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

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

Recreating Deleted Content

I believe that the recreated content was more informative than the information that was deleted. As reviews come in about a given artist, their notability includes. I came across an article written about his political adaptations alongside with Oskar Eustis, and thought that it certainly deserved note. That's why I recreated the article. As the artists that I am researching create more work and continue to have articles published about them, I update their pages. If they are deleted, I recreate them. I have no beef with articles getting deleted if they aren't considered notable by the wikicommunity, but if new information is added it should be tested the way any article is tested and not indiscriminately deleted before a discussion can be had about it.

There's no need to get snarky about it. "However this isn't really the point- an article about my dog or car could be informative but this doesn't make it encyclopedia material". I don't think your dog or cat has written plays that have been performed by professional theater companies. I think if your pet were to write political satires that garnered enough attention to be performed in Central Park and eventually inspire an annual festival in New York, then they should be included in wikipedia. In Defense of the Artist 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He does pretty well on the Yahoo test which is why I recreated the article the last time. As you can see from the discussion, it's a shame that his IMDB listing comes up five places higher than the reference to his published plays (http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsT/tyne-jason.html) since the movie is not notable and I think his plays are. In Defense of the Artist 05:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and help please

Thank you for commenting that I need not leave Wikipedia, but this is what happened, and I am intimidated and frustrated:

I had truly planned to stop editing Wikipedia. Yet due to some kind words and encouragement from Wikipedians like you, I tried, timidly, to return.

This is what transpired: I always sign in, even when reading articles. I had been reading articles on the Riemann hypothesis and the zeta function, when I was alerted that there were messages on my talk page. There were several messages advising me not to stop editing and an offer to discuss the content of proposed new articles with other editors. Therefore, I decided to attempt to contribute again.

The response was that User: Chris53516 vandalized my discussion/talk page and sent me at least two messages (and I quote) that I was guilty of "dishonesty" (this was posted on a vandalized version of my discussion/talk page) and was a "liar" (posted on User: Chris53516's own page), simply because I had decided to contribute to Wikipedia again.

Moreover, I am not a "sockpuppet" nor a "sockpuppet master". I always sign in, and I always use the same user name. I do not at all appreciate this nomenclature on my user page; it is an insult, implying that I am using underhanded, sneaky means of editing via aliases. I do not do so. I share a computer and a network. Strangely, I have been accused of being the "sockpuppet" of people who have different IP addresses, whom I have never met. On Wikipedia, is it standard to be assumed guilty without proof? to be assumed guilty until proven innocent? to be assumed guilty without an attempt to be proven innocent?

Hence, it seems, that I am truly disliked on Wikipedia and that the way to settle disputes, for me at least, is to leave. If you think otherwise, look at what happened to my discussion/talk page, due to User: Chris53516 who was aided by User: Chan-Ho Suh in restoring my talk/discussion page. This is ironic since User: Chris53516 urges Wikipedians to "be nice". Hence, in my attempt to contribute to Wikipedia again, I have confirmation that it is indeed an unpleasant and frustrating experience, and ruled by those who have a different concept of "being nice".

However, I would like answers to my questions above, so I truly understand how Wikipedia operates.

To review and summarize, the questions I would like answered are these:

1. Should I not sign in when reading other articles, so that I do not see alerts that I have messages?

2. If it is acceptable for me to sign in when reading other articles, is it all right for me to re-join Wikipedia, even after I thought I would stop editing, after having been encouraged to do so by other Wikipedians?

3. If it is indeed acceptable for me to decide to edit again, am I really "dishonest" and a "liar" as per User: Chris53516?

4. Is it appropriate for Wikipedians such as User: Chris53516 and User: Chan-Ho Suh and others (anonymous) to vandalize my discussion/talk page by deleting favorable comments while adding their own verbiage including terms that, in my opinion, are insulting and, moreover, false?

5. Why am I being accused of "sockpuppetry" when it is not true, and cannot be proven simply because it is not true?

6. Why is the accusation of "sockpuppetry" displayed on my User page? I really do not appreciate this, especially since it is a false accusation.

7. What does "be nice" mean on Wikipedia, as User: Chris53516 recommends ? Does it include calling another Wikipedian "dishonest", someone who intends to "deceive", and a "liar" if that Wikipedian decides to return to Wikipedia and attempt to communicate with others via talk, or to edit an article?

8. Why had so many of my articles been deleted? So many of my edits reverted? Even when I supplied citations? (Some of the articles I started became quite lengthy, although they were intended to be concise, simply because of so many requests to establish importance of the subject, noteability, to provide more and more citations even after having supplied many, etc.)

9. If you do indeed answer my questions, and if I should respond to your answering me, shall I anticipate being called "liar", "dishonest", "sockpuppet" that I "deceive", etc (by other Wikipedians, of course, not by you!) Again, thank you.

But now you might have an idea why (a) I had decided to leave Wikipedia, and (b) was concerned about trying to re-join and edit again.

I suspect that this experience that I have had on Wikipedia has affected other Wikipedians, probably who are people with valuable information to contribute, but who have decided to stop creating articles or to edit because of similar experiences. This would lead to an incomplete and inconsistent encyclopedia, which is not what Wikipedia should be.

Sorry for the long message, but Wikipedia is an internet phenomenon, and these issues are important, to me and to others, including students in university, grade school, and high school.

Moreover, I had wanted to use my time to contribute actual content and learning more about the markup language: articles about topics in maths and stats, bios of persons, and other topics that interest me; i.e., spend my time on useful endeavors for Wikipedia, not being involved with disagreements nor wasting time on matters such as these.

Thank you again. MathStatWoman 09:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Argh. For one thing, wanting to know how wikipedia really operates is kind of like asking how the weather works. Even those who've been observing for a long time are still sometimes surprised by freak storms. If you're looking for justice, well, sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree. We do encyclopedia articles here, and justice isn't a required ingredient, so we don't worry about it much. However, letting editors get on with editing the encyclopedia without being harassed is something we're concerned with. I see someone else has already answeeed your specific questions while I'm still in rambling generalities. I'm sorry you'd have such a rough experience here so far. If someone leaves you a rude or harassing message, you may want to just remove it rather than responding. However, use caution- if you're seen as removing legitimate messages, people won't like that much. Not sure what else I can say right now, but I'll help out however I can. Friday (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

musings

hey friday

while blocked the past two days i read through your subpages. things like /admin etc. they are great!

i'm burning out on this project -- editing can be a lot of fun but in the recent past i've received so many hassles from editors following me around and admins interpreting policies liberally in order to block me. i also saw that i'm not the only one who's been on the receiving end of this. i've seen it all but its too long to go into here. i'm not sure if these are new trends or just something i haven't spent the time to look into before.

