User talk:Friday/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome.Gator (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not a member, and I didn't see my name on the list..? Friday (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

one bad article does not deserve another[edit]

Liked your essay at User:Friday/bad. The "but we have..." argument really frosts me; it's part of a whole class of ineffably whiny arguments. (The even worse one is, "Don't complain to me that I did this bad thing; I know it's bad, so what, that doesn't matter because: person X over there that I did this bad thing to, did it first.") But please fix the spelling in three places: it's "consistent". —Steve Summit (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks, my spelling is atrocious sometimes. And I probably misspelled that, too. Friday (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Self Reference ?[edit]

Hello Friday. On my user page you ask, I'm confused by your edit here. I don't see the self-reference. Neither, apparently did Raymond Hill. I reverted your change.

Okay, the article begins (when read as an article): "This article is about the set of practices and ideas about those practices known as Dianetics" This situation is exactly the situation which WP:ASR carefully tells us not to do, stating: "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project, such as: This Wikipedia article discusses ..." I therefore deleted it. It might be worth noting that while editing, those words do not appear because they are held within a clever template. Nonetheless, to the reader who reads the article, the words appear as I have stated them which is directly contrary to WP:ASR. Terryeo 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
"New York" is both a state and a city. Heck there might be a sandwich by the name too, if you go to a restaurant and they ask you what kind of steak you want, you say, "New York", well, they bring you that kind of steak. Dianetics is not the actual title of any book. It is a subject. Therefore, it appears as a self-serving, self reference. That's my understanding of the situation. Terryeo 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you want to argue that the disambig is unneccessary, that's a seperate issue from it being an undesirable self-reference. I have a copy of the book, and I refer to it as "Dianetics" for short. I bet this is common. A more precise name for the city would be "New York, New York", but people call it "New York" for short, hence the disambig is helpful. To me these situations are very similiar. Friday (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I see. "This article is about the set of practices and ideas about those practices known as Dianetics" isn't even accurate. The article meanders on about Hubbard (maybe 1/3 of the article) and blathers about economics of Dianeitcs, it certainly does not confine itself to "The ideas and practices of Dianetics" and is therefore an inaccurate self-reference. A disambiguation might be about a book which contains the same word. There simply is no other Dianetics. The article is bound to be about Dianetics, the title says so. How can you not view it as self-referencing? Terryeo 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If I may butt in... The self-references described in WP:ASR that we are to avoid are self-references to Wikipedia, not to the article. WP:ASR#Neutral references specifically excludes properly-formatted disambiguation notices. android79 20:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yah, definitely, it's the word "Wikipedia" that makes a bad self-reference. As for the meaning of the word, to you as a subject matter expert, sure, it refers to one thing. To possibly unfamiliar readers, it refers to the book, too. Many people refer to the book as "Dianetics". It may not be the most accurate name for the book, but it's a commonly used name. If you don't feel the article content in general is right, thats a completely different issue. To me (and, from what I can see, to most editors) the disambig makes sense. Friday (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yellow Car I Win[edit]

Friday-- Thanks for your big welcome message on my talk page. Though that page is empty, I am not in fact new to Wikipedia or its policies. I published my article with all of the values of a free encyclopedia in mind; what others have articles on things such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? Wikipedia includes several other car games (such as punch buggy), and I felt it was missing the one I play the most often. I've posted more information on the article's discussion page. If you'd be so kind as to take a look at that or to discuss it further with me, I'd like that. ---Dana 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza's Admin Coaching[edit]

Hey! Thanks for signing up in Wikipedia:Esperanza's Admin coaching program. Since you've volunteered to help train a user, I've assigned Fetofs to you and to your partner, DakotaKahn. Please make sure to be kind and helpful to your coachee. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks again! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Friday, Dakota suggested that I contacted you so we could know when you'll be available for the coaching, and how would this be done. Do you have any ideas? Fetofs Hello! 22:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping for general advice, because I hadn't had any ideas myself. What I wanted to was that you answered my basic question (of course you would oppose me on a future request on an WP:RFA. What should I do to get a support?) -- yes,that implies that I'm not an admin yet, so I can't speedy delete things ;). I also thought that you could organize some hypothetical situations so I could judge my sense of things. In a resumed fashion, I wanted to try to do what you think I had to do so you could nominate me yourself. By the way, what was your biggest focus on Wikipedia before you were promoted to an admin? Fetofs Hello! 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, how silly of me. For some reason I thought admin coaching was for new admins, but I suppose it makes more sense to coach them up before they're nominated. Anyway, what I would recommend is to work on your answers to the RFA questions starting whenever you feel like it, that way you'll have answers you've already put thought into for when the time comes. I'm a bit confused tho- you're saying I would oppose you on an RFA? Why? I don't see a reason why I would. To me it looks like you're doing good work here already, but if there are specific areas you think you need help with, let me know. Friday (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just thought that... By the way, I've set up a page for coaching ,when you want to put tips or test questions in there feel free to do it. Not much to ask now, but if I et to have any questions, I'll ask them here or at my user subpage. Fetofs Hello! 11:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello. I noticed that you overwrote the vanity junk article Neogles with what appears to be an "experimental deletion" tag. After (briefly) looking at the project page, I do quite recognize that this appears to be a good faith effort at deletion streamlining (which I, as an off-and-on RC patroller, would appreciate very much). However, this method is in practical effect vandalism, and I have dealt with it accordingly (rv + prod). Please consider stop using this method, as it

  • appears to be less transparent than the triad of speedy/prod/AfD
  • leaves zillions of blanked pages around if mass-deployed
  • with its current wording, it has the same results as WP:PROD but with more disadvantages (text is hidden, no automatic removal after 5 days).

Best, Sandstein 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. To me, XD does everything prod does, and better. But, I think the right place to talk about it is at Wikipedia talk:Experimental Deletion. I don't see a reason to stop using it, in fact right now I prefer it to most other methods, but I'm always open to new ideas. Anyway, I don't neccessarily agree that prod is the way to go for this article (for one thing, there's already been one objection to the deletion, so technically we're not supposed to use prod), but I'm not going to go undoing it, either. Friday (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

to JJay[edit]

Hi, I'm very pleased that you sound like you're willing to take this issue to my talk page. I don't know if you saw it or not, but I left you a note a little while back (here, rather than on your own talk page, as you requested). It's since been archived, but it's still quite relevant. It's at User talk:Friday/archive3#To JJay. Since it appears that we're still not able to edit the same article without conflict, I feel it's important to resolve this dispute. Do you think we should look for a mediator or something? I'm open to any suggestion that can get us back to editing rather than sniping at each other. I doubt we'll magically start agreeing on certain issues, but surely we can disagree peacefully? Friday (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you're interested, there's a page I'm setting up to discuss this problem. Friday (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


just letting you know that I, the recovering idiot ( ok, so its not as bad as recovering alcoholic), Gabriel simon, of previous stupidity, am now trying to have a lighter touch, plus i moved to a more relaxing place, and things are looking up, as far as IRL life is concerned, so more or less, just saying im back, and there seems little reason to fear, for me or you. also, its my birthdayGimmiet 20:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha. I'm glad that you see that some of your previous behavior was stupid problematic. I wish you good luck in your recovery. Oh, and Happy birthday! Friday (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks! justthought id let you know and all... my "recovery" has a lot to do with me not being constantly stressed anym ore, and my moving to labrador, and , well , the list goes on.... enjoy.Gimmiet 21:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You now live in a Labrador?!? Crazy Canadians. Friday (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

labrador is the part of newfoundland that is not an island, its in the atlanctic time zone instead, so at least the time zone didnt change for me. and by the by, crazy doenst nessesarily mean wrong, ya kno... " your crazy" " yeah, so, im still right" etc :-D Gimmiet 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Yo it ain't nonsense loser. Don't make me grab my crew and pump on yo fag nerdy ass.

