User talk:Kmweber/Archive9

Gibson Southern Marching Titans

You recently removed a prod template from Gibson Southern Marching Titans stating in your edit summary "de-prod; deletionism at its worst strikes again". This is not a reasoning, and I am not a deletionist, Gibson Southern High School itself barely meets notability. In all of the three deletion requests I have commented in, I voted keep. I do not believe a High School marching band is in any way encylopedic. See WP:NOT, it qualifies under at least two of the rules. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem, as I see it. You think "notability" (which is, quite frankly, purely arbitrary) is important. I'll let you on a little secret: it's not. All that matters is verifiable existence. As for "What Wikipedia is Not", well, I totally don't buy into that at all. An encyclopedia is, by definition, an attempt to collect knowledge. Adding information furthers that purpose. I fail to see how the project is helped by removing or not adding verifiably true information.

Ultimately, I'm afraid your mindset is symptomatic of a disease that permeates a great many of the newer generation of Wikipedia editors. They can cite policy word-for-word left and right, but they don't actually "get" Wikipedia. We're here to collect and present information. We're not bound by the same constraints as other encyclopedias. Everything we do must be focused towards that end, and not towards satisfying some arcane and purely arbitrary bureaucracy. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, we should not have an article about every little thing, which includes High School Marching Bands. Maybe it could be merged, but it is very unencylopedic. WP:NOT is an official policy, not a guidline or an essay. To keep this encyclopedia running, we need rules. We are not working to collect every piece of insignificant and unimportant information. I strongly do not believe, along with most other Wikipedians, that everything that has a website should have a article about it, which is what you are saying ("Verafiable exsistance"). Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"At the same time, we should not have an article about every little thing,"

Why not? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Maybe it could be merged, but it is very unencylopedic"

What's "unencyclopedic" about it? Frankly, can you even put any substance behind the word "unencyclopedic"?

"WP:NOT is an official policy, not a guidline or an essay."

OK, here's the crux of your problem--you think policy is normative or imperative. It's not. Frankly, I can understand why would you think otherwise--because generally, that is indeed what is meant by "policy". But since day one, the idea behind "policy" on Wikipedia has been that we are not obligated to follow it. The idea behind "policy" on Wikipedia is that it simply describes what has often happened in the past, with the understanding that we are not bound by it in future decisions at all. The choice of the word "policy" to describe these was perhaps unfortunate, and it has led to this bit of confusion in many users, including yourself and (when I was first starting out) myself as well, so I certainly sympathize with you. But please understand: we are not a tool for bureaucrats to exercise their fetishes. We are here to produce a compendium of all human knowledge. Our only obligation is to make decisions that further that end. Beyond that, we are bound by no "rules", no "policies", nothing at all but our own individual judgment, in each situation, taken separately. Removing information absolutely works against the goal of compiling all human knowledge.

"To keep this encyclopedia running, we need rules."

See above.

"We are not working to collect every piece of insignificant and unimportant information."

What makes information "insignificant" and "unimportant"? Frankly, why should that even be a relevant criterion anyway? Why are we obligated to only focus on areas that certain people--however numerous they may be--find worthwhile? Ultimately, how does having an article on a high school marching band work against the goal of compiling all of human knowledge, and how does removing that article further that goal? These are the only relevant issues. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Our goal is not to compile every little piece of human knowledge. Anyway, I give up. Looking at your talk page, you seem to know everything there is about Wikipedia, and you are always right. I would love to take a stand for actually having some sort of order on Wikipedia. Looking at your talk page, if someone irritates you, you would probably just block them. So, I GIVE UP. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Our goal is not to compile every little piece of human knowledge."

I reject that statement. The goal of an encyclopedia is to do just that.

"I would love to take a stand for actually having some sort of order on Wikipedia."

The problem comes when that order comes in the way of getting the job done. If it makes it more chaotic, so be it. If you want bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, the Democrats are right across the hall. They love that kind of stuff :D

"Looking at your talk page, if someone irritates you, you would probably just block them."

How? I'm not an admin. Furthermore, I wouldn't anyway; doing so is just patently absurd. Incidentally, you don't irritate me; you're just wrong (as you undoubtedly believe I am), and if I didn't think highly of your abilities and intellectual honesty I wouldn't bother arguing with you, as it would be a waste of time--I'd just ignore you altogether.