"mere editors" really have little recourse in this. filing arbitration proved exhausting for me in the past. it required a huge amount of diff hunting and discussion for what seemed to me was a pretty obvious case of an out-of-line editor. filing against an admin would, i assume, be much, much worse. admins seem to behave like inner-city police with their wall of silence.

a lot of your comments show that you've noticed the same happenings. in an ideal world i think you are right -- people would behave reasonably...but i am pessimistic that will happen. i have come to the conclusion that the only solution is to firm up wikis policies. we need to define what something like "disruption" is. when someone is blocked for a personal attack, the diff should be included. that a requirement for including evidence is controversial is evidence that it time for change; we've tried the "trust admins to do what is right". it has failed.

Justforasecond 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't think that trying to make the policies more specific would help, but I could be wrong. Policies describe what gets done more than they dictate what should be done. We cannot get by without human judgment. I see the problem (well, part of it) as trusting the wrong admins, and continuing to trust them even when they repeatedly demonstrate poor behavior. But you're exactly right- the culture of putting admins in a different class than "mere editors" is very wrong. I'd love it if the project could get by without such distinctions, but that may be unrealistic. Friday (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what would you think of some simple things like creating a template (or something more sophisticated) for submitting "incidents" and for filing blocks. I think a personal attack template that required a diff would be great. It would be very easy to for others to review. Six months down the line no one would wonder what caused the block. It could be developed further but this would be a first step in preventing illegitimate blocks. Justforasecond 02:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD oddity

Hey there,

I was voting on this AfD from today's log and when I submitted the vote, the whole nomination vanished from the log, although the AfD nom is still present and open. I don't know what happened. I didn't receive an edit conflict warning, nor did I notice anything unusual when I voted on the AfD. The AfD notice remains on the article as well. It's unusual, to put it mildly. Any ideas? Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about what happened, but instead of looking into that, I reviewed the Afd and closed it as a delete. Hope this helps, thanks for the note. Friday (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. :) Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Help for Undeletion

Sorry to bother you, Friday but I'm trying to find out the procedures for undeletion and it's not clear at all. The only thing I've found is a list of users willing to help with this issue (Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles), and that includes you.

My issue is with a page I created (Non-oficial regions of Spain) that was deleted but doesn't even figure in the Deletion log list ([1]) - at least I haven't found it.

I created the page starting from Lists of informal regions and thinking that Spain needed one. Some have seen it as POV (apparently, nobody told me) but I think it was correct. Basically I listed the nationalities that go beyond official regions and Castile (can't say for sure because I can't read my own creation to check). Maybe I included others like La Mancha or the historical extension of Murcia.

In any case I find no space to discuss the deletion or appeal it. So that's why I'm asking you for help.

Anticipated thanks, --Sugaar 10:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-oficial regions of Spain. I don't see anything abnormal here, but sometimes mistakes do happen. You could take it up at deletion review if you wanted, but that's mostly for if you want to argue with how/why it was deleted. Maybe Talk:Spain is a good place for discussion of whether whether it's good to split out non-official regions? Friday (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting an one month community ban for Mccready on all pseudoscience articles

I'm suggesting a one month community ban of Mccready from all pseudoscience articles. [2] He could edit the talk pages but not the article. Please make your thoughts known on AN/I. FloNight 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Trio Mocoto

I've temporarily moved it to User:Guaka/Trio Mocoto. If you expand it, feel free to move it back. I'm just kind of tired of people (i.e., User:Guaka) insisting that their article be kept and yet refusing to do the work to bring it up to speed. Thanks for jumping in. NawlinWiki 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No biggie, no problem. I usually check AMG before speedying bands- if they have a bio there, it's a good indicator they've gotten real media coverage. Friday (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply from User talk:Sdr

You wrote:

The edit you made here was reverted as it removed some newer stuff from the talk page. Looks like the thread you were trying to reply to was already archived. Not sure why people like to archive so agressively, but people do it. If you have a comment to make, you may wish to consider posting it again under a new heading. Friday (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I'll do that, assuming I can find the original text again. Sdr 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The text of what you wrote? Just use the "my contributions" link in at upper right corner of the screen, and find the edit in question. Friday (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry, I figured that out after I bothered to open the link ;) Thanks again. Sdr 20:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Find something better to do

Find something better to do than wikistalking admins you disagree with and questioning their every move. I've already warned you about this before, but you've just been doing more of the same. It's certainly not productive. --Cyde Weys 04:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What every move? I disagree with you on one thing in particular- you were quick on the block button there. You escalated the dispute needlessly and then blocked the person you were in a dispute with, and such actions are harmful to the project. Friday (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that it's a troll. So blocking it is not only not harmful to the project, it's a good thing. --Cyde Weys 05:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? I read User_talk:Cyde#Robotic_deletions and to me it looks like you let annoyance get the better of you. Are you sure this might not be coloring your perception here? Friday (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What it looks like here is your prior disagreements with admins getting the better of you. You never miss an opportunity to question or revert any admin action of a certain subset of admins you seem to have grudges with. I bet you login multiple times a day just to check our logs and see if there's something you can complain about. Trust me, it's not going unnoticed. And as for this account in question; how is it anything but a troll account? That's all it's been used for. If it was a valid user they wouldn't need to use a non-established "alternate" account to ask me a simple bot question. This is a sock account of a banned user, plain and simple, and it's really sad that you let your disagreements with me cloud your judgement so much that you would unblock a troll account just to try to get one over on me. --Cyde Weys 05:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this isn't actually about you. I just saw a block that I couldn't find a good reason for, that's all. Friday (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a bit more. First off, Cyde, whatever I have done to offend you in the past, I apologize. It's not my intent to offend other editors. Second, I'm fairly amazed at your attitude here. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you launched into a tirade against me as an editor, complete with veiled threats about me being watched by some unknown watchers. Third, you have yet to demonstrate where and how this user was trolling, despite my asking. You've just asserted that it's obvious. Is this really how you treat other editors? Maybe you need a break or something, I don't know, but you have to find a way to change the way you interact with other editors. Friday (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Stalking is as stalking does. BTW I always watch this page. Just for the hell of it. Hamster Sandwich 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Drama aside

Thanks for the unblock. (Except that that scans poorly. "Thanks for lifting the block," does that sound better?) - CygnetSaIad 06:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance in removing CSD

Once again I have, I believe, someone that knows nothing about a subject in question marking an article for CSD. Any help you can provide in removing it would be apprciated.