OK, I won't make you do that. Friday (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What about me? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I demand that you grab your crew and.. whatever that was. I further demand that you bring me some beer immediately. Something hoppy, but not outrageously hoppy. Friday (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend a lovely Victory Brewing Company Hopdevil. Mmmm, tasty. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Aight then we don't got beef. We Cool? Aight but i only got the hard shit. You know my Steelo. Here's a taste if ya don't know: KillaMic spittin 4 urs truly:

Killamic, RW to the C My gun to your face is what i'd love for you to see So flee before gettin torn apart with no shyness No kindness in my hart gun smoke clear your sinus Make ya live life minus an arm leg or ass cheek blow ur whole crew all the way into last week. Ya heard... hey u shuld make an article bout me since u won't let me do it. Aight Peace

could this person please learn grammer before continuing on wikipedia? the entire community would be gratefull, no doubt.Gimmiet 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking my IP address[edit]

  • You blocked a guy with the name pentile misfunction (or something like that) because he was a vandal. I share and IP address with him, and am trying to do a major edit right now...could you please unblock me, or find some way to stop him without penalizing me? TheImpossibleMan 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • My IP address is
I don't see that this address is blocked. Maybe it expired or someone else took care of it? Anyway, sorry for the inconvenience. Let me know if you have further problems. Friday (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Friday, I've extended the block to one week, as agreed here. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now blocked the account indefinitely because of the personal attacks on his talk page. I would ask you please not to unblock him, Friday. He's been nothing but a nuisance for many months, has been extremely dishonest about his use of sockpuppets, personally insulting on the site and by e-mail, and hasn't made a single valuable edit that I'm aware of. We block other accounts indefinitely for less disruption than this. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
No objections here. Thanks for the note. Friday (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1[edit]

Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience:
"No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention."
The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Note from the editor
Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!
  1. Future meetings are to be held monthly, not fortnightly as before.
  2. Bans and Access level changes (apart from autovoice) in the IRC channel are to be reported at the new log.
  3. In the IRC channel, there is going to be only one bot at a time.
  4. The charter requires members to have 150 edits and 2 weeks editing. Why this is the case will be clarified.
  5. A new Code of Conduct will be drafted by JoanneB and proposed to the Esperanza community.
  6. The NPA reform idea is to be dropped officially.
  7. Charter ammendments are to be discussed in future, not voted on.
  8. The Advisory Council is not going to be proposed to be expanded by the Advisory Council themselves, if others want to propose it, they will listen.
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

M16 AfD[edit]

Thanks for having the nerve to AfD it, I didn't think it'd survive but let's see how it plays out. I do kind of think it's a useful escape valve, but I've cleaned most of the cruft off the aircraft pages and only have to revert an Ace Combat addition once or twice a week. Are you co-nominating M-4 or are you waiting to see where the chips fall?

--Mmx1 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For now, I included M4 Carbine in popular culture in the same Afd- they're really really similiar anyway. Not sure how it'll turn out, but people may comment on the redirect from the M4 list to the other one. If we must have this, I think we could at least get it down to just one list. Friday (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
We could make a list with all AR-15 derivatives actually. If we can make it actual article for each firearm rather then a list that would be even better. Ve3 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Err, so you want a seperate list for each AR15 variation? I agree that an article is better than a list, but having more than one list seems excessive. If there are actually sources for this topic and it's not all just original research, why not work on Guns in popular culture or something? Surely there's little difference between the impact of one gun versus another? Are you actually saying that an AR15 with a 20-inch barrel has a different impact on popular culture than an AR15 with a 14-inch barrel? I would probably die of shock if anyone was able to produce a reputable source that suggested this was true. Friday (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No, no you have understood me exactly wrong. "We could make a list with all AR-15 derivatives"- we make one article that covers all pop culture of the AR-15 derviatives. It could include a list for all I care, but at least some meat. For example, maybe some quote of actors using them? Most AR-15 derivatives don't have any pop culture exposure anyway. Ve3 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

University of South Carolina[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind lending your opinion to a content dispute that I am currently involved in on University of South Carolina. USC has a strong athletic rivalry with Clemson University. I feel that the athletics section of the article should discuss this rivalry, and I feel that this discussion should include a reference to the overall record between the two schools in various major sports. Other editors have disagreed, and feel that the record should not be mentioned. As it happens, Clemson leads in two of the discussed sports and USC leads in the third. I would appreciate it if you would consider lending your opinion on this issue on Talk:University of South Carolina. Thanks! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in the discussion. However, an anon has removed the section that deals with the rivalry and the record of the rivalry. I maintain this section should be left in the article, however I don't wish to personally continue edit warring. I was wondering if you would consider visiting the discussion again, and if you would consider replacing the information in the article? Thank you again, and I greatly value your contribution to this discussion. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


It turns out that he's just writing an episode guide on the manga One Piece. Some of us thought he was posting a story of his own and have been trying to refer him to Wikisource. Many of his items have already been tagged as "nonsense" or deleted. A manga fan is trying to educate him about Wikipedia. Thanks. --John Nagle 22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ultimate Dark Night[edit]

The article The Ultimate Dark Night was deleted. I would like the information from this article so I can add it to the article Leich where I believe is it's rightful place. Will you please send me the information from this article (if there is not a way on Wikipedia send it to The deletion log is located here.

Alright, this has been undeleted. It's going to be turned into a redirect, but the history will still be available. There wasn't a ton of content in there, but maybe something can be merged. Friday (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate[edit]

Hi again. It seems vandals attacked again after your latest revision to remove false comments from this page. You did overlook one other bit of vandalism in regard to the producer, a role that is certainly verifiable from album credits, so I reverted to my last version before any of the attacks began. And I do think the term fits in this case.GuardianZ 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Beer Category[edit]

It has been suggested by User:BrianSmithson that the Beer and brewery categories should be renamed. The proposal has been supported by User:Syrthiss, and supported and expanded by myself. The notion is that the regional categories should follow the format of "Beer and breweries in Africa" /Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania. "Brewers and breweries" could also be renamed "Beer and breweries by region". And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, "Beer and breweries of Germany", "Beer and breweries of Britain", "Beer and breweries of Poland". The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers.

