User talk:Friday

Note: If you want to email me, the link does work, but it's generally going to be better to contact me here. I'll probably see it faster, and even if I don't (or if I'm away for a few days), perhaps someone else can deal with the issue.

Older stuff: /archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4 /archive5 /archive6 /archive7 /archive8

Put new stuff at the bottom. Use this link if you wish.

poor judgement

You mentioned a case of a former admin who had bad judgement and is no longer an admin. What are some examples of bad judgement involved in this case. The name isn't important. I'm more interested in the events. Archtransit (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad blocks and poor communication are the major things that stick in my memory about that case. Bad blocks are the single biggest drama-causing action we tend to get around here. Relating this back to your current situation.. the thing I find most concerning about your case is that you apparently continue to not see what the problem is here. Do you honestly believe that your mistake was not giving special treatment to an admin?!? I'm completely behind you when it comes to not extending special privileges to admins moreso than "mere editors", but this does not remotely explain your actions here. Also of huge concern to me is your apparent belief that we need to interpret a large rulebook like robots, rather than applying human judgment to individual situations. If you think you followed "the rules" in blocking Jehochman, and you think we need more rule-following of that nature, I'm gravely concerned that you'll continue to make similar errors. Mistakes are certainly allowed, but we should expect that people learn from them. I don't see that happening here. Friday (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite as you see them. I regret making the block also because it was too strict an enforcement of the rules. An admin breaking official policy, not just a guideline? There can be none of that, I thought. And it was a series of rule breaking, such as (according to that other editor), filing a report using a wrong category and not providing the block log as required. Won't do that again!

Any more examples of what caused that former admin to be a former, let me know. Archtransit (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see here.. There was an RFC, which showed that many people considered his actions to be frequently inappropriate. He failed to improve. There were countless attempts to engage him on his talk page.. he typically responded nonsensically, or not at all. There was eventually a request for arbitration, in which he was found to have a history of inappropriate blocks and a history of poor judgment, and the arbcom pulled his sysop bit. It should have been done much, much sooner- he ran amok causing damage for way too long. This case was, in my view, a poster child for some desysopping procedure short of arbcom. When we see that a promotion was a mistake, soon after the fact, I'm all in favor of correcting the error rather than waiting for it to become so bad that arbcom has to step in. Guessing how someone might use the admins tools is no substitute for observing how they actually use them. Friday (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re; Admin Advice

Ok, first of all, I haven't filled all my archives, but all up to number 7 are filled. If you click on 7 in the archives you will see your message. I did read and consider you message. I did not feel there was a need for a reply. And also, I usually flag my archives every Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand- I just thought it was odd to see something archived so soon. Why have more links than you have archives? It can't help make things easier to find. Friday (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the whole thing is an image so..., can' really take half of it off. BTW, I really appreciate the suggestions. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RE Conservapedia