DMP Digital Music Products

Thank you. Tvccs 18:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply - If you can remove same labels from the User Talk page at DMP Digital Music Products, I would also be much obliged - thank you. Tvccs 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: about the case..

Hey, thanks for taking a look at my case. You mentioned that "Any editor can and should make their opinions heard, in project space", but are you really saying that editors should change guideline to reflect their views? Just curious, thanks for the input. Fresheneesz 05:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a tricky one. Guidelines and policies are a slippery thing here. Many editors assert (and I'm usually inclined to agree with them) that the true policies are what actually happens, not what's written on a particular page somewhere. Of course, this can go both ways- some editors have an almost religious belief that whatever happens is consensus, by definition, and that's usually wrong too. Sorry for the probably useless generalities here- I'll have an more specific opinion relevant to the case at hand in time. (Disclaimer: I am in no way involved in arbitration- I'm just giving you one editor's opinion.) Friday (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome to add your opinion or comments at the arbitration page. I would really appreciate it. Fresheneesz 05:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin

Kelly Martin started out as a very nice and civil editor. You're probably right about her civility level declining.

I think the part of the culture that needs to be fixed is the part that does that kind of thing to people. :-/

Kim Bruning 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That too, certainly. We need to get people out of stressful situations when we see that it's affecting them in this way. For the good of the individuals, sure, but even more importantly, for the good of the project. No one is indispensable. Sadly, I feel that the IRC culture is responsible for a decent chunk of the problems I see here. No accountability, no transparency, no expectation of civility - I'm reasonably confident that I'm on a few IRC-folk's "enemies list" myself. (check out WP:OOB for some random thoughts on this). I think Geogre has explained this better than I can, and, since he's a known oldtimer, not just some random editor with with a blatantly inauspicious record, maybe people will listen to him. Friday (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradicting the misstatements that you have mistakenly made

You know that line between attempting to communicate and trying to dumbfound? - brenneman ^{L} 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I did, once. Friday (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wantonly using a subsection when a section would be better

I think that I want whatever it is that makes your admin tools more exciting than mine. Is it the "fuddlemark prOn" css I've heard so much about? - brenneman ^{L} 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have bottoms? Maybe your wikipedia is broken. When I got promoted to admin, I noticed a few extra asses along the top of the screen. For more of Friday's greatest hits, see here. Friday (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Yes, indeed, I think that might be helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Friday/Sandbox

I don't think that will accomplish anything especially having the section on the Kappa block. The Kappa block was almost ok. In general this seems to be just fanning the flames of a dispute which is being very destructive and wasting many good editors' time. JoshuaZ 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that- this is why I'm sorta ambivalent on this issue. Then again, any RFC can be seen as fanning the flames, yet they're an accepted (if widely considered unhelpful) part of dispute resolution. I think there's an ongoing pattern of unacceptable, disruptive behavior on Cyde's part, but then it's easy for me to think that when I'm the one he's accused of stalking. Thus, I considered seeking broader input on this question. I'm too close to this one to be considered impartial. Friday (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely an ongoing issue. See my comments in March and another from May. Since there is no learning curve one can only assume it is willful. I agree that the blocking problem is not RfC material but at some point an RfC on the bigger picture might be worthwhile, if for no other reason than to convince cyde these are legitimate concerns. On the other hand, these types of RfC's can be huge time sinks and nothing was ever achieved by doing this sort of thing for Tony Sidaway (cydes mentor). For this reason, I believe little will be achieved with this either. From my perspective these things are normally best resolved on the user talk pages. However, clearly cyde is tuning out comments from many people such as Slim Virgin and yourself, (probably me too). If enough people keep chiming in I expect a reasonable balance can be maintained such that the dark cyde of weys is seen less often. David D. (Talk) 21:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the normal way to deal with a disputed block is to bring it up at AN/I. However, I think Cyde has made it clear that he'll view it as harassment if this is done. So perhaps the relevant question is: is it worth the pain of disputing a block? I personally feel that improper blocks do cause actual harm to the project. Of course, fighting on AN/I causes harm too. I see no clear solution, and several ways to stir up ill feelings while accomplishing nothing useful. Simply doing nothing will likely produce bad results also. Maybe King Solomon could see how to fix this, but I can't. Friday (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a good chance that Cyde listens to criticism. He may not act on it now, possibly to prove a point, but I suspect he does modify his behaviour in the long term. It's a fine balance between forcing his hand which I'm sure would escalate into a huge battle (and waste a HUGE amount of time) or just chipping away hoping that something is taken aboard. Even Tony Sidaway has changed since I first arrived. It is a slow process though. David D. (Talk) 03:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone want to look at the quasi-sandbox for this at User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Would you have a look at this? they'll see I'm trying to approach this from something other than the usual blood-and-gut funfair the normal RfC amounts to. If it even needs to come to that. - brenneman ^{L} 03:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ANI

When I said "everyone needs to just stop" I meant griping and bitterness and baiting and everything else that was going on. I've seen more than enough attacking going on wiki and nobody seems to be immune. Cyde blocked someone hastily, but this discussion was about the merits of the block of Kappa, not Cyde's overall adminship behavior. There are a lot of hurt feelings going on, and people right now need to take extra care not to insinuate things. We're all working toward a common goal. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and sorry for misunderstanding, and sorry for looking like I was putting words in your mouth. I do feel it's important that we don't simply ignore problems out of fear of hurting someone's feelings, tho. I realize, this is a tricky issue - there's a right way and a wrong way to air grievances, and reasonable people can disagree on which is which. Friday (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Friday, thank you for saving my chess article from extinction. Best regards, Al Pearson (Al pearson 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) on wikipedia.org)

RfB With A Smile :)

Your comments on the .45 ACP article

Friday: I saw on the .45 ACP article discussion page were you requested input last year concerning technical aspects of the round. It's a bit after the fact, but I wrote a few comments and I thought you might like to see them here: .45 ACP check the discussion page. Best Wishes. --NDM 07:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

...?