Comments, suggestions, objections and simple votes to Wiki Beer Project SilkTork 15:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching[edit]


  • Responding to your request for admin coaching. Let me know how can I assist you. You can email me or discuss here. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. It's possible I'd had too much beer at the time of signing up, I didn't even realize til later it was meant to be for people who are not yet admins. I didn't really have any specific goal in mind, but I welcome feedback from anyone and everyone. Friday (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


If someone deletes your comment from their talk page and hurls insults at in the edit summary, does it qualify as a violation of the Wikipedia No Personal Attacks policy?--User:Lord_Chess

Your block of Protein Analyzer[edit]

Apparently you forgot to remove the existing 48-hour block placed by GraemeL before blocking indefinitely, so the indef block will be overridden unless you unblock and reblock. --TML1988 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks for the tip. Friday (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bow Gamelan Ensemble[edit]

Don't know if you saw it, but there's some disagreement at Talk:Bow Gamelan Ensemble. I saw this too and wondered about a speedy, but I wonder if it'd be good to restore and allow more time for article improvement? I tend to prefer prod these days execpt in cases of obvious junk, since sometimes the article can be improved to the point where it's worth keeping. Friday (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. I'm not inclined to restore it as of yet, but if you want to do so I don't object. I'll watch the talkpage too. Stifle 13:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching[edit]

Hi! I was just curious what you would like the Esperanza's admin coaching program to do for you. You are signed up to be both a coach and a coachee. Also, User:Jossi above offered to coach you, but I didn't see if you responded to the message. Let me know if you want to be involved in the program in one way or another, and if you would like me to keep you on any of the lists. Thanks! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've replied to Jossi now, and I've given Fetofs a bit of advice here and there. I have to sheepishly admit I misunderstood the goal of the program when I first signed up. Anyway, I'm happy to give or receive advice to or from anyone. I suppose I don't need to be on the list tho. Friday (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Don't worry about any misinterpretation, it's perfectly fine. I'll take your name off the lists, and if at some point you feel like you'd want to formally coach another user, feel free to add yourself back to the "coaches" list and we'll assign you a coachee. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2[edit]

The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date:
"Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated."
The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!
  1. The next elections: Approval voting as before and, also as before, an previous leadership member can run. Please submit your name for voting in the relevant section of this page. Voting starts on 2006-04-23 and ends on 2006-04-30. There will be three places up for grabs as KnowledgeOfSelf is leaving Wikipedia. Please see the previously linked page for full details.
  2. The Code of Conduct is now ready for extensive discussion! Specific comments should go to the Code of Conduct talk page, discussion of having one at all should be directed to the main Esperanza talk page.
  3. The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly.
A plea from the editor...
The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there.
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (UTC)


You tuck the Dianetics template back in, but you refuse to discuss it. I try to talk about it, you refuse to talk about it and revert the template. Were I doing the same, you guys would initiate an Rfc. Terryeo 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I've discussed it. I don't think it's neccessary, but other people do, so I tried to shorten it. This change was reverted, and I explained why I thought the short version was better. So far I don't know if anyone agrees tho, so I haven't tried putting it back to my preferred version again. Friday (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

new user[edit]

I am not new, and if you had looked at the history you would have seen i have been welcomed before. Perle 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, you still seem pretty new to me. Also, it's very important to understand WP:V, I highly encourage you to read that page. Friday (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

give me a little message[edit]

I've come to enjoy the wiki administrators. I'm sorry for all of that stuff you guys called "vandalism", even though it wasn't. Vsmith still is really mad at me. Send him a message telling that I say sorry. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia.

I'm still a bit annoyed at Longhair. However, i've come to expect him being a bit mean. He is very stressed with the council, and i will not bother him with stipid complaints. It's more important that he keep china and hong kong going.

Rocker likes you. Send him a message saying that he's a complete something or other.

Do you listen to NPR?

Stick world is back on the air, but I'm working on deleting it.

When in rome, do as the romans do. I've been living by that little proverb since I became a wikipedian.

I think you should make a kid wikipedia. It will have stuff appropriate for children. All you have to do is make a version of wikipedia that is easier to use, somewhat smaller and without curses, slang or other things that kids don't need to know.


ContiE's Administrator Abuse[edit]

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [1] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 05:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case. Raul654 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

HI can you restore some text on my talk page?[edit]

HI can I get the text for the article "Land ownership of Palestine", that was recently deleted. You may post it on my talk page. Thnx Bless sins 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

About your comments on Lemonhead's discussion page[edit]

Please check Latebird's discussion page and my discussion page before jumping into talks. Latebird is the first one who spread suspicion about me Lemonhead and threatened me. Latebird is a highly reasonable relative of Miyeegombo Enkhbold and he was assumed to have violated Wikipedia's rule not to contribute on his relative.

Please check Talk:Miyeegombo_Enkhbold for relative discussions of the above two wikipedians.

Please advise me how to submit de-adminship for new admin Latebird. Thanks Lemonhead 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that Latebird is an admin, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Regardless of circumstances, no legal threats is an important rule of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning a discussion with Lemonhead on his talk page about these issues. I have worked with Lemonhead and Latebird before so I hope I can help resolve this dispute. Academic Challenger 06:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and good luck with that. :-) Friday (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Friday, I refrain about legal action against Latebird at this time. Your comments above are very helpful. Lemonhead 22:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

It's unacceptable to protect a page which you have just reverted. Please unprotect the page and let another admin do it. Guettarda 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you volunteering, then? There's edit warring going on there. Friday (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
As a compromise, I undid my revert. I have left it protected for now, which I think is appropriate. However if anyone disagrees and unprotected, I'm not going to war over it. Friday (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I don't see how it's a violation of policy or a bad idea, in cases of edit wars, to put the article back how it was before the war started and protect it that way. It seems to do the least harm. Friday (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you protect a page you are supposed to do it without taking a side - that means protecting the current version, regardless of what that version is (short of vandalism, of course). People often game the system by protecting it as soon as their someone else reverts it, but that doesn't mean that's acceptable. If you protect a page, you aren't allowed to take a side. Guettarda 17:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have misread what you said. IMO, what you have done is the correct thing. Now that real challenge - to get the two sides to talk it out and come to a compromise... Guettarda 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.. And you were right, to avoid any appearance of bias I should probably have either editted or protected the article, but not both. I just want us to have one good article on cool. I think there's room there to talk about the origins and history, without advocating any one person's view. Friday (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Something rare indeed: An admin mistep by Friday. Write today down! ^_^
I had no idea what I was getting into here, it serves me right for not examining an article's history before editing... but who in their right mind would have thought "cool" would be contentious?
brenneman{L} 00:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The nerdcore rapper who just won't give up[edit]

It looks like User:Jason Gortician is back at it again, even after evading a block, this time as (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). This message in alt.flame pretty much makes it obvious, especially given the IP address in the NNTP-Posting-Host header.

I guess that "representing" in the nerdcore world means "being excessively litigious in an AfD and posting spewage to alt.flame". --Elkman - (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the info. Seems pretty par for the course. As far as I'm concerned, he can have his fun on usenet all day long, I don't care. Maybe one day he'll compose a "keystyle rap" about me and I'll be as famous as he is. I just wish he'd keep his self-promotion and flaming off Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW, if you want a giggle, it turns out the band "Gortician" is verifiable after all. Who knew? Friday (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
They sure are. But, hey, they're the only bad that's ever gotten a bad review. It's a good reason to keep a band off of Wikipedia.