I don't see why. I agree that it is in many ways quite a poor site; the number of articles is inadequate, and the amount of arbitrary censorship discourages people from editing. Some of their articles are also blatant propaganda. But I joined in order to make it better, just as I want to make Wikipedia better, and I abide by local rules on both sites. Walton^One 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see how well your version holds up, there. BTW I saw your latest- don't feel bad for trying to help out. It seems clear that the rules for that article are different from the project as a whole. I can understand how and why this happened, altho I'm not convinced it's a healthy thing. Friday (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, sadly, that the vehement pro-ID crowd on Conservapedia will rewrite the article over there to accord with their own biases. Just as the vehement anti-ID crowd over here has done to our article. Sadly, it seems to be inevitable that all articles about this will turn into battlegrounds, since the people who have the knowledge and motivation to edit them are also those with the strongest POVs. Walton^One 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's hope for ours, yet- but then again I didn't find the Expelled article very biased, either. What I don't like, though, is that "normal" editors apparently can't do much with our creationism-related articles. That's unfortunate. I don't think we should have to rethink all our standard expectations, simply because it's a controversial area. Then again, I haven't been battling creationists for years, either, so maybe I'm naive. Friday (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, since you say you're not very familiar with the subject matter- Intelligent Design isn't science because they don't accept certain fundamentals of the philosophy of science. They're not producing any testable scientific theories and the bits about God aren't going to be falsifiable. The National Academy of Sciences explains it better than I do. It's not really accurate to call this an opinion - the broad strokes of scientific method are well-established. Not as the way to discover The Truth, mind you- but as the way to do science. We shouldn't shy away from presenting things this way, here on Wikipedia- it's neutral. Many people don't like it, but this because they're not willing to learn what science does. Friday (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the ID/creationist crowd creates intentional confusion with their "evolution is a theory, not a fact" statements. It's vitally important to understand that a scientific theory is not just a wild-ass guess, as we sometimes use the word "theory" in common usage. Theories are big, well-tested frameworks, like the germ theory of disease, heliocentric theory, or the theory of gravity. In science, the distinction between the words "theory" and "law" is mainly historical- you hear also about the law of gravity but it means the same thing- see where the redirects point? Theories are supported by many observations in multiple lines of evidence- otherwise they don't get to the point of being theories. Anyway, the point I was trying to ramble towards is this: The importance of evolution to biology cannot be overstated - in modern biology, evolution is the central organizing framework. I'm no particular expert either- I happen to be married to a someone with a master's degree in chemistry (emphasizing biochemistry) who also teaches evolution and other aspects of science at the college level. So, I get educated about this stuff all the time. So basically, the bottom line is that the creation/evolution controversy is a political controversy, not a scientific one. And I dislike that people misrepresent the situation to advance their own agendas. Friday (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have heard this about the use of the word "theory" in a scientific concept before, and I'm vaguely familiar with the age-old conundrum of NPOV vs SPOV; should we prioritise the view held by most scientists to be consistent with the evidence and with scientific methods of reasoning, or should we give equal weight to the views of non-scientists and the public at large (provided they're published in independent sources)?

My problem is that my educational background is almost entirely in politics and the social sciences, not in natural science, so I'm used to approaching things from that standpoint. In political articles, NPOV requires that we set aside our own political perspectives and just write from the sources. Evidently, in articles which have both a political and a scientific dimension (such as creation vs evolution) the whole thing is more complex. I tend instinctively to treat it as a political question because that's the side of it of which I have the most awareness, but this may not be the right approach.

My main issue with the Expelled article is that so much of it isn't about the film at all. Large numbers of the sources cited aren't about the film at all; they're about the controversies of evolution vs. intelligent design, and whether intelligent design is a form of creationism. Thus most of the criticism of the claims made in the film isn't criticism about the film itself; rather, the various authors of the article have dug up other sources which happen to criticise the same claims as those in the film (e.g. the Darwin-Hitler link) and used those to criticise the film. At present, since the film hasn't been released, there's very little independent critical literature about the film - and until there is, there's no need for the article to be as long as it presently is or to contain as much criticism. Walton^One 10:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We should present scientific statements as such, as we should present non-scientific statements as such. Neither should be presented as "The Truth"- science isn't about Truth. Philosophy is down the hall. The entire interesting thing about this controversy is the disconnect between the science and the politics/public opinion. Yes, scientists still work out details, and they often disagree over these details (until such a time as there's sufficient evidence too produce a consensus), but the existence of evolution, in biology, is no more controversial than the existence of gravity, in physics. They're both very well established, widely-used theories. We're not likely to discard them anytime soon. I myself have a degree in political science, so I understand that fields like that are not generally as rigorous as things like physics or biology. Even in biology, if you're studying animal behavior in the wild for example, you rarely have the some degree of control over conditions as you might find studying proteins in a lab. So, you often have to accept a lower standard for your confidence intervals, for example.

Anyway, with evolution it certainly is a political issue as well as a scientific one. But it's extremely important to be able to separate the political parts of the issue from the science- otherwise, you cannot understand it. This is something the media is fairly bad at, so it's not surprising that people look at the political controversy and assume there's a scientific controversy there also.