Ultimately, I'm rather dismayed that you're taking what should be an honest disagreement over the proper role of the project so personally. Yes, I believe you are misguided, and I'm pointing out as much, but that's hardly meant as a personal criticism, and I would have hoped you would have seen it that way. I can respect someone who disagrees with me and engages in polite, intense discussion. Neither I nor almost anyone else can respect someone who just gives up in the face of honest criticism of one's actions and ideas. I had hoped you were better than that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I overreacted, I was just gradually getting irritated with all of Wikipedia. I thought you were an admin beacuse of all of your contributions to RFAs. Sorry, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't sweat it...it happens. It's like I tell my band kids--all getting upset means is that you care. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

many thanks for your support - moslanka article

dear Kmweber : many thanks to start the support debate for my article moscow , you have rightly stated that im a new article writer and an inexperienced member , i pledge to improve my work .

moreover i wish to request you to kindly guide me to get a copy of my other article TF Quasar International that was deleted instantly after an notice was sent to my talk page , i was not even given some time to edit or reverse my article , had i been warned or asked i sure would have done the needful . and i assure you that if the copy is given i would carefully edit it or reverse it according to encyclopedia standard . regardsPearllysun (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles and contact one of the people there. Good luck! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars survey

Hi Kurt. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Re your talk page for articles in need of rescue, please note that there is a project and category for this already. See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. I also recommend skimming the daily AFD log towards the end of the day and looking for anything that catches your eye. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with your stance on self-noms for admin status. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

One of their premises is that there is such a thing as a non-encyclopedic topic, when in fact there isn't. Everything is appropriate for coverage. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fight on, brother!

I just wanted to let you know that I have transcluded {{User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight}} to my userpage. I think this can be an effective concept for getting the word out about AFDs that need attention, without actually canvassing. You can change that subpage (e.g. to notify the community of new AFDs), and everywhere it's transcluded will reflect that change, so it can be advertised all over Wikipedia. Awesome! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not transcluding, but I am following what you put on your list, through Mbstpo's transclusion. I'm not willing to intervene in all AfDs, based on the ancient principle of "How important is it?" However, I may comment in most. You should eliminate closed AfDs from your list, promptly, or authorize others to do so (do so specifically, not as a general permission to the whole community, I'd recommend), and I'd suggest that where there is a reasonable hope that deletion would be reversed, going to Deletion Review and list the review on your AfD page. Please don't do that for every deletion, I'll stop watching. Do it, though, in particular, where there were substantial and substantive keep votes from others, not merely the generic ones of your good self and Mbstpo. It looks to me like we are now seeing some closings from deletionist administrators, and, quite properly, they should expect review when they ignore substantial community opinion. Deletion should be by "consensus," Keep should actually be the presumption, requiring consensus to overturn, unless policy is clear. Which it practically never is with notability.

By the way, you may wish to watch User:Abd/Notices. This will usually not be about specific AfDs or MfDs, except occasionally, but more about overall policy and events worthy of notice, in my opinion. Such as attempts or threats to block users who assert their rights within policy, or proposed changes to policy that either threaten the legitimate freedom of Wikipedia editors, on the one hand, or that, on the other hand, improve and better guarantee these freedoms and apply them to the welfare of the project.--Abd (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Are you a part of WikiProject Indianapolis? Basketball110 04:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Freenode

Are you Schroeder on IRC? Lara❤Love 05:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes...why the hell is everyone asking about this all of the sudden? I'm confused... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gibson County templates

I've restored the municipalities and communities of Gibson County template to the standard name, {{Gibson County, Indiana}}, and moved your new template to {{Gibson County, Indiana topics}}. This follows a nationwide convention followed by all forty-six states with county templates. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Those 46 states are wrong. It's absurd to have the template under the base county name be anything but a general-purpose template. Specific-purpose templates should be under specific-purpose titles. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