Calling them verifiable was a joke, actually. Forum posts, your own personal blog, and your friends websites aren't really reliable sources. Now begone, troll. Friday (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool (African aesthetic)[edit]

Please see [2]. Page protection is not a tool for winning edit wars. To revert and then protect is unacceptable. To protect a page on which one has been edit-warring is unacceptable. Guettarda 18:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand all that. I was wondering if you actually thought the page was better off not being a redirect, or if you reverted simply out of disagreement with other actions that Zoe had done. Friday (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?[edit]


I will pardon your "buttinski," and Aaron does have a point, but I am almost offended by "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." (Emphasis mine) As a product of what some would call miscegenation, I object to your considering all those to whom race matters mentally ill. I am much more understated than Deeceevoice, and I understand why you might think she gets carried away, but race does matter, and if you've ever lived in the American South, you would know not to say such things. A person does not forget that his or her grandfather was lynched very easily. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between racism being an important issue and race being an important issue. Racism should be an important issue to everyone, race should be an important issue to no one. I meant to say that racists are mentally ill, not folks who are concerned about racism. Anyway, sorry for the offense, it wasn't intentional. Friday (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I was hoping that was just a misunderstanding. :) People who make every single issue into a race question probably are a bit mentally ill, as in traumatized. If you meet such a person of color, I earnestly ask you to remember that his/her single-mindedness probably arises from intense suffering, and to treat the person with compassion, without surrending objectivity, of course. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You're very right. We all have our flaws (and sometimes, yeah, mental illnesses). Some people are damaged for very understandable reasons that are no fault of their own. Friday (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

La Salle University[edit]

Guys, chill...I'm working on them now...I agree with you 100% Lasallefan 20:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked[edit]

To be honest I haven't looked, you were the one that bought it up ;) And yes I was being facetious, which isn't very nice, but I'm kind of frustrated and I guess we all get that way sometimes. Also, I generally disprove of scare quotes. I'll strike that part out. - FrancisTyers 16:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. I'm not offended and I hoped/assumed it was rhetoric. Let it stand for all I care, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a real issue there. I've been accused of it before, generally by trolls and problem editors, though. Which, sometimes, can just be an indication that you're doing the right thing. Friday (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This was caught in the conflict: I just re-read and I see you said "editors" not "other editors", to get it straight I believe you have contributed to harassing DCV — although I think perhaps unintentionally and certainly not the worse offender. btw, I read User:Friday/XW, and I think you are completely right, although I see quite a chasm between what you write there and how you are acting currently. I suggest taking a closer look at all the actors in this little scenario. In response to your second post:
To be unpopular with both sides at the same time is probably the best pointer to the fact that one is performing one's duties correctly and with impartiality.
One of the quotes that makes me smile in situations like this :) - FrancisTyers 16:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback. I don't think expecting someone to abide by the community's expectations of behavior can ever be harassment, but hey, my own involvement here may be coloring my perceptions. Perhaps it's time for me to step away from this situation again- I've done it before. I thought I was treating her with kid gloves with the gentle suggestion of a WP:POINT violation instead of blocking for it, but maybe that was out of line. Friday (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching[edit]

Friday, can you look at User:Fetofs/coaching and tell me what do you think? Fetofs Hello! 23:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I answered the question about policy. Fetofs Hello! 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I answered the other one. Fetofs Hello! 15:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I participate sometimes at WP:DRV, see for example WP:DRV#Dis-Connection. Thanks for the nice answers! Fetofs Hello! 17:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo blocked[edit]

Just wanted to say that in my view the block of Terryeo is absolutely appropriate. Thank you for stepping in so quickly. BTfromLA 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I removed several secondary sources within several articles which pointed to Now the arbitration committee is ruling on the matter, particularly of being used as a secondary source. My reasoning has to do with personal websites, as you know. It has enormously agitated several Scientology editors, not least of which, BTfromLA. WP:RS had 27 edits in 48 hours from Fahrenheit451 over it (I did not edit that guideline), and several other editors have likewise gone to extremes in an attempt to produce that is a citeable secondary source and not a personal website. So, BTfromLA, and you, have some basis of arguement whether the arbitration committee finds for or against being a citeable, secondary source of information or whether they rule that is a personal website and as such, per WP:RS is not permissable as a secondary source of information. I appreciate that both of you become upset that the website might not be quite as find and shining a site as the editors whom, in good faith, and not advocating any point of view, use that website as a secondary source freely, often, throughly and base whole articles therupon. Terryeo 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

diff for "god's green"[edit]


Justforasecond 19:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo selectively editing posts[edit]

I've just discovered Terryeo selectively editing a post to him from on his user talk page. [4] While my post to him was not, I admit, perfectly CIVIL (I have not yet found the secret to keeping perfectly calm while someone pretends I'm simple-minded and completely gullible) what he edited out was not merely my rhetorical excesses but my explanation to him of why he could not treat a source that was also available on a "personal website" as if that was the only place it was available. You might want to check and see if he has similarly edited any of your own posts to him. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note[edit]

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Awarded, from the Barnstar Brigade[edit]

I, Kukini, hereby award you this WikiDefender Barnstar for effective wikidefense. Kukini 15:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

isn't it uncivil?[edit]

isn't opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one uncivil??

Justforasecond 19:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps very mildly so. Using a somewhat vulgar word isn't the same as calling someone a name. I really don't see that it's a cause for concern. Friday (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

threat to block me[edit]

See User talk:Zoe#Why?. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

hello friend[edit]

as much as i appreciate personal vendettas against my contributions, i would encourage you to think about some things: 1. redirecting Houston Hall to University of Pennsylvania. Houston Hall is a notbale building on Penn's campus, and is home to the oldest student union in America. There is a STRONG precendent to giving college campus buildings there own articles, if there is enough information about them- i would point you to Hetzel Union Building, Eustace-Cole Hall, Nassau Hall, Formal Hall, and multiple others. Seeing as how other users made edits to the Houston Hall page, perhaps instead of deleting their work, you should have added to it by doing some research. 2. the removal of Nuke and Pave. Did you even do a google search before putting this article up for deletion? Do one right now. This is a term frequently used in the computing industry, even if it is slang. It is irresponsible to delete articles simply because you're not familiar with the industry. If you'd like to contest the first individual to come up with the term, that's fine, do so on the Article page. 3. April 30th Day is a holiday that was created in Medford, and still enjoys celebration, especially by high school students at Lenape High School. I will get an article or two from a local paper there. However, if ever single article needs to have such strict documentation, you have a lot of deletion taggin to do.

I see google results for Nuke and Pave, yes. Info in Wikipedia gets mirrored quite easily. It's possible this is a legit term tho, but your own claim of having popularized the term made me suspicious. As for April 30th day, please see Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I still think the notability and verifiability pages would be good reading for you. Not everyone believes in notability, but everyone is obliged to observe the verifiability policy- it's one of the key things that makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia instead of a group blog or graffiti wall. Friday (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