Back to practical issues- I tend to agree with your take on Expelled- it doesn't focus as tightly on the film as I'd like to see. Sadly, though, these articles cannot be edited via the normal wiki process. Apparently we have to don asbestos suits and duke it out with bare knuckles, in order to contribute there. I'm not convinced we shouldn't try tho- I want to bring these articles back into the fold and treat them like the rest of the project. Yes, POV pushers should be shown the door, but we do not have to become problem editors ourselves, to deal with problem editors. The article on the film should focus on the film- we do not need to try to duplicate our (generally quite high-quality) articles about ID. I suspect, as we move forward, there won't be a shortage of proper sources discussing that film, specifically. We might only be in the situation we're in, because people tried to jump the gun and make a long article too soon. We may see the situation naturally improve with little conflict, as more sources specifically about the movie become available. Friday (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, count me in for wanting to bring a little sane balance to the Expelled article. However, I'm not jumping into the fray so far, because I recognize the names of several POV-pushers already on the warpath there, and I've seen how they chew up and spit out others. If you'd like any help on collaborating for an NPOV article that actually focuses on the movie, just let me know when the time comes. I appreciate your heart on the WP project. Goo2you (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Assertions like this need to come with diffs. Show me a POV pusher, and I'll try to fix the problem. Friday (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reginmund

Hey Friday, despite the 3RR talk and your warning that if he reverts again he'll be blocked, Reginmund has committed a 5th revert with the RFC talk page. Would you be willing to block here? Metros (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I'm a bit late. Thanks for the update though. Friday (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Trout categories at UCFD

Friday, you will probably see this at some point, but in the event that you don't, see WP:UCFD#Trout_categories (it is for renaming, not deletion :) ... I am notifying you as I recall you had expressed opinions at prior nominations. --Iamunknown 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

report

Hello friday,please try to help in here.Albanias page and my user rights have been vandalizem by Megistias (talk) by deleting my comments in discussion page of Albania and in Edwin E. Jacques discussion page.Albania s page its been attacked by Greek nationalists so they will claim lands or erase the history of the Albanian people.Wikipedia has lost her value only because of them.Since when he open his account in Wikipedia its been a hell of a edit-warring with him.I stoped in here because I know you can make him reason.I din't reported him on the other admin because I do have faith in you,since you had helped him before.He has not done anything to improve the article,deleting all that impressive amount of source materials put by other users.Edit-warring and revert-warring accomplishes nothing. If he continues to be uncooperative,he needs to be banned,I hope that you will help.Thank you again for your time.--Taulant23 (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Taulant is a hopeless fanatic and despite receiving advice from many people he does the same things.Taulant once the admins see the history of pages what do you think wull happen?.Megistias (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)<<<<<________Here another abuse from him,in my books a typical vandal..--Taulant23 (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for your reply to my query at the Science Reference Desk regarding the History of Quantum Mechanics. Your contribution to the discussion was insightful, and helped me find the answers I was looking for. Thanks! FusionKnight (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Slime eels

You're watching Dirty Jobs too I guess? Haha... IronGargoyle (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Seems to say that on the Meta page, and it just seems like common sense- talk pages can contain a lot of information that someone who wished to vanish would not want remaining on the project. Mine often includes details about where I live, sometimes contains my first name and so on. If someone wants to vanish, I would have thought the user talk page would be the second thing to go- certainly seems to be the case when editors I know have asked for it. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything on meta about this being standard practice. We might delete individual edits on pages that have personally identifying information, but this is completely unrelated to whether anyone claims to be leaving or not. I'm trying to discourage the deletion of user talk- we have no business helping people cover their tracks, and we only end up restoring it when they come back. I don't see how deleting our historical records helps in any way at all. Friday (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bourke engine

Hi, I've seen this editor before, his style is idiosyncratic enough to get him mentioned on WP:ANI. I've reverted some of his more questionable edits for now and will keep an eye on this page. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 07:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User page

Hi, I turned your user page into a redirect to your talk page. We generally discourage redirects from user pages to articles, or vice versa. Friday (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no harm in doing that, but if it's not allowed, I'll not redirect my userpage. Shrine Maiden (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash RFC

I've noticed that since V-Dash's departure from Wikipedia, there was a minor amount of trolling on his RFC. This appears to have now stopped, but earlier an editor added their support to the RFC. Since the issue is now moot, I was wondering if the page should be closed and preserved as an archive? MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He's back...