your comments

for someone who grew up in a totalitarian regime, overly earnest comments like People like you and I are dangerous to those who have a vested interest in the status quo, because we propose reasonable ideas that people actually like, or at least sympathize with. We will not be cowed, and so we provide a rallying point to those who have been repressed. They weren't able to eliminate me, so now they've turned their sights on you. are hilarious. You might have a point about what goes on here but it's the language that makes me laugh, you make it sound like the wikipedian stormtroopers are about to kick in your frontdoor. Keep trying to change the community, we need people to do that but bear in mind that the language and terms people use to describe their proposals, are what we use to form our opinions of the people making the proposals. --Fredrick day 09:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. I'm glad it made you smile. We need more smiling around here. As to "the people making the proposals," isn't it better that we consider "principles, not personalities"? Should it matter whether the proposer is a saint or a jerk? Sure, we might listen to one more than to the other, but ... are you quite sure you would be able to tell the difference? From my perspective, from what I've seen, you just might get it completely backwards. After all, saints get blocked and jerks imagine they run the place, that's been true for thousands of years.--Abd (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As to "the people making the proposals," isn't it better that we consider "principles, not personalities"? Should it matter whether the proposer is a saint or a jerk? I know how things should be but I find dealing with things how they are is a more effective method for change. --Fredrick day 15:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, if you know that dealing with principles not personalities is how it should be, then you are personally responsible for doing so. Seeking out the non-disruptive edits of blocked users through new accounts and reverting them, simply because they came from that user, is paying attention to the person, not the personalities. We have the right to revert contributions of block evaders without reference to 3RR -- I've done it, been complained about, and prevailed -- but that does not mean that we should automatically do so. We remain responsible for our actions; take out proper and sourced material, and the project has been harmed. Edits to articles should be treated without regard to who made them, in fact, and it is only because sock contributions are frequently disruptive that the normal restrictions are removed. In any case, the block is lifted, and I have some hopes for a period of calm. But Wikipedia, long-term, is in serious trouble, and conversations that I have with non-Wikipedians confirm it, and if we continue to sail on as if everything is hunky-dory, we will sail ... right off a cliff. Mbstpo, now with a new name which I don't remember, saw this and was doing what he could, in his often abrupt and rash way, to address the issues. That is guaranteed to be unpopular, but it is absolutely necessary, whether he is right or wrong. A less obvious confrontation may, quite simply, not get enough attention quickly enough. Others, like myself, hopefully, will follow up with more patient work, less disruptive, but with the path prepared by those like him, with the crazy wisdom that turns things, for a moment, upside down. But not really. The Ship of Wikipedia did not hit any iceberg from Mbstpo's canned AfD Keep votes, and any disruption was far more from complaint against him than from his actions themselves.--Abd (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Abd/Notices

In memory of the late Obuibo Mbstpo, may I suggest that you watch User:Abd/Notices? This is a page where I will place notices that I think of interest. To all right-thinking Wikipedians, of course. (Any Wikipedian sufficiently interested to watch what I do must be some kind of right-thinking, even if imagining disagreement with me.)

The idea for this came from Mbstpo's picking up your list of AfDs. It actually implements WP:PRX in a different way (but to make it fully that idea, there should be a list of those who watch the page. Given the atmosphere, though, maybe this isn't the time to have it be that open.)

I'm not sure that I want to continue watching AfDs.... for a time, though, I'll continue to check your list. The more selective it is, the more I'll follow up on it. While I'm a radical inclusionist, pure nonsense, copyvio, and libel excepted (and I'm doubtful about the nonsense if there is any room for doubt), believing that we should be putting our effort into categorizing knowledge, with an unverified category and a non-notable category covering a lot that is AfD'd, not into deleting it, which is a double waste of time that produces no benefit at all except to multiply the edit counts of editors later seeking the admin bit, there is also a matter of WP:WHYDOYOUCARE [what was that essay's name, drat!], which also applies to the activities of those who desire to waste their own time deleting truly useless stuff, why should I care to stop them?

Having said, that, the large majority of AfDs that I've seen are basically wrong-headed, enforcing arbitrary standards of notability... so I'm depending on you to sort out the most useful of what they consider useless.

Meanwhile, I'll place noteworthy situations on my Notices page. If you create such a page, I'll watch it. While I may not agree with you on some or even many things, you clearly won the respect of Mbstpo, and that alone impresses me.--Abd (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be obvious, but User:Abd/Notices, continuing from hints taken from your own file about AfDs, implements the core of WP:PRX which, contrary to the propaganda asserted against it, was not about voting, it was about networking. To be explicit, if we agree to communicate, we are making a connection that functions like the proxy/client relationship in a Free Association like Wikipedia. It works in both directions, but the key is the filtering that takes place when I receive information and decide it is worthy of attention for my "clients." Or for my "proxy" or "proxies," this implementation, unlike WP:PRX]] allowing multiple proxies just as WP:PRX allowed multiple clients. By choosing to watch my Notices file, you have effectively become either my client or my proxy or both. And then if you pass a notice there on, by placing it in a similar file of your own, you are "delegating" the information. This makes Mbstpo's canvassing template totally unnecessary, because information can be communicated rapidly with input being limited to a single edit or a few, completely bypassing canvassing, it has always been allowed to make suggestions to a single user about pending process or to very few. The difference between a proxy and a client is, practically, that I might choose to transclude my proxy's notice page in mine, thus speeding up the process for a trusted user, my proxy, whereas the reverse would be problematic. (We'd want highly trusted users messages to very rapidly spread, base-level users' messages to be more carefully filtered, to avoid noise.) --Abd (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA Question

