearing on that. Simple communication is not a lot to ask from an admin. And this culture of reverse another admin first, and talk later is exactly how all these wheel wars have been cropping up. There is no reaon why all these perfectly good administrators can't just chill it and talk about things. We need to be conservative in using administrator powers, and conservative in reversing others. Dmcdevit·t 08:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have communicated quite well in this regard. Did you see the note I left for the blocking admin on his talk page? I don't see that what I did was out of line at all. I was bold.. once. I'm not wheel warring over it. I don't tend to reverse other admins lightly. I did it in this case because the block wasn't reasonable. Friday (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You left him a note afterward yes. You ought to have actually discussed it, not merely notified him of the reversal; that's my point. Frankly I don't care if you thought the other was unreasonable. Does anyone start wheel war thinking they themselves are the unreasonable ones? The crucial point is that the other that you reversed is a fellow administrator, who's discretion you ought to respect, if not agree with. When you do disagree, you discuss it with him and others, even if you think it's unreasonable, because that's where you find consensus as to whether it really is or not. If two administrators disagree, then we have a problem, and it's one that needs addressing through discussion, not button-pressing. I can't stress this enough: administrators in particular are our most respected and trusted community members, and what they say and do means something to the community. Without respect we are nothing. Dmcdevit·t 08:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You havven't gotten my point. It is irrelevant whether you or I think the block was right or wrong, but it was done in good faith by another administrator, whcih is reason enough for anyone who questions it to ask the community before reversing it. Without discussion we simply cannot make the judgment, and shouldn't, when another reasonable admin has done the opposite. I have no problem with blocks or undoing blocks, if they are done according to consensus, and discussed before when the administrator knows another disputes the action. What I am stressing is communication. Dmcdevit·t 08:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I believe I've gotten your point, but I'm not sure you see mine. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'd probably have been more inclined to wait around for an answer if the blocking admin hadn't already been left messages disagreeing with the block, which he hadn't responded to. In the meantime, an established contributor is blocked, under circumstances that we can hopefully at least agree were controversial. I stand by my decision to unblock in this case, and I'd do the same thing again in similiar circumstances. It was less harmful than not unblocking. And yes, I agree that wheel warring is bad. Friday (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who's entirely right or wrong, but I just want to commend Friday on his civility, good reasoning and trying to Do The Right Thing here. That's far more important than what the exact rule is. :-) Kim Bruning 13:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To JJay

To JJay, I don't know if you'll see this or not, but it can't hurt. I'm not stalking you. You probably find that hard to believe, but I'll try to convince you.

We run into each other on various articles for many reasons. Most simply, it happens. Also, we both tend to participate in deletion discussions sometimes, so this puts our eyes on many of the same articles. I also have many user talk pages on my watchlist, as I tend to add them when I leave someone a message. Sometimes I find interesting things by seeing what other editors are talking about. And yes, I've even looked at your contributions. I bet you've looked at mine too, there's nothing wrong with that. This doesn't mean I'm stalking you.

I was trying to remember how and when and why this conflict started, and I did find Talk:List of Muslims in business on an old to-do list of mine from back in December. I was surprised to see your name there upon re-reading it, but I see that even then there was some kind of unnecessary animosity, and I apologize for it.

I think I also probably seriously annoyed you by suggesting in January on your talk page that you sounded like you were trolling. This was a stupid thing for me to say, and yes, I failed to assume good faith. I'm sorry.

Since then I've realized that you are in fact a good-faith editor who is only trying to do what's best for the project. We just happen to have different opinions on merging, verifiability, and importance of topics.

Anyway, the reason I'm saying all this is that it's become more of a problem. We're not able to edit the same article peaceably, from what I can see at Talk:Jean-Claude Irvoas. That particular article isn't a big deal, I'm happy to let it go and the right thing will happen with it in time, whether I'm watching it or not. But, I don't see how we can hope to always avoid each other. And I wouldn't want you to leave the project. From what I can see, you do good work here.

So, unless we can figure something out, or we're willing to always avoid any articles we see that the other has touched, I don't see that this problem will magically go away. I won't post on your talk page anymore, as you've asked, but now it's spilling over into article talk pages. We seem to be able to get along on deletion discussions or article talk pages (even though we disagree) when all we're talking about is that article. But, if you want to discuss our conflict as editors, would you mind doing it here on my talk page instead of on article talk pages? People don't want to see that kind of stuff on article talk pages. Anyway, assuming you actually managed to read through these ramblings, thank you for your time. Friday (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between Guanaco and MarkSweep. You are being named as an involved party. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)