DeathMark (talk · contribs) seems to be the latest incarnation of our favorite incivil editor. I have requested a new CU case. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

re: the man keeping me down :D

Yar har fiddle dee dee! Don't take it seriously this is the internet D: --:D|-< (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a really lame response. If you're looking for lulz, get them somewhere else. When you edit Wikipedia, please observe the community's standards of acceptable behavior. Soapboxing on the ref desk isn't helpful. Our answers are supposed to be useful to the questioner, not just entertaining to you personally. Friday (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

my new article and the other stuff(*@#*) surrounding it

HI i didn't mean to delete the comment, I may have misunderstood it. I figured that by explaining myself and my article in the discussion page, I had satisfied the comments. I didn't mean to make it seem as though I am just dismissing the comment, warnings, and going on with my life. Please allow me to keep this article, and it WILL grow in the number of references and resources as time goes on by both me and other editors...please hit me up anytime to give me pointers on this wikipedia article....thanks alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelabstudiosinc (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

so if I could find a reference, then do i have to recreate the entire thing over again??? or is it in a database of some sort...i mean i cant type as fast as u and im not so great at it that i do it for a living, im just a regular college student that figured I would contribute to a website i love to use...so what happens once I get the reference(s)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelabstudiosinc (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Regarding your comment here: it would seem that adminship is like medical school: it's hard to get in, but once you do it's almost impossible to get kicked out. Unless, of course, you're selected by ArbCom to be a test case. Then it only takes 12 hours, and no need for a preceding RfC. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish I saw a good way to fix this. Sadly, wikipedia is a large ship and it'll turn slowly, if at all. Friday (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that adminship is quite clearly A Big Deal, regardless of pleasant but outdated notions to the contrary. It is absolutely not easy to pass RfA these days, particularly if you actually edit articles and occasionally run into conflicts. Since it's quite difficult to become an admin, and virtually impossible to regain adminship once it's been surrendered under any kind of cloud, it stands to reason that people hold onto it tenaciously.

The problem is that we don't have a crystal ball at RfA. Archtransit presented himself very well; he had a highly respected nominator; had I opined, I'd almost certainly have supported on the basis of his mainspace experience, or at least been neutral. You just don't know for sure until someone actually starts using the tools. I agree it should be easier to revisit decisions made at RfA in that light. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird. People say it's too hard.. I dunno whether I agree or not. I sometimes think it's too hard AND too easy, which I guess is just another way of saying people commonly judge candidates by the wrong criteria. I'd like to see a lightweight process in which crats can, at their discretion, grant admin tools to an editor. Then, if problems arise, the crats can take them away too. There'd be no need to ahead-of-time discussion- the discussion would be focused instead where it's useful, on those cases where proper use of the tools has been questioned. Friday (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right - it's both too hard for editors who actually edit, and too easy for editors who avoid full contact and revert vandalism, fix typos, and keep a low profile for 6 months or so. Your suggestion is logical, in that we would actually have a track record to go on, instead of speculating that a user who's made X number of edits in each namespace and avoiding providing any overly inrciminating diffs will be a suitable admin. But of all the processes on Wikipedia, RfA seems to be the most resistant to change - which is really saying something. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may be allowed to butt in, I think that RfA is rapidly approaching the point where very few active editors - who will inevitably have been involved in conflicts - are likely to be able to pass. I will leave my scorn for "admin coaching" for another time. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope that doesn't happen. It's unreasonable to expect no conflicts, and looking at someone's conduct in a conflict is a tremendously useful indicator. Someone who can stay on topic, avoid getting personal, and actually try to resolve the conflict is a good candidate. Friday (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Tons377

I am curious as to the source of your near infinite patience with temper tantrums. I wouldn't last 5 minutes as an admin if this was what I had to deal with. My hat goes off to you! ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 05:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I find it easy to be patient with newbies (which I guess is good, since I do new page patrol sometimes.) Where I find it hard to be patient is with experienced users - I keep thinking they should know better. Anyway, thanks for the note. :) Friday (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

mediabus?