What is bad about someone really wanting the tools? Just because someone wants to be promoted from user to Admin doesn't mean that they are power hungry. Lets not forget that you yourself had a failed RFA that none the less was a SELF PROMOTION. Come on Kurt, relax some. I'm not sure why your acting like anyone who has a self-nom request for adminship is huhum.... prima facie evidence of power hunger. I would like to have a response to this. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already addressed EVERY SINGLE "point" you have raised elsewhere in my talk page archives. I'm not going to go out of my way and re-explain everything for the 30th time to sanction your laziness. I've done it enough. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be as kind as to provide a link to those discussions or at least let me know which archive they are in? Dusti^{talk to me} 18:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

They're spread across several. You'll have to look. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dusti. I am not impressed by the way you have opposed RfAs. You write things like his FIFTH RfA in less than a year? This guy REALLY REALLY REALLY wants it, and that's a bad thing, which seems to be an unhelpful oppose comment. Next time, think before you oppose. Users have the right to have unlimited amount of RfAs; there are several users who got promoted after 5+ RfAs. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  22:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't think such people should be administrators and comment accordingly. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, users have the right to have 5+ RfAs, and they can accept RfAs, whether it's a self nom or an RfA that someone else nominated, if the candidate have improved between RfAs. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never doubted that. I'm perfectly entitled to not like them for that fact.

You have every right to not take a shower, and I'm perfectly entitled to not like you for that, too. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean I'm obligated to approve of you actually doing it--it just means I can't legitimately stop you from doing it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just drop it, nothing is going to change and you are wasting your time. Just let him oppose for what ever reason he wants (Although if you want to continue doing so, just saying "this user seems power hungry" or something like that might prevent more users from commenting.) To all those complaining I made a query above and realize it is pointless because no reason is required to oppose any way so he doesn't even need to comment. Kurt, you might want to put a message box on the top of this page telling users not to comment about you opposing self noms Alexfusco⁵ 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussing this on WP:ANI. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Kurt's opposition on RfAs (the one about power hunger) are being considered disruptive. Many users have been often questioning Kurt's oppose comment since June 2007. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I commented in the AN/I report.--Abd (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated Nonsense to Lighten the Mood

How do you get ahold of a baritone player?

This usage of a bad a pun to 'Lighten the Mood'™ has been brought to you by PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Going around the brick wall

Hi Kurt, Would you care to comment on some of my ideas at m:User:The Unknown Rebel/SpiritWorldWiki? I believe that some of the uphill battles being fought by yourself and others on Wikipedia, while valiantly and often rightfully fought, might be rendered unnecessary by certain technological advancements. Specifically, I propose the replacement of the current model – in which the world of online, mass-collaborative encyclopedia-writing is largely dominated by a single monolothic entity, Wikipedia – by a "wikisphere" of independent but interconnected wikis. Under this system, users disenchanted with the rules and culture of Wikipedia can contribute elsewhere, and their contributions will be as accessible and crosslinkable there as if put on Wikipedia. I am reaching out to various individuals in hopes of putting together a development team to implement the technology needed to make this succeed. (For instance, we need a watchlist that can track changes to watched articles on many wikis simultaneously.) Of course, if I don't get any other skilled participants, it will be necessary to begin work on my own. Also, please let me know if there are other individuals who might be interested. Thanks, SpiritWorldWiki (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Special friends

You seem to have attracted some “secret admirers” to your userpage, so I’ve semi-protected it for a week. Cheers —Travis^talk 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it seems that I forgot something: Go Texans! :P —Travis^talk 02:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this about the Texans: When you're 8-8 and you're still the division's cellar-dweller, that's absolutely nothing to be ashamed of! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a tough division this year. But, then again, when isn’t it? Heck with basketball, or baseball, for that matter... I can’t wait until the fall! (Are you ready for some football?!) —Travis^talk 02:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For your recent vandal troubles :(