How come you've all of a sudden scaled back on your edits over the past 10 days or so? Scobell302 13:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno if it was sudden- sometimes I go thru periods of more or less activity. Certain controversies have been somewhat fatiguing lately too, so that's probably part of why I took a bit of time off. Anyway, I'm around, just not very active there for a bit. Friday (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfume?

It's my inherent charm.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 20:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Sweet

"Kelly Sweet is a pop vocalist signed to Razor & Tie Records" makes no claims of notability, and therefore can be speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're going all rulesy on me? She's got an AMG bio! It was linked to in the article. Friday (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and being on a significant label counts for something, does it not? I call that an assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Signing to a label doesn't mean anything if they don't have an album out. I won't object to recreation if they pass WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, besides the AMG pages, there a yahoo music page on her. It implies records but I don't know if they're really out yet or what. Her own website asserts coverage by Billboard and USA Today. No opinion on whether she really passes WP:MUSIC yet or not, gotta do more research, but from what I see, she's by no means a speedy. Friday (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I happened to read this as I was leaving you a comment - this stuff is really getting absurd - why not spend the energy creating (as I did, even though I'd never heard of this woman before two hours ago) rather than deleting. Is it just me, or is Wikipedia loaded with college kids and admins run amok who have little or no actual contributing and writing experience themselves who have appointed themselves editors. It's like having the president of a company who has no actual experience but memorized the mission statement. Bizarre. Tvccs 13:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, some of your criticisms are on the mark. However, it's important to remember that we're all volunteers, so we shouldn't go around casting asparagus on volunteers for not having sufficient expertise either. I'm no great writer myself- my main contribution here is checking new pages- I delete the obvious junk, sometimes turn things into redirects, add categories, or whatnot. This requires only a bit of common sense and no real writing skill. Sure, it'd be better for people who don't have knowlege and aren't willing to do any research to pass things along to someone else- but we have no effective way of doing this. If people are sometimes too quick to delete, it's probably because we get tons of junk articles. Still, I wish people would focus on the obvious junk and take a more cautious approach with articles that might have value. In this case tho, no useful content was actually lost. Friday (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind taking a look at something?

A piece I've worked on about Joseph Byrd appears for whatever reason to have been dragged into a flame/sockpuppet, etc. war between folks User:Timmy12 and User:Ekajati and others that I have no whatever with. Timmy 12 and its associated names appear to have a rap sheet a mile long. Any counsel would be appreciated - I'm beginning to wonder about becoming an admin to deal with this stuff more easily, etc., but I also am finding more issues with Wikipedia as time goes on. In any case, thank you. Tvccs 11:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with Type of Publications to Establish Notability

Friday, thanks for the taking the time to ensure the quality of article on wikipedia. You have been involved in a deletion discussion for an article on a P2P company. This was an entry that I posted and there was a request to establish notability by showing articles written about the company. What is considered a valid article? There was a newspaper article written, an posting by an editor of TMCnet, and well as mentions in online publications. Some are blogs, but not all. The wikipedia requirement for notability does not establish how many articles are needed to warrant notability and what kind of publication is considered notability-worthy. I asked you to check the links again and still tell me if you don't think it's enough. Perhaps you can also give us guidelines on more specific requirements for notability (like what kind of publication is considered good enough). Thank you. blue.einstein

The Wenis

After a little surfing around, we also have Weni, Wenis (elbow), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenis (disambiguation). I'm thinking the other two entries are speediable as recreations? ~ trialsanderrors 05:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I got them taken care of. Thanks for pointing them out. Friday (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Car forum list

Im not trying to promote anything, these are links to sites that have specific Forums that can help diy guys work on their cars on here. I spent the last 3 hours making that list, and i need to work another 6 for it to be completed. So, i'd appreciate if it wasnt deleted yet.

How do you think people would find such a list? Isn't it far more likely people would google for the forum they want, rather than going to wikipedia and typing in "List of Car Forum By Maniufacturer (A-I)"? Such a thing could never be an encyclopedia article, and we're not trying to be a web directory, so I just don't see how it belongs here. Friday (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Moved

Well, actually I thought it would make a good article to be honest. I've been around a while so I know certain jokey things aren't really suitable for Wikipedia, but I've seen other articles on here with the same kind of half funny/half informative feel to them. Articles that would normally be tagged with {{humor}} which I forgot to add. One that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. If you don't mind I'd like the matter to be discussed further, as I wrote the article with the intention of people actually reading it. Thank you for your message. Damien Shiest 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. Maybe the title you were looking for was something like Wikipedia:Wikitangent? I'd certainly have no objection to such a page in project space- I just didn't want it in mainspace. Friday (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Again, thank you. Damien Shiest 21:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

One more for you to look at...any input appreciated

Have a page I'm having to mess with due to what I find is a far too "rulesy" interpreation of permission - I got specific permission from Mitchel Forman and then had people claim the email I sent them/posted granting said could have been false and other bizarre crap. In this case, I think it's people going totally overboard on protecting against a possible copyright vio which isn't going to be an issue, and now I have to bug the artist in question just to super-clarify GFDL - and my contributions should readily indicate (I think anyway), I'm one of the last people to do a copyright vio. I've got a number of people I want to add images to I can't get a clear license for, as one of many examples. Again, my thanks. Tvccs 07:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Help Please!

Please help me! I understood that the Category for surnames was for just that - Surnames - so that hopefully in time anyone of any surname who came to the site could find out about the origins of their surname.

I have used my own name for my user name (I am Polly Rubery - so PRubery hardly seems like a "random username" to me!) and I had set up a set of pages for those surnames which I know a little about, intending to add to them noteable individuals (some of whom already have articles on the site) as time and skill permitted.

But they have all been deleted!