I ought, at the outset, to thank you very kindly for your having thought of me as a prospective admin; you're an admin after whom I expect I'd pattern myself were I an admin (especially in view of your user page note that admins are not a privileged class whose actions are beyond reproach or disagreement), so your comments were especially meaningful. I have considered adminship, inasmuch as there are certain areas in which I think I could, with the mop and bucket, aid the project. Right now, though, I doubt that an RfA for me would be succesful, largely in view of three factors: (1) my edit count is a bit low, around 3400 (with nearly 5% to my user page, mostly from when first I joined); (2) until recently, my user page was adorned with more than 200 userboxes (even as I've explained in detail my reasons for removing them and the evolution of my beliefs relative to userboxes, some would surely think that conversion to have been made too recently); (3) I am not particularly obsessed with becoming an admin and can't rightfully say that I'd spend time on admin chores on the average day (many believe that one who isn't likely to need admin tools for very much oughtn't to have them, if only because it's difficult to desysop [and there's no need to take a risk where a user isn't likely to contribute much as an admin]; I'm generally of the opposite persuasion: I'm a bit concerned about those overly eager to begin blocking users and exercising power, but I don't think my position commands much support). I could, I suppose, feign greater interest to address (3), but I'm disinclined to be deceitful, even when ostensibly for the ultimate good of the project, and, in any case, I've expressed my views with adminship in many places here. Perhaps in a month or two, when I've finished many of the substantial rewrites on which I'm now working, and when I'm likely to have more edits to my name, I might be a better candidate and might then consider an RfA, on which I'd love your support. In the meanwhile, I'll keep doing what I'm doing. Thanks once more for your kind words; apologies for the length of this message. Joe 05:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries about length- I'm glad to see a thoughtful and thorough reply. And honestly, your reponse only reinforces my belief that the project would benefit from you having the admin tools. I'd be surprised if anyone thought 3000+ edits was low, but you never know. And, of course, you must use your own best judgment on if and when you wish to be nominated. I'll gladly support a nomination, or nominate you myself, at any time you want. Happy editing. Friday (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3[edit]

The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better. Recently, changes have been made to the requirements of coachees. Please review them before requesting this service.
This would be something like the Welcoming Committee, but for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
The Stressbusters are a subset of Esperanza aiming to investigate the causes of stress. New eyes on the situation are always welcome!
Note from the editor
As always, MiszaBot handled this delivery. Thank you! Also, congratulations go to Pschemp, Titoxd and Freakofnurture for being elected in the last elections! An Esperanzial May to all of the readership!
  1. Posting logs of the Esperanza IRC channel are explicitly banned anywhere. Violation of this rule results in deletion and a ban from the channel.
  2. A disclaimer is going to be added to the Esperanza main page. We are humans and, as such, are imperfect.
  3. Various revisions have been made to the Code of Conduct. Please see them, as the proposal is ready to be ratified by the community and enacted. All members will members to have to re-confirm their membership after accepting the Code of Conduct.
  4. Referendums are to be held on whether terms of AC members should be lengthened and whether we should abolish votes full stop.
  5. Admin Coaching reform is agreed upon.
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, Pschemp and Freakofnurture
20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Unprotecting[edit]

We block people and protect pages to prevent damage. He can't do real damage to the project by editing his talk page, and that's why he's by default allowed to edit it. It shouldn't be protected unless there is an urgent reason and I don't see an urgent reason here.

Also, the people he's been in conflict with have handled it badly, by removing his comments from talk pages, rolling back his contributions which were not clear vandalism, communicating exclusively through pre-prepared messages, etc. Some more information on what's going on can be only useful. Zocky | picture popups 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the reason was obvious- he continued to remove warnings and call other editors names, on his talk page. But, I suspect it's all academic now- he's been indefinitely banned as a sock. But, FWIW, his behavior after the unprotection only reinforces by belief that protection was the right thing to do. Friday (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

a Chipmunk and a Lizard[edit]

Why delete this article? It may be a stub right now, but that doesn't mean it won't develope.

As I explained in the prod that you removed without comment, there are no sources for this article, and no indicaton of significance. If you're going to remove a prod, please, do something to address to reasons for it. You may also want to check out the WP:WEB guidelines for inclusion of websites. Friday (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


He has a long history of stalking this editor to various articles and making "innocuous" (and other) edits - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mccready#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary. He has been warned to stop doing this, but hasn't taken the warnings seriously. Jayjg (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_User:Mccready_for_Wikistalking; please feel free to express your position on this there. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw, thanks. I can't even say he doesn't deserve a block, I just wish it were better justified. I hate to see people get the idea they'll be blocked just for annoying the wrong people. Friday (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue here isn't the quality of the edit, or simply "annoying" people. If he had simply annoyed the hell out of her on articles in which they held a common interest, that would be one thing, but he persists in harassing her, and when she doesn't respond, following her around to other articles she is editing so she cannot fail to notice him. No Wikistalking is a policy for a reason. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your view is that I'm being heavyhanded; just about every other admin who has commented publicly (and many others who have commented privately) feel that I've acted appropriately. Please do not threaten to undo my blocks; wheel-warring is looked on with extreme disfavor, and, in the past, has resulted in sanctions by the Arbtration Committee. Moreover, there are many other admins lined up behind me to re-block him should he unfortunately continue to wikistalk, and should you even more unfortunately decide to wheel-war over a block for doing so. Finally, I'm going to have to (again) insist that you refrain from dishonest arguments; no more going on about "good edits", since the issue is wikistalking, not edit quality. There are 1.1 million articles he can make "good edits" to; he can stick to those. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There are 1,129,530 articles he can make "decent edits" to without any concerns about block. Failure to acknowledge that the issue isn't the quality of his edits, but the fact that he will not stop following SlimVirgin to the paltry few articles she has just edited, is simply dishonest. Similarly, any comment which in any way states or implies Mccready has in any way been banned, or which refers in any way to the quality of his edits, is ipso facto dishonest, since the former is factually false, and the latter is not, and has never been, the issue. Until you confine your arguments to the actual issue, rather than strawmen and red herrings, I'm afraid I'm going to have to label them for what they are. Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Friday, you're allowing yourself to be manipulated. Please e-mail me if you have further concerns. This is starting to look inappropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're crazy, Friday. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it alright if I still think you are? ;-) Friday (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder + Suggestion[edit]

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.
Comment Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

Hey Friday, I just wanted to leave you a quick note to say that I very much respect you even though we disagreed. And I respect your personal position vis a vis this wikistalking charge even though I have a different opinion; just wanted to make sure you didn't feel ganged up on. Happy Friday =) · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 14:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I don't, and thanks for the note. I figured I'd be in the minority on this one. There's absolutely no disagreement this editor has been a problem. I was against the latest block because it looked like that day he was behaving himself, and he'd already been blocked after much of his earlier bad behavior. It's possible there was never any hope for reformation, but I hate to see us using blocks for punishment instead of for damage control. Anyway, it seemed to me like people didn't object to the block, mainly due to past ill behavior on his part, and that's just fine. I just hope people don't honestly believe that the edit in question was anything remotely like wikistalking. Even when there are problem editors out there, we still do not have article ownership here. Anyway, it's possible I'm trying to give a troll the benefit of the doubt out of sheer foolishness. But, it's also possible this user actually wants to contribute usefully. If he demonstrates otherwise, it's time for a community ban IMO. If he doesn't demonstrate otherwise, I sure hope nobody blocks him again. Friday (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not here to debate this more with you; I've made my opinion amply clear. I just wanted to leave you a quick, friendly note. I'm sure we'll all be watching this user going forward. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 15:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Gomi[edit]

Thank you. I am surprised and pleased at having recevied such prompt help. I just located that "helpme" template a few minutes ago! (I'll try not to overuse it). In any case, this experience has been very stressful, but I'm so happy to now find some nice people on Wikipedia. -- Gomi-no-sensei 20:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Hey man I was just wondering how you find and delete pages so quickly. It seems like wikipedia has a billion people patrolling it 24/7. Anyways I'm sorry for demanding before... It's just that Coleman's an influencial man and all... Well one day he'll be up here I guess. --Matt1116 21:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks friday[edit]

Thanks for your comments on my page.

You seem very patient and even-handed.