I am a beginner of wiki, and I posted 'mediabus' publishing house's posting. Mediabus is small and indepedent publishing house located in Seoul, Korea. And I think this posting is not a advertisement but a information. Because there are little indepedent publishers in Seoul. I thought somebody may have a question about 'is there any independent publishing house in Seoul'. I can not understand why other publishing houses (like verso, routledge, something else) can be posted in Wiki, mediabus's posting could be just advertisement? In Wiki, could be a publishing house located in London or New York? Hey, there are many publishers and publication houses in Seoul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediabus (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay...

Thanks. Is there somewhere I can more formally request that my user page be salted and that my talk page be deleted and salted? --Hyperbole (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a courtesy to me. I'd prefer that my user/talk pages don't turn into shrines where editors I've had disputes with over the last two or three years can post celebratory messages as though my exhaustion with this project represents some kind of ideological victory for them. Because, you know what? I can think of a few editors who are just nasty and unprofessional enough to do so. --Hyperbole (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, a talk page is its edit history - reversion on a talk page is all but pointless. Anyway, I can see you don't want to take this action, so let me put the question to you again: where might one go to make a more formal request that user/talk pages be deleted and salted? --Hyperbole (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, too late, someone already deleted it. Right in the middle of the conversation- how wonderfully convenient for everyone involved. Note that if you come back, someone will probably undelete it again. Friday (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In the middle of no conversation I saw. A comment on WP:AN saying "I invoke right-to-vanish" is the end of a conversation. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: meatball

I agree. That is why I post these "get over with that" messages, the "nobody forces you to stay", the "Wikipedia servers, Wikipedia rules" messages (even though I sometimes get back-stabbed!). However, I think refusing a "last request" like deleting pages only increases drama, making the "goodbye" excessively long. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Knight

I tried to add it to the school page several times but it was removed repeatedly by Bstone, stating that it does not belong there and should be on a Dr. Knight page. SMUinsider (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it once as it's immaterial to the article. Bstone (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the Trevor Laws page

You state that it's a promotional piece, and we should wait til he's a pro and then write a neutral article on him. I guess I don't understand this. Other college players have their own Wikie page (Tim Tebow for example), and he's still in college!!!! Trevor has at least graduated and is working towards the draft.

So why can some players be in here, and others cannot? I don't understand.

It was not a promotional piece in that we're selling stuff, so I don't understand the problem. It was a very neutral article taken directly from his OFFICIAL website about him growing up and how he chose Notre Dame. Why is that a problem? I don't get it.

Please respond.

Thanks, Drew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentutah (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. that would make it a copyright violation as well. That's no good, either. When I say promotional material, I mean it was full of stuff like "He made lifelong friends, played football for the best college in the nation and opened doors that he might not have if he had gone somewhere else. It was a grand 5 years." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- this means we aim for making encyclopedic content, not puff pieces. Looking at this guy, it's entirely possible we should have an article on him, just not that article. College athletes who are particularly outstanding may well already have enough sources covering them to support a decent biographical article. But, what you wrote was not an encyclopedia article. I'm also concern about a conflict of interest, as I noted on your user page. Friday (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the reply. Looking at it now compared to other athletes pages it makes sense what you are saying. Thanks for explaining it more in depth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentutah (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If the article can be rewritten in a more encyclopedic way, citing proper sources, I imagine nobody would get the idea to delete it. Friday (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen

I just want to destroy the policy and keep the page as an archive. Could you show me how to do that? Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Step 1: don't MFD. Step 2: bring up your concerns on the talk page. Friday (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