So OK this all encompassing site doesn't really want to be all encompassing at all? Or have I got it wrong? PRubery

La Coka Nostra (group)

PS they have reposted for about the 6th time the newest La Coka Nostra (group) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Friday: thanks for showing some common sense and re-creating La Coka Nostra. Wikipedia needs more admins like you; not admins who delete/ban just like they want to or stick to stupid guidelines without even reading the articles. --who-am-i 19:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, these guys are considered a legit topic for an article by the very "stupid guidelines" you mention here. Oh, and just because someone does something you disagree with is no reason to act like a jerk. Friday (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Greg Lindahl

I have listed two reasons on the talk page which I believe qualify Greg under the Notability policy. Previous deletions may be due to suspicion of article being for vanity purposes, perhaps they were created by Greg himself? Seems to me to be a notable persion in his field. Fourdee 21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on this myself, I just thought you might want to know it'd been previously deleted. If reliable sources indicate his significance, this would surely help. Friday (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

La Coka Nostra

Forgive my intrusion; as I read the article, they've released no albums, and no sources besides their Myspace bio are offered. Looked like an every day garage band, to be perfectly level. =\ On closer inspection, this was probably in error, per the reasoning you've provided. Cheers for keeping a cool head. Luna Santin 22:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Intrusion? This is what my talk page is for :) Anyway, yeah this one was definitely atypical- no records plus a myspace page equals delete in probably every case other than this one. No harm done tho. Friday (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Narcolepsy (band)

Would you be able to finish off the job there? At the moment the page isn't protected or deleted so the personal info and links are still in the history. I was just confused when I checked my contributions list and found that the article still appeared but there was a {{deletedpage}} template on there with no entry in the protection log. Graham87 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I went ahead and deleted it, since I dislike leaving protected pages around indefinitely. Friday (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

spiketrain

sorry dude. i didn't even put our band up there, someone else did. i just noticed that it was there, and thought i might as well make an article. but thanks for being a dick. maybe try to get a life or something.

burger and fries

This is a bona fide phenomenon. Please observe the rules and enact a VFD ifg you do not think it merits an article.

admin vandalism

hello, i am writing this here since i dont know where to go else and since you showed soem common sense in the La Coka Nostra case. the admin who started all that (deleting the article/blocking my login, etc) has obviously now started a personal crusade against me. is there a place on wikipedia i can complain about certain admins? or are you super-power editors? thanks --who-am-i 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Everyone I noticed involved in that article seemed reasonable to me. I see no evidence of a campaign against you, but I do notice you've been editing with the rather questionable edit summary of "fixing admin vandalism". You should know that it's looked upon very poorly to misuse the term "vandalism" here. Just because you disagree with an edit does not make it vandalism. If people are removing links to geocities pages and whatnot, this is for good reason. Friday (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"just because i disagree" - well nobody ever complained. and now someone comes along and in fact mass-vandalises the pages. and thats ok?! and no, it was not removing "links to geocities pages and whatnot", its removing links to sites that basically expand wikipedia articles. and it was removing to my sites only while letting real unimportant links be. but thanks anyway. --who-am-i 23:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as you insist on calling whatever you disagree with "vandalism", you're going to have a hard time here. Friday (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Briefcase Models...

It passes some of the tests I looked at on the page you linked, plus I was just laying out the basic of the article. --WestJet 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And, actually all of the 26K on the Phillipine Deal or No Deal have pages. WestJet 18:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

antivandlebots

i hate all antivandlebots . i mean what is the point of editing if whenever you do you get charged for vandlizing?

Rabbit

Congratulations, you've wasted a lot of time here doing so much work, so I decided to give you a reward.

You are an honorary WikiRabbit.

Thank You

Yeah, thanks for removing the article. I mean, it really did look like a game guide right? I was simply making an article about something that existed in a video game, not a guide on how to play it. --Treva 19:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bacon Day deletion

Friday: Bacon Day is not nonsense. It is celebrated by at least 50 Canadians in three countries that I know of, and this will be the third year that I am celebrating it. I myself am hosting a Bacon Day party, and anticipate at least three dozen attendees. I would appreciate guidance on how to correctly post a mythical (and obviously ironic) back story.

Well, the important thing for our purposes here is that you'll have to publicize this on your own website, not here- this is an encyclopedia. As such, we use only information already covered in reliable sources. Friday (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting random articles, please.

Akaneon 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC) - Dear Friday. Please stop breaking the rules by randomly posting speedy delete requests for EVERY new topic. It is inconsiderate of you to deface the content of other writers simply because you disagree with their ideas. What you should do, in accordance with wikipedia rules, is to edit the articles yourself to make them factual and concise rather than simply proposing deletion of anything you disagree with. You are an editor, not a 'deleter'. Your role is to edit articles, rather than destroying them (in case you didn't understand that, I made them links so you can tab to wikipedia's definitions of edit and destroy so you fully comprehend). Thanks for your feedback though! Keep editing!

You may want to have a look at WP:V and WP:RS. Friday (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't promotional content, it's encyclopedic in the same vein of existing articles and completely factual without slant or bias. It isn't intended to garner new users, it's simply intended to explain the existence of and intended purpose of an already popular networking site. I suggest that you look at the existing List_of_social_networking_sites, perhaps you can request the deletion of all of those as well. - Akaneon 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Popular? The alexa ranking is well over 600K. If this website is being discussed in proper sources, by all means add those sources to the article. Unless there are legit sources, I don't see how there can be an article. But, I'm only one editor with one editor's opinion. I'll put this up for a deletion discussion to get more opinions. Friday (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of article 'Between Two Worlds Webcomic'

Hi, I'm a little confused - a short while ago I wrote and saved the above article to Wikipedia only to find you had deleted it within seconds, citing the reason 'website with no assertion of significance'. I am new to Wikipedia and I am sure my article was far from perfect, but I did put a lot of effort into it and read through many other articles linked from the Wikipedia 'List of Webcomics' to gain an idea as to the content that is usually included in this sort of page and what justifies adding a new webcomic to the list. The webcomic in question is one of my favourites, published online in three langauges, was the first of its kind in Finland, updates regularly, has a large archive and is quite widely read. I added some background information, plot and character details and linked it from the list of webcomics, (by which time it was already gone,) and was planning to post a link to it on the site's forum so that other fans might edit and improve it if they wanted to - certainly it seemed this comic had as much reason for inclusion on the list of webcomics as many of the others featured there and to have it deleted so abruptly when I had worked on the piece for quite a while was very disappointing. If I did anything terribly wrong, please do tell me, suggestions on what I should have done/could be improved are more than welcome, because at the moment I'm feeling my first experiences of Wikipedia are very negative - to have put some time and effort into researching an article which it is ostensibly acceptable to publish here and to receive barely even a hint as to why it wasn't.