Can I give you an analogy? You may think it has no place here, and you may not connect what I am trying to say, with my actions, but I hope you may. In my experience, I find that people are uncomfortable and resist a bigger picture.

Through out the history of America there has been a small minority (sometimes a powerless majority) of people who do not believe what the majority (or those in power) believe. These views have been persecuted mercilessly. In the early 19th century it was those who did not believe in the genocide of Native Americans or slavery. In the late 19th century it was those who did not believe in manifest destiny. In the late and 20th century it was Anti-imperialists. In the early to mid 20th century it was those who did not believe America should fight in WWI and WW2. Throughout America history it was labor organizers and communists.

Throughout history these groups have been persecuted mercilessly. They have been spied on, deported, sent to jail, and even killed for their beliefs. I am no revolutionary, but my views are usually always in the minority. When you are surrounded by a society who dispise your most cherished ideas, you begin to feel marginalized. This marginalization ironically makes you more marginalized because you become more radical. In the historical examples above, these people and organizations begin to become paranoid and more radical as the pressure to conform becomes more great. I have read a little sociology about this.

My views on America are dispised by the vast majority of Americans. (It is ironic that a country which prides itself in being so individualistic is in reality so conformist) I am continually marginalized. To avoid being margianalized in my real life, to losing a promotion, losing friends, not getting a job, I vent here, on wikipedia. It is harmless banter which has little or no repercutions in my real life. But even here on wikipedia my views are attacked ruthlessly. These attacks make me feel even more under seige, and even more margianized. As a result, I become even more radical, and even more margianalized. It is a vicious circle, repeated in every country and every society through out history.

How does this relate to my current attitude? My views on copyright are as dispised as my views on America. The vast majority of Americans have been taught that a 70 year plus copyright is a good thing, which protects consumers. I disagree strongly. But as much as I try to reason with the "Braying herd" (to use a quote coined by Walter Lippman in Public Opinion) there is truly no way to reason with such people, because underneath all of the rationalization is an ideology, once that ideology shows its ugly head, I know that I have lost all chances to use reason. As I told User_talk:Rjensen here [5], an on again off again ally:

This is really not about copyright, it is much more than that. The majority of people on Wikipedia will side with the arbitrators, whether or not it is legal or not. I have stated appelate court cases and they are ignored, repeatedly. I have argued every side of this issue, and I am ignored. You would think since I am a law student, non-law students would listen. I think if I became a intellectual property lawyer people would still not listen.
I destroyed the reverter's weak arguments, and revealed his imagined Wikipedia policy on Vandalism, one by one, and it made no difference. Ultimatly it came down to "I am arbitor so I said so" and "the decision has already been made."
I have found that the most zealous copyright police are usually conservatives who are law and order types who like the authority. The majority of wikipedians are Americans. America is a very conservative country, and people gravitate toward the law and order types. The majority of wikipedians will support the copyright police.

Anyway, Ed deleted the unencyclopia picture from my user page, citing copyright. I quickly found out that he was citing some of the pages that TSBY had a part in creating. I had been in a huge fight with TSBY about copyright. Come to find out TSBY completly abused his authority, which caused a minor furor on wikipedia. But despite the abuse of authority, the email from Time magazine, and his complete lack of copyright understanding, his changes stood. So when ed came to my wikipage, and deleted that image, I was pissed, but I reverted his intrusions, and hoped that this would be the end of it. As expected and dreaded, it was not. Ed continued to delete the image. Well, come to find out, but not surprising, Ed never asked the author permmission for us to use the image, he just began deleting thousands of images, just as TSBY had. He started the revert war. He deleted an image which the creator later gave everyone permission to use. The consequences of my reaction? I got booted.

Not two days earlier, an agressive admin began deleting my changes on NSA call database in the middle of editing. I had already fought on the talk page to keep my edits on the page. I fight to keep all of my exhastivly sourced edits on every talk page. I have been through several votes for deletion, too many revert wars to count, and been attacked millions of times by "patriotic" anons. Everyone of my contributions I have to fight for tooth and nail for, so I think you can understand why I have a siege mentality.

I am just glad that these are virtual attacks, and not real attacks which I would get if I voiced my views in real life.

I stopped the revert war, and reported this admin to 3RR, and he was dismissed by a fellow admin.

So I get booted and an admin gets off. Hypocricy? I wanted everyone to decide.

I know that my behavior here is often unproductive. I know that I am often self destructive, and I sabatoge my own best intrest. But better here on wikipedia, were the consequences are minimal, then in the real world, were the consequences are much more harsh and unforgiving.

Thanks for listening.

Signed:Travb 16:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with a lot of what you're saying, but that doesn't matter. A forum is a good place to talk about your opinions, but this is an encyclopedia. Also- our treatment of copyright issues may well be very conservative, but I don't think that's going to change. The Wikimedia Foundation has lawyers that give advice on these issues to folks at the highest levels. This crackdown on fair use images is fairly recent, imposed from the top, in response to the belief that copyright infringements pose a serious threat to Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Friday. Have a great weekend.Travb 18:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Harmonious editing[edit]

I see that you've actually taken to removing my username from the Harmonious Editing Club, and have done so twice, on the second occasion going so far as to claim that I am "not a harmonious editor." This is an extraordinarily hostile way to act. Please stop. It is absolutely appalling to see some who himself professes to subscribe to the tenets blatantly breaking them in this way. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not going to edit war over it, but I find it fairly astounding that you still consider yourself a harmonious editor. I'd rather see you change your behavior before listing your name there again, but I have no more ownership over the club than any other editor, so I suppose I can't do much about it. Friday (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not perfect, but I subscribe strongly to the principles of harmonious editing. Nearly all of my (rather rare) reverts are accompanied by a full explanation, and have done more than my fair share to defuse conflict. You seem to have some strong personal opinions about me that extend to accusing me of habitually launching personal attacks. That's your entitlement, but your action here, conducted twice over a period of months, and (I now realise) deliberately, was needlessly provocative. I would like to see you reconsider whether your own behavior is at all compatible with the club. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I will do that. FWIW, I don't think you habitually launch personal attacks, but I do think you're needlessly rude sometimes, and you respond poorly when this is pointed out to you. The rudeness, combined with a tendency toward wheel warring, is what lead me to the (apparently mistaken) belief that you were no longer interested in harmonious editing. Friday (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


My apologies once more for my failure to respond sooner; I surely didn't ignore your message but was occupied with several WP tasks and hadn't the time to reply. I certainly would like to have a chance at RfA; there are several admin tasks with which I think I could help and to the performance of which I am, IMHO, relatively well-suited. I am not confident that an RfA for me would be successful, in view of the potential objections I noted previously, but I am willing to try; after all, I meet my own admin standards (which are relatively low; where a user doesn't display a mercurial disposition and so isn't likely to abuse admin tools, I categorically support--the more properly, if rarely, used mops and buckets the better), and I think I'd be a good mop-and-bucketeer. I've several WP tasks pending, and I'd like to finish them before going to RfA, inasmuch as one often needs to answer questions with some celerity there. I'd be comfortable, then, with requesting adminship in about a week; you don't know me well, and so, even as I'd be honored to be nominated, I certainly don't expect you to nom, and I've no problem with a self-nom. I'll drop you a note at the end of next week, at which time I should be ready. In the meanwhile, continue the sensible, level-headed, and fair editing and admining... :) Joe 19:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

LCI IP[edit]

The IP address is or go to Lethbridge Collegiate Institute IP THANKS ALOT Max.pwnage 20:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy patrol[edit]

I hereby do state and declare, by the official authority vested in me (1) that you are fully approvovised, permittedized, certified, certifiable, and otherwise declariazable to be allowed to patrol policy pages (if you hadn't been doing so already :-) ) .