Ahem. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping

I responded to your challenge. Actually, I went to the talk page in order to post anyway, but I thought it'd make you happy to think I responded to your challenge. And I like making people happy. But I also like honesty. Darn. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Waco

The IP address is simply trolling. If he had asked me nicely, and not displayed attitude elsewhere, I would have considered changing it. But if necessary, I could demonstrate the truth of the statement in question, along with the fact that it was a term used by some public figures. Let's not go there unless we have to. And just so we're clear on this, the US Government screwed up royally in that incident, which is why I also called it a "disaster". It was bad all around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

YOU GOT SERVED 12.39.2.83 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to taunt other editors, anywhere on Wikipedia, 12. Please, make an effort to collaborate peacefully with other editors. Friday (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in discussion with an admin about how to handle this troll. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I filed an ANI incident. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

he's (understandably) upset that he got called out for a rules violation by an unregged user. he's a little flustered. all he needs to do is accept responsibility, edit his waco post, and move on with his life. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP address is blocked for 31 hours, starting a few hours ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:WJBscribe. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

We need to be able to give feedback to other editors. Yes, even criticism. Friday (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Please stop

You are right. I feel so stupid and childish ^^; And may I say, how did you get involved in this? — NuclearVacuum 02:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just happened to notice it on my watch list. Mikkalai has indeed become a problem editor, but I don't think this is the way to deal with it. Perhaps you could consider a user conduct RFC if you really think it's appropriate? Friday (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that I'm not going crazy. And what do you mean by RFC? — NuclearVacuum 02:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users. But, I don't recommend it if you're unfamiliar with the process. The best outcome is that he calms down and starts collaborating meaningfully with other editors. This becomes less likely to happen if he feels he's being attacked. Friday (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this, so I will not do it (today). But may I keep an eye on him for any other unneeded or violating edits? — NuclearVacuum 12:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mikkalai? Looks like other people have noticed this as well, and most people do see it as a problem. I'm still puzzled by people who want to just "let it slide" when an admin goes completely round the bend, but hopefully that view is a minority. The problem of course is that identifying the problem is easy. Figuring out how to do something useful about it is much harder. Friday (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience

We'll see if the talk page gets us anywhere. —Nricardo (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RfR

Hello Friday, I saw this. For future reference, if you've accepted a request, use the {{done}} template, or if you've declined a request, just use the {{not done}} template. However, some administrators, if they've accepted a request, prefer to remove the request completely rather than have it get archived, so you can do that as well if you wish. I hope this helps. Acalamari 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Friday (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 18:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Nricardo

Friday, Just wanted to drop a note encouraging you to relax your stance with regard to Nricardo. While his conduct on WT:RD was tenditious, and the RD/M comment of "you'll never know; someone will delete this" was inappropriate, I don't think it rises to the level of an indef block. The talk page portion in particular, while perhaps out of proportion, is being addressed as it should be rather than edit-warred over. That seems to me to leave just the one RD/M comment as outright disruptive to the project. In summary, while "indefinite" is not "infinite", it often looks that way -- so I request that you alter the block to some definite duration. — Lomn 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right. In fact I'd just removed it a minute ago. We'll see how it goes. The main reason I reached for the block button was that he's been blocked before for several manners of bad conduct- I saw this as just more of the same. Maybe I just have a poor tolerance for editors who refuse to communicate meaningfully. Thanks for the note. Friday (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for lifting the block. I'll have to consider a self-imposed ban from RD.  :-) --Nricardo (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Useful contributions are always welcome. Perhaps I over-reacted, but it left me with a very bad impression that two different editors both brought up the same valid concern, and you deleted the messages calling it "spam". It's OK to disagree, but there are good ways and bad ways to do it. Anyway, I guess this is water under the bridge now. Friday (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yashichi appearances