Charlie.

EDIT: Hi, thanks for your swift response and especially for restoring the article, even if only temporarily as I didn't think to save it myself before and now have a copy to perhaps post in the future when the comic is more popular. The problem with sources is that most (citing the start date, reviews etc) are in Finnish and it didn't seem to me they should be linked from an English article. Perhaps this is more something for the Finnish wikipedia, but someone else would have to write that then as I don't speak Finnish. Re:the Alexa ranking, they moved the site less than two months ago, could this have affected it? Also, if not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia yet, would it be ok instead to add this article to Comixpedia, which in being specifically about comics, I would presume has less stringent retrictions on which comics qualify?

Thanks again for your help. Charliezbytniewski 10:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Charliezbytniewski

As far as I know, comixpedia has no verifiability, sourcing, or notability requirements of any kind. But I really don't know- they're completely seperate and I have never used that site. The article is still up for now, but could be deleted in the future (I decided to just defer that decision to whoever cares to deal with it.) We don't have much in the way of firm rules here, so I can't tell you exactly what would make any given article a keeper. Friday (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The block

I saw it as offensive and there was an error with the block reason. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your redirecting

I just happened to trip up on the rest of the Phillippine Idol people that you redirected. Could you please reverse those, as it's only one click for you and there's really no working consensus for such a move anyway? I'll likely reverse it anyway and stub them if you don't, but this wasn't the right move. I'm trying to get a discussion going at WP:BIO, so perhaps your input would be useful there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We already had this discussion, didn't we? I realize that you don't believe in having notability standards for articles, but this is a fringe view at best. I see no evidence that there is consensus for you reverting the redirects. I won't edit war over it of course, but I'm not inclined to undo what I did- I made those edits because IMO they're an improvement. Why would I undo an improvement? Friday (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That said, if there's a way to try to come up with some consensus on this, I'm all ears. I must admit I find your arguments on Talk:Jeli Mateo uncompelling. I see little hope of us coming to any kind of agreement on this - I think we've had this same discussion several times. The best I can figure out is that you think a larger number of articles is always better, whereas I think such minor details are better covered by a sentence in a larger article than an entire article all their own. Friday (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Destin

Hi there; in deleting that article by User:Sugarwood, did you happen to see any comments by User:Destin? He, with I am sure the best of intentions, has sent Sugarwood a {{test4}} and a {{test5}} message, which of course he is not competent to do. Granted that Sugarwood may well need blocking, if non-admins tell vandals that they have been blocked this undermines the whole wiki structure. I have left Destin a message, but I am not yet an admin. You are. Would you like to review the correspondence and take whatever action you think is reasonable?--Anthony.bradbury 18:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I think replacing those messages with a "you've been blocked" seems appropriate. Friday (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 18:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Clare Youth Theatre

You were questioning the article`s notability. I believe an article is required as it an Irish Theatre group and contributes to Irish Theatre in general. Exiledone 19:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So every theater group in Ireland is encyclopedic? Wow. Are there sources that claim this is significant? Friday (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I added some newspaper articles under "References" to establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer

I disagree with the following removal in part:

   * Oh, to hell with Family Guy. That crappy show has polluted trivia lists all over this so-called encyclopedia with its useless non-sequiturs. Seth MacFarlane isn't exactly the arbiter of anything but bad taste and bad entertainment. He's no Mario Pei or William Safire. Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's written in a belligerent way, but I think the guy's partially right even if I like Mario Pei and don't like Bill Safire. Being in Family Guy doesn't make something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. This isn't the Family Guy Wikia, is it? Mr Spunky Toffee 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Family Guy references are not notable. Rklawton 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely won't object if anyone wants to put that back- I understand that removing people's comments is controversial at best. I just hate to see things get off-topic like that. Friday (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Anthony Minnuto

Regarding Anthony Minnuto, I see you used the template, but did not protect the page. -- ReyBrujo 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I protected it now. Thanks for the note. Friday (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy amuses me.

Look at your userpage. It has webhost written all over it. If i had to lose mine, which i might add, was of religious value to me, then you must certainly have to remove yours. Take a look at User Guinnog for example. This also has webhost written all over it. I put it to you, you elitist, authoritarian administrator, that your userpage is not in line with the goals of wikipedia.

What do i have to do to become an admin? I'm told I'd be a great addition to 'the team'.

Many Spanks...sorry...thanks, (Percy Nobby Norton got to the keyboard again).. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silentbob4477 (talk • contribs) .

Nearly everything on my user page relates to the editing I do here. Yours relates to some story you made up. Friday (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Copy of Deleted Article

Hey buddy,

I ran across your name on the list of administrators willing to look up content for deleted articles, and was wondering if you could do just that for me. The article I'm interested in working on is General Mayhem. There's some issue with the sources right now and it's currently up in Deletion Review. A clean copy of the article before its deletion would greatly assist in doing this.

If you're willing, the place I'd like the article deposited is User:Lantoka/Sandbox2. Thanks in advance! —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me access to the article. I went ahead and made a copy of the code for the last good version, so that I can work on sourcing it. You can go ahead and put it back where it belongs now. Thank you! —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure how you executed the move/copy of the article to my userspace, but whatever your method, the page at User:Lantoka/gm is protected from editing. If it was a move you can go ahead and move it back, redelete, etc. If you copied it you can go ahead and unprotect it and tag it with a speedy delete tag. Thanks again! —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you could provide a copy of RuneScape economy...

I didn't bother to get a copy before deletion, so now it's hard to determine what parts should be merged with the main article. User:Amarkov/Runescape economy is a good place to put it. Thanks. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Clare Youth Theatre

Why have you nominated the article for deletion. TruthbringerToronto has cited a good deal of references. Also it is part of the Irish theatre culture. Exiledone 19:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion is that we don't want to be in the business of promoting local groups like this. But, really, that's a matter for the Afd. For what it's worth, you might want to look at WP:CSD, specifically the bit article-7 which says Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. This theater group article would have been a valid speedy, in the opinion of some people who have commented on the Afd. Most editors strongly feel that the mere existence of a thing does not automatically mean we should have an encyclopedia article about that thing. Where to draw that line, is of course a tricky question. Friday (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good Point. Exiledone 23:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Most editors strongly feel that the mere existence of a thing does not automatically mean we should have an encyclopedia article about that thing."