Kim Bruning 10:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC) (1) For the irony impaired: I have no actual official authority whatsoever. Duh ;-)

Doh! I knew there was something I was forgetting about! Do you get a funny hat to go with that authority? Friday (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if User:JRM would issue us one? Kim Bruning 14:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam Carr[edit]

While I understand your frustration with Adam's editing habits at Cuban legislative election, 2003, (I hope) it would be helpful to avoid using the word 'troll' – even in the context of explicitly not calling him one – in describing his actions. We're trying to get him to discuss things, and anything that might make him feel personally attacked isn't going to help to achieve that.

I've warned him that further reverting of the table isn't a helpful or acceptable practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe you're right. I thought that was the gentlest possible way to use that word, but maybe better yet still would be avoiding it altogether. I wonder if there's a useful way to fix my comments. Maybe I'll try to clarify. Friday (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Status update[edit]

My talk edits have raised to 40 (while I don't mean to offend Dakota, my opinion that adding "Stub added" to a talkpage is not really worth it hasn't changed since then) and my mediation case has been successfully solved. How do you think I stand now (The bigger concern, for me, are the (main) edits, do you agree)? Fetofs Hello! 01:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Friday! In case you didn't notice, this link has turned blue! I'm not sue if you voting there is a good idea, but it could be useful to watch it. fetofs Hello! 18:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole stupid signature debate[edit]

Thanks for saying some things that actually make sense and that point out a problem in the community at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3. I've often wondered if Tony Sidaway is trying to become the most feared admin/clerk/editor on Wikipedia through things like this. Even if he doesn't often block people for disruption, there's always that threat hanging over people's heads, and it seems like Tony is far more likely to carry it out than others. Sigh. --Elkman 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking I made sense- sometimes I wonder myself. I honestly don't know what to think, but I'm forced to the conclusion that Tony is sometimes being intentionally disruptive. To what end, I cannot say. Sadly, there are those who think good intentions excuse any transgressions. I cannot agree with this- a bull in a china shop may well have good intentions, but this hardly matters. Friday (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Here is a smile for you! I hope you don't get too disillusioned and leave, your fairness is commendable. -Goldom (t) (Review) 15:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm not leaving, just been less active lately. Friday (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update[edit]

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[edit]

I must be getting too kind in my old age, you deleted it while I was tagging it with {{Prod}} --GraemeL (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! If you'd rather prod, feel free to undelete it- or let me know and I'll undelete so it doesn't look like a "wheel war". Friday (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Nah, no problem. It wasn't notable and had no content. If he'd removed the prod I would have had to AfD it and it wouldn't stand a snowballs chance there. I was commenting on my being too lenient more than anything. --GraemeL (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, been a while[edit]

We're currently having some trouble with a disruptive editor at Wales, regarding whether or not Wales is popularly known as a musical country. I see you're on Wikibreak ... if you have the time, could you look over the discussion and let me know what you think? I respect your judgement. Vashti 12:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I weighed in on the talk page. I've been less active lately but still logging in sometimes. To me it sure looks painfully obvious that Wales is frequently called the "land of song". Friday (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I cited the Encyclopaedia Britannica to that effect, but it wasn't good enough for the user in question. However, he's just been suspended for a month, and another editor has improved the sentence under dispute. It's almost like being back on Otherkin again. Thanks very much for commenting. :) Vashti 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Glad to see you're still editing. This one sure looked like an intentionally dense editor. I wasn't previously familiar with that term but the second I googled it, pages and pages of Wales-related stuff came back. Guess some people can't use a simple search engine.. :) Friday (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review an deletion made contrary to consensus[edit]

Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.

The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C

Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat

That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.

The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 18:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Can you get the redirect page Big T as well? Thanks. -- Coneslayer 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for noticing it! Friday (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A new userbox you might like[edit]

Hi Friday,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )


 Netsnipe  (Talk)  05:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP: Policies & guidelines

This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”.

Hmm, it was deleted as being "inherently divisive". Looking at the content, I don't personally see that. I wish these crusaders against "unencyclopedic" content would focus on article space instead of playing silly games elsewhere. Oh well. Friday (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your supportive comments. I've filed for a deletion review using the arguments listed at User_talk:Netsnipe/User_Bureaucratic_Fuck. Cheers,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


No, you're right. I agree to deleting it. Guidelines were helpful. I had a different idea of what wikipedia was I suppose.


I put up another one, but you can delete it if you like, I don't know how. I'm sure you trump me somehow is the wikiworld. There are a lot of dumb concepts and ideas that only exist in fairly isolated communities (like wiki people) that get a placeholder, but when something outside of that world wants one it's all hell. That erks me is all. And I think justifiably.


You deleted my Addison (band) article because you thought they were not 'notable', but I love the way you guys think any idea or phrase you conjure up in your little head and don't do any work for can be wikipedia article, take angry mastodon crap. Seriously. Addison is a gigging, recording, working band, and if they don't deserve a wiki placeholder then I should comb through half of your dumb ideas and rip them down too, dude.


You noted at User_talk: on June 2nd: "This is your last warning. If you in bad faith add a db tag to that article again, you will be blocked." You'll notice that he added db to the page, as well as to its talk page, again today. --Raga 09:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't actually me that left that particular warning, but thanks. I left him another note with the usual "resistance is futile" kind of stuff. Friday (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Unique Hardware Article[edit]

How does it look now? Dalponis 15:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated List of shopping malls in North Carolina for deletion[edit]

It seems appropriate that I let you know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina since you are a major contributor to that list. I saw some signs that there might have been a previous AfD but could not find it. If you know of it, please feel free to so comment and I'll revise my nomination to reflect that info. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Hekano[edit]

Thanks for adding my stuff to my user page, I appreciate it!

--Redweltall 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)==Name of user for warning==

Hi. You just speedied this article after I tagged it with db-attack. I always warn users for vandalism--especially for an attack. However, my circuit breaker just blew (A.C. on same outlet—it's over 100 degrees today in New York)) so I lost the user's name and ability to access because of the speedy. Can you retrieve his name for me? Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It was Hgahga (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log). I left him a talk page warning. Friday (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I will not re-warn. Thanks. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually upon re-reading my entry (I just pasted their bio), I have to ask. PLEASE EDIT it its terrible. It does sound like an advertisement. I just wanted a regular article to exist. Unfortuanately my writing skills aren't up to the task, and I'm not exactly unbiased...