No offense taken with your proposed deletion for this page. I merely felt that it was cluttering up the Capcom article and wanted to export it somewhere else. If there is a consensus that this information is too trivial that is fine with me as well. If you have any other suggestions on how to handle this type of material, please let me know. Thank you, Felix the Hurricane (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well.. sometimes the answer to "where is the best place for this material?" is "Not on Wikipedia." I agree this stuff would be too much clutter (I hadn't realized it was moved from another article.) I think the amount of coverage in Capcom seems appropriate, and it would work just fine without the link to the list. If you don't object, I can just go ahead and delete it. Friday (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is fine by me either way. I wish that I had another wiki to direct people who are interested in this type of information to, it might help prevent the material from creeping back in. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of video game wikis out there. Dunno about specifically for capcom stuff. But yes, that's a really nice alternative- if someone wants to make a game guide or an exhaustive compendium of in-universe information, there are plenty of good places for this. They just don't belong here on Wikipedia. Anyway, I deleted the page for now, and removed the link to it. Friday (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From Smith Jones

my apologies regairndg edit summaries i just got a little rattled because people do that same mistake every ten seconds and dont even bother to cleani t up. Smith Jones (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Food for thought

I'm flattered, but I don't think I'm temperamentally suited to it—I lack the saintly patience required. Besides, I don't have the time I used to to work on Wikipedia; we're not really looking for another inactive 'crat. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though.

If anything, I'd say that you're better material 'crat material than I. Perhaps you might consider taking the plunge?

Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If saintly patience is required, I'm in no way qualified. I sometimes get hasty and say things I shouldn't. Friday (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem patient and experienced to me, Friday, and yes, you're outspoken, but you are civil when you are: I would support you if you ran. Acalamari 00:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would too. Think about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

re: holy crap

Hmm.. not seeing it. But yeah OS X is a modern operating system with sensible memory management and it's certainly as stable as Vista or Ubuntu, though of course it doesn't hold a candle to NetBSD. :D\=< (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unix. Unix tends to work. Friday (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Acalamari

Just to let you know, Acalamari is male. :) Regards, Rudget. 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks for the tip. Not sure where I'd got the idea she was female. Friday (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's all right, Friday. :) I have been referred to as female before. :) Acalamari 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's so hard to tell, with a squid.. :-) Friday (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies from me. I see it made a comment over at the RFB aswell, so sorry if it looked like we were piling on for what was just a typo. Rudget. 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment in my RfB, Friday. I hope that, next time I run, I will be more a more suitable candidate in your view. Best wishes. Acalamari 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A new user may need your help

A new user deleted this thread (which he started) on the RD/Math which I subsequently undid. I think that a word on his talk by an admin with RD credentials might be better received than a word from the user that rv'd him. Besides, you've already been to his talk  :-) thanks, --hydnjo talk 01:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a shot. Friday (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, someone else already did. No sense leaving him a second message about the same thing. Friday (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I missed David's note - thanks for looking in. --hydnjo talk 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A question

Hello Friday, as you know, you're very outspoken with your views on admins, RfA, etc. Well, I'd like to ask a question: do you have any criticism or comments at all on my actual usage of the tools? I'd like to have your opinion on that, and I can't think of anyone better to ask than you. Thanks. Acalamari 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You could have asked me. I'm pretty scathing about admins, RfA as well. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh. Acalamari, I don't remember ever seeing anything you've done that was questioned that I thought was a mistake. Granted, my memory is not perfect and I haven't gone and looked at everything you've ever done. And honestly, mistakes don't concern me too much- we are all human. Now, if someone makes the same kinds of mistakes repeatedly and ignores feedback from other editors, that's where I get concerned. But as far as I know, your behavior as an admin has been very good. And you don't remotely strike me as the type to go around ignoring complaints from other editors, if you were to get them. Friday (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Friday, it's appreciated. :) If, however, you do ever think I'm making a mistake/doing something wrong, don't hesitate to let me know: I think communication is very important. Best wishes. Acalamari 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Template: Creationism

Hello, I'm 98.210.190.11. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Template: creationism2 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. 98.210.190.11 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)