Most editors are wrong.Djgranados

my username

there are plenty of people here with a POV - that I openly espouse mine when not editing under AOL - doesn't change anything. Please review my edits for thier content - I think you will see that I edit neutrally while making sure a POV that I think should be represented is not missing or defamed.

Also - there have been no chunks of text edited - and the editor using vandal warnings to try and intimidate me, thinking I am new is exactly why I usually avoid the whole username thing. Abeo Paliurus 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PS thanks for realizing I didn't remove your comment intentionally - I will leave the other editors accusations as templates. Abeo Paliurus 21:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bout that - I thought I was on the clothing page - I'm not used to having so many windows open at once - Abeo Paliurus 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Statisticulation

It's a slang word for a common practice. How about merged and redirect to Darrell Huff's best-selling statistics "primer for laymen", How to Lie with Statistics ? --Uncle Ed 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Might be a good idea but we'd get more input kicking around ideas on the article talk page, eh? Friday (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably 3.5 times as many ideas ... ;-) See ya there! --Uncle Ed 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Help Help Help please

I am being attacked by User:Abu badali, who doesn't like the position I've taken on promotional images and is engaged in a wholesale attack on every image I've uploaded to Wikipedia using any criteria possible. If you can assist in opening an Rfc on this, as I have never done one, I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you. Tvccs 06:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, this looks like a content dispute. I'm no expert on images or copyright law, but I know there's been a big push to ensure that Wikipedia is using free content. Sounds like you're taking this a bit personally, which probably isn't helpful. Maybe Abu badali was out of line somewhere, I don't know, but you're saying things like "get a life" and referring to this as harassment- that's not very polite either. I don't know that an RFC is useful as a next step, but as I said I don't know much about this situation at all. Calmly talking about things on users talk pages generally works tho. If he has made harassing comments to you, provide diffs and I'll take a look. It's likely he's just doing what he thinks is best for the project, though. Friday (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia

No bad faith?? I am not sure we are reading the same page. the nom is clearly uncivil and the biased. I am not the only admin who agrees. I am keeping the page and having the writers clean-up the OR. I was thinking of warning the nom with {{civil}} but i don't think it merits that. And how can you call 17 references OR? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The nom and many of the delete !votes were by established editors with a history of useful contributions. Are you really accusing all these people of bad faith? I really think you need to unclose this- what you've done here is just begging for it to go to DRV, where I'm confident the consensus will be that the early closure was a bad idea. I glanced thru the references and many of them are other Wikipedia articles and some fanboy blog- these are not proper sources. Friday (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am stating that the nom was bad faith. Yes there is some OR what is wrong with citing wikipedia? as for the other refs yes one or two might be bad. but the grounds for this AfD are infounded. just because they !voted doesnt validate the nom. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I think a re-write is needed not a delete

I guess it's moot now- the closure has already been reverted. Friday (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Beta and Chris seem to be revert warring now over the closure. It doesn't technically involve admin actions but it seems like a wheel-war for all purposes. Why do these happen over the most trivial subjects? I've never seen this sort of thing happen for even an Israeli-Palestinian conflict article but for StarTrek and such we have multiple admins wasting their time. JoshuaZ 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It has now been un-closed thrice (once not by me too - I'm impressed). If this continues, I might do to DRV, but not before paying a visit to WP:AN. Chris cheese whine 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Beccaboo 06

Thanks for blocking her indefinitely (though I do have some suspicion that one of my friends from Cary, North Carolina, Shayna Whelan, may have something to do with the vandalism). Now all we have to do is find the IP responsible. Much appreciated -- --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a way to apply social pressure to stop this, please do- it's likely to be more effective than technical means. Thanks for the note. Friday (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would basically try to study their ways on Wikipedia, and as soon as they make a move, place a warning on their Talkpage and if you haven't already--revert the vandalism. If it gets out of hand, calmly talk to them on their Talkpage (and give a final warning). Three times and just report them to WP:AIV. The blocking admin should take everything from there. I also see you're an administrator. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Temple garment

Your comment on my page was interesting. I happen to disagree with you. When you go out of your way to make a comment to someone with whom you disagree, me for example, and you so blatantly overlook complete stupidity of those with whom you agree leads me to think you might not be the best judge in this situation. For Wikipedia to succeed and for individual editors to excel, one must be able to work with those who disagree with our particular viewpoint. One must come to an understanding of what is appropriate and what is not.

Your ignoring Duke53's comment of calling a vagina a pussy and stating that we all just need to live with it is a prime example of your lack of judgement. Instead of leaving a comment on his talk page (a person who agrees with you position), you chose to leave a comment on my page and calling my comments "crap". I guess the old adage of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is apropos in this instance. I encourage you to relect on your actions, come to understand that to judge others is fine, but learn to judge from a principaled position and not just those with whom you disagree. In doing so, you will have learned wisdom and fairness. Others might even come to respect you as a fellow editor.

In closing, I will continue to edit those articles that are of interest to me and where I can offer the most expertise. This article is one of them. Cheeers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize calling someone's edit "crap" is pretty harsh- I don't often do things like that. I just think we should stay on topic and judge each suggestion by its own merits, not by the "stupidity" that we percieve in other editors. My criticism of your essay was not meant as an endorsement of anyone else's edits- it was meant just as criticism of your essay. It's out of place here because it's unhelpful to improving the article. Talk pages are for discussing the article. FWIW, I believe I complained at Duke53 about his editing behavior a week or so ago. I even think several other people have complained at him too. Friday (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My initial objective was to add humor to the conversation. In reality, whether the picture is included or not is of little interest to me. The more I have thought about it, the more the current status works. I was also poking the supportive group in the eye becuase there was really no reason other than "we want it that way"; no legitimate reason was ever given. I think it was time for those against the photo to move on and I still do. This should not be a major issue.

Duke53's methods are contentious and appear to always have been. If he is on a page he is contending with others; that is a fact that is easily recognizable by reviewing his edits. He is not an easy person with whom to work.