JuJube (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

JuJube (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —О бот (т • ц) 21:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Seems your Afd watch page is under attack. Have protected it from anons for a week. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

have you not worked it out yet? nobody likes you, nobody is going to stop me, nobody cares - especially when I'm exposing people like OM. Section31 --87.114.141.40 (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This was, of course, what I call a Grand Panjandrum sock. Last night, he posted to the Village Pump Talk, signing with the same Section31. And apparently forgot to log out as Fredrick day first. Now, what might possibly raise some concern is that he did succeed. He is the one who began the thread in AN/I over "OM," i.e., Obuibo Mbstpo, the prior account for User:Larry E. Jordan. Kurt, I know what to do about this. Please email me, and anyone else, also, who is interested. No more disruption over this, here, please. Let them do what they will do, and let us do what we will do. I want this project to succeed. The Grand Panjandrum, very much, doesn't, and knows precisely what he can do to destroy it, and he has been succeeding. Darkly mysterious? Sure. But it is actually quite clear, and I'll explain it to anyone who asks. Off-wiki, because the explanation itself is disruptive if done publicly. It's harmless when private, that is, harmless to the project (at worst), but very harmful to the Grand Panjandrum. He will do everything he can to stop it.--Abd (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Got him. Blocked, as User:Fredrick day, indef blocked, and 12-hour block on IP. He'll be back unless more is done. He's threatened it, see your report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. Be sure to watch Talk for Fredrick day.--Abd (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for correcting my user page! Failed to catch the mistake myself. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Un-revert concern

If I'm adding to your stress level (e.g. FD!?!), remove and come back to it later.

I saw one of your comments on ANI that worried me, as I thought it paralleled something that blew up another user recently. While I don't understand everything about it, there is a strong feeling against about restoring blocked/banned users' edits. After rereading some posts about that incident, it is not the same as this one after all, as that was a notorious banned editor making some good edits as socks, not like your referencing the edits of a blocked (with some controversy?) editor.

But I think the same background question applies (if I understand it at all): does restoring a 'bad' editor's 'good' edits encourage the 'bad' editor to stay around, when they have demonstrated behaviour ill-intentioned towards WP and it would be best for all for them to lose interest entirely? That is, if the percentage of 'accepted' edits by socks is nonzero, won't the problems simply continue?

My first impulse is that a good edit is a good edit. But I'm slowly realizing there is a counter-behavioural strategic component to this I'd rather not think about, but that might be valid.

Anyway, as a wikidrama addict I keep seeing people flameout and wish that 'unconditional' stances (or at least the appearance of such) could be toned down around here. Too many brick walls with wheels heading toward each other at 100kph. I'm beginning to think some of the collision pairings are even accidental, just enough people having a bad day together. (sigh) Shenme (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Textbook's RfA

Hi Kurt, I removed your recommendation from this RfA. It's not transcluded yet, therefore it shouldn't be edited by others yet. I removed it from the RfA mainpage before it was created. I'm trying to talk this guy out of it. He's got zero WP edits outside of his own RfA; he hasn't got a clue. Thanks for your understanding, Darkspots (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess I got reverted, so I restored your edit. Darkspots (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Buehler Foods

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Buehler Foods, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Buehler Foods. Jahnx (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 11:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the funniest...

RfAs I've ever read. Absolutely spot on humor. I still have tears in the corner of my eyes upon discovering it. I can't believe no one seemed to pick up on the movie reference in paragraph 2. Friggin hilarious. And the colts suck. But you don't suck, that was one of the funniest self-deprecating bits of humor I've ever read. Three cheers for Kurt! Oh, and I'm adding a link to your RfA2 to my personal humor page located here. Hope you don't mind, remove it if you do. Go Vikes! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurt. That was pure class. Simply pure class. Gave everyone a lot of light hearted fun, and my total respect to your self-depreciating humour. Pedro :  Chat  20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Though I often don’t see eye-to-eye with you, I really have to applaud you today: That was the funniest RfA I’ve ever seen. Thanks for the laughs! —Travistalk 00:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Funniest RfA of all time. The best part was several editors amazingly thought the RfA was serious and opposed you. :D "Kurt is a hypocrite!" They call me X Really 03:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Screambox MfD

As the original co-creators Keeper76 and me commented in the discussion. The humor-challenged Myspace rationale is of course not a good reason to delete the page, but there were other, more valid reasons which are unfortunately likely to repeat. Dorftrottel (harass) 19:17, April 1, 2008

And yes, your RfA was great. Dorftrottel (canvass) 19:18, April 1, 2008

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your RfA was a blast. Thanks for doing it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)