If what I said is unacceptable, and I don't really see that it is, but I'll take your word for it, how should I say what I need to say? I'd like to say that JJay needs to quit being uncivil immediately, or I will take action to encourage him to quit being uncivil. I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm just trying to be effective. What do you think? Erik the Rude 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, from what I've seen, many editors have expressed the same concerns with that user. I remember having some disagreements there myself which were never resolved. However, no matter what the provocation, you're essentially threatening to harass him, and that's not on. I know, he throws around WP:STALK accusations quite casually, but the proper response is not to actually stalk him, or to threaten to do so. Try a user conduct RFC if you wish - I suspect there's probably broad consensus that his behavior is a problem. Friday (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks and many apologies, Mr. Friday. I'll take the high road and go for the RfC here when I get the chance. Erik the Rude 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [6]. And put your pants back on before voting. SilkTork 12:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Never! I mean, uhh, I'll have a look. Friday (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


I saw them live. see the talk page. i agree with you, but as i say it was a request, unless the request was for some other more famous band called locksley. Ensiform 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Visiting - thanks[edit]

Friday, Over 9 months ago, you were the first to welcome me to Wikipedia. On the same day, you left me a nice note concerning an article (Dan Rice) that I'd expanded and weighed in on for its AfD. These many months later, I am an active Wikipedia editor; and today, have been nominated for Adminship. Your welcome and encouragement are still remembered. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) @ 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! It's always good to see someone stick around and continue to contribute. A lot of old-timers seem to be against new folks getting the mop, but personally I think more admins are better. Of course, maybe I only think that because I'm still fairly green myself. Good luck on the RFA, altho it doesn't look like you'll need it. Friday (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


You voted 'support' earlier (Support #12) — your recent vote is a dupe. — Mike 14:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But what kind of fool would vote twice?? Oh, me, right. Thanks, I'll fix it. *embarassed smile* Friday (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Can't say I agree' with your vote, mind you, but I'm sure that's already obvious. :-) — Mike 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for closing[edit]

...the AfD for Edwin Thanhouser and setting the Redirect. This was my first nom to AfD; I'll do better next time :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries, you certainly didn't hurt anything. Friday (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No permanent damage anyway; I wasted some time with the AfD but the result was a net improvement. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


a one month block is far beyond the scope of wiki blocking policy for claimed "disruption". we can't allow admins like this to continue to break policy, can we? frankly i'm surprised you don't agree this is a prima facie abuse of power.

was the block accomplishing anything? well, its gone and i dont see wikipedia grinding to a halt, so...probably not.

if you take a look at my editing history i think you'll see your perception that i'm not working on articles is incorrect.

Justforasecond 14:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're not working on articles, sorry if I gave that impression. I just think right now, you're better off focusing on articles and less on other editors. I do take abuse of admin tools seriously- heck, I can think of a few admins who are so pointlessly disruptive that they shouldn't have the tools at all. Some of them are longtime contributors with a considerable fan club tho, and this makes getting them to change their behavior very difficult. What you're ignoring is the offer to reduce the block substantially given a show of good faith on your part. I'm not against arbitration or other forms of dispute resolution, but I wonder what you want to accomplish here. Anyone can make mistakes, and unless someone displays an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior, trying to "do something" about it is probably a waste of time. Friday (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Friday, I needed a complete unblock for non-wiki reasons. He did say that any admin could reduce it or unblock at will, which was a concession, but the month long block was far too long to begin with. I don't think there was justification for *any* block, but for the sake of argument I'll put that aside. If I'm blocked for a month and some well-meaning admin tries to reduce considerably, the well-meaning admin will likely reduce the block by 75% or so to a week ("considerably" doesn't usually mean 95%) . The initial blocker emerges with a veneer of fairness, but the result is still a long block. I guess if, in this case, I blocked for a day or two with the same "anyone can reduce this" caveat it would have been a lot less objectionable to me.
I don't know if I want to get into the arbcom thing. It takes a huge amount of work and builds up a network of adversarial relationships. But I do think it would be very beneficial to wiki if the boundaries of "disruption" were clarified and if this were written into the policy. Justforasecond 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Handling points of view in articles[edit]

Hi again, Friday. To continue our discussion (briefly), please take a look at this sentence I wrote, and which another contributor deleted. (diff)

I'm going to leave it as is. I think I wrote sloppily. I failed to distinguish between MY ideas (about US military ethics, etc.) and the source's ideas: (West Point author, Pentagon?) It's the same kind of sloppiness I recall exhibiting in wolf hunting.

I'm glad to accept corrections like this. It was not my intent to make Wikipedia endorse one side of the raging controversy over whether America (USA), its government or its military is exemplary, rotten to the core (or somewhere between). I just typed faster than I should have and missed my own attribution error.

Everyone knows it's easiest to overlook one's own errors. That's why I always ask others to test the software I write, and that's why I l-o-v-e volunteering at Wikipedia, where the whole English-speaking world can catch my little errors. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I'm still looking at and thinking about these issues- just got caught up in an unfortunately controversial situation that took up some time. Friday (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Take your time. I value your opinion enough to wait for it. See ya Monday, okay? :-) --Uncle Ed 16:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job[edit]

Thanks for the quick response. Your action looks correct and appropriate. --Elonka 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a stance. Let's hope Ghirla will learn his lesson this time.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re; User:Headerfooter[edit]

I reduced it to 12 hours. --Pilotguy (roger that) 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

noin-english on ghirla's page[edit]

These a collection of russian sayings and catchphrases, mostly humorous, difficult to translate and mainly unclear to non-russian speakers (and translated will have no fun, but I'll try, since you became curious. `'mikka (t) 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't go out of your way on my account. I just want to make sure I understand everyone's take on this issue. Friday (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a review[edit]

Hi, I understand that the block you issued was made by a good-faith judgement. Also, as I stated earlier I am a thorough proponent of admins issuing judgement blocks relieving us all from having to spend time on writing ArbCom submissions instead of WP article. Still, I think the block in question was a mistake that will do more harm than good for the project. I am requesting that you study the matter and the context (there was no ethnic slur there at all, btw) and give the issue an extra thought. For details, please see my message at WP:ANI thread related to the issue. TIA, --Irpen 02:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat here that I support the block; of course as the target of the Ghirlandajo behaviour I am even more biased here then Irpen (his good-faithed collegue, not neutral here neither).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I've been a target of both your friends Molobo and Halibutt countless times. Never did I try to get them blocked! I did not even report Halibutt's 3RRs because having him blocked was never my goal. --Irpen 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please. I have no interest in the broader dispute here. I blocked an editor for what I saw as poisonous remarks. Comments relating to that issue are welcome. Friday (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please accustom yourselves with the following practices of the editor in question- other admins who have stood up to him were pounced on and demeaned, while innocent contributors are regularly bullied, harassed, and called trolls and socks [7], save a few "Ghirla fans" who believe contributions to Russian articles give him immunity. [8] [9] [10] [11] Note this is the tip of the iceberg. Though if you are afraid of being attacked as previous admins have, I would undestand your inaction/defence of Ghirla's practices, which however doesnt change the fact that they are detrimental to the community, just as some of his contributions are beneficial, though not all (another tip of the iceberg, innocent corrections of his blunders are reverted). Please take my points into consideration despite my modest user name. 14:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, a fellow Russian admin, has unblocked Ghirla, but I just want to let you know I don't intend to pursue this further: 48h block might have been a bit to long, and I would be perfectly ok even with 12h one, for a warning, so the current duration of 24h is fine by me. I hope Ghirla has learned his lesson and this will be the end of it, but if this is not the case I will count on you, as a neutral party with some experience in the situation, to step in and enforce the block again if Ghirla starts insulting others. Let's hope this is the end of it, though.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


I was testing my signature at that page, and pressed "save page" instead of preview. I didn't mean for it to save to the page. Again, sorry!--☾↑↓Đǣţĥ ɱøťőŕ↓↑☽ 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)