As an aside, I did jump to a conclusion that one of the reasons you deleted the section was because of Duke introducing colorful language like pussy and then stating that it was appropriate and acceptable editing. It may be acceptable, but I strongly disapprove of it. I am serious about my comments on decency; it should not be a forgein concept on WIKI and not be shunted aside in favor of mindless fear of censorship. I am not sure we will see eye-to-eye on things, but I do hope we can work together again. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk cleanup

As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Where we stand and my new strategy for dealing with the problem at User:SCZenz/Reference desk comments. I note you already did this with a comment on StuRat's page, in fact, and I hope you'll help out similarly in the future. It will take assistance from many people in order to make it clear which behaviors aren't appropriate. -- SCZenz 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, your approach seems very reasonable to me. I'll look thru the talk page section too- it does look like we may have trouble with an editor or two who refuse to "get it". The RD is not article space, but it is part of the project so certain norms need to apply there too. If we get cut down on the useless answers, irrelevant conversation, and personal opinion this will go a long way. I'm still not convinced the RD is a net gain for the project, but as long as we have it, we may as well make sure it doesn't suck. Friday (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Really?

I'm wondering why you didn't oppose all the other arbcom candidates that use IRC, some much much, more than Kylu. Is it because you don't actually know what you are talking about? pschemp | talk 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I reserve the right to not know what I'm talking about. However in this case there was a particular incident I recall that left a bad taste in my mouth about that editor. I have some strong reservations about the over-use of IRC- it's not transparent, and transparency is helpful. Friday (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you do reserve that right. Do you think it is fair that candidates who actually do over-use IRC are not being opposed for that because Giano doesn't know it and isn't there making complaints every day? pschemp | talk 04:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea what situation you're referring to. There may well be other candidates who I'd think the same thing about, but since I don't know anything about them I likely won't vote on them. Friday (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't? You don't remember that that "particular incident I recall" was Giano's complaint about a total of 2 lines exchanged on IRC? Interesting. Also interesting that you would characterise that as "over-use". Well, enjoy the IRC over-users we're electing then. I'm only asking you these questions because I respect you as an editor and I'm floored that people would vote based on an incident they weren't present for, and that has been misrepresented by an editor with an obvious chip on his shoulder (who also wasn't present). I happened to be there so I know the truth. Btw, good job dealing with LightCurrent. Sadly he's run out the patience of many an admin. pschemp | talk 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What I do recall was Kylu herself saying she'd consulted people on IRC, not someone else claiming she'd done it. It's possible that I am reading too much into one little remark, but I recalled her name as someone who's judgment I wasn't comfortable with. Many of the names in the election are unfamiliar to me- hers wasn't. I really dislike the tendency I see here for people to "take sides" here- I think IRC contributes to this. And, sure, I appreciate the irony in my being on the anti-IRC side in an effort to protest people taking sides, but there's not much to be done about it. I'm a self-proclaimed wikipedian fundamentalist- and IRC is not Wikipedia. I'm more comfortable people who's focus is the actual project, not some chat room. Friday (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But her focus is the actual project, not some chat room. Your extrapolation that that chatting is her focus from the fact that she once asked for advice from another admin about a block is what disturbs me. Yes, she asked once as a newbie admin. How does that prove that chat rooms are her focus now today? Your position seems to be that if you admit to using IRC even once, that chatting is your focus forever. Don't you think its possible that she learned her lesson? Why make a continuing assumption of bad faith for one action? I can understand opposing for lack of experience, but just for using IRC once months ago strikes me as absurd. I mean I used IRC once, but chat rooms aren't my focus on the project. By your logic, they automatically must be. What I see is someone getting slammed months after the fact for telling the truth about one incident. I know at least one candidate you supported uses IRC all the time. They have never announced this publically however. Which is worse, hiding it or admitting to it? Kylu could have just denied ever asking for advice, yet she chose to tell the truth about it. That certainly sounds more transparent to me than someone who uses IRC but doesn't tell anyone. Well thanks for being a good sport about this. I just get curious as the logic behind people's thinking sometimes. pschemp | talk 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm assuming bad faith- I'm sure she means well. She strikes me as young and inexperienced, more into socializing than editing. Could I be wrong about this? Sure, very easily. But the recollection I have was that she did something unwise and explained herself by saying her IRC buddies told her it was OK. It's not that using IRC once means you're incompetant- hell, I've been in there before and I'm sure many others have too. It's possible she's become far wiser since then, but the impression I have is the one I have. It's possible I've voted unfairly on her due to my belief that the "IRC bloc" is harmful to the project. But it's the vote I made, and I see little reason to change it. I could be wrong about IRC being harmful, but I can't see how I'd be wrong about her lack of experience. Friday (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said before, I totally understand an oppose based on lack of experience, as it is true that she really hasn't been around that long. I'm not in any way trying to get you to change your vote, but if what you are saying is the IRC thing is a *symptom* of lack of experience, rather than the *main* reason for opposing, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the reply. pschemp | talk 16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC is another tool for communication. Since it's not part of the wiki, people use it to try out ideas and get advice before they take official action on-wiki. It's a good way to stay out of trouble. :-)

If I remember correctly, Kylu happens to actually be an IRC expert. It's what she does when she's not on wikipedia too, and it's where she gained most of her experience in online governance, so it's a bit unfair to be negative about her IRC activity.

Kim Bruning 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's also a good way for a bloc of editors to agree that something is sensible ahead of time, and the reasoning that went into this decision is then lost to the ether rather than being written somewhere useful. Maybe it's just that I associate a few spectactularly bad editors with IRC and I don't know about all the good ones who also hang out there, but I don't see that it's beneficial to the project. I see that a lot of people have a habit of supporting their friends, not because they're doing the right thing, but because of who they are. This is harmful and I think IRC fraternizing contributes to this. Every action should be judged on its own merits, not on the basis of whether the person doing it is your friend. Friday (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. (response to the latest) From what I've seen about the way people "govern" IRC channels, this is absolutely contrary to how we handle things at Wikipedia. If we want wikipedia to turn into junior high school, let's bring in those experienced IRC folks. If we're trying to produce a quality encyclopedia, a different approach is called for. Friday (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there's some discussion related to this topic at Wikipedia talk:Out of band communication considered harmful. Friday (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nono, iirc Kylu was involved in irc *networks*, not channels. It's a different universe entirely, to do with cooperating on sharing real-world resources.

Note that IRC is explicitly used allow fast real-time communications. Things like dealing with vandalbots would be a lot harder or even impossible without it these days. :-/

We do have a rule that to have things become official, it must be taken to wikipedia. There are many many people on irc, I'm sure there's both good and bad people there. :)

Kim Bruning 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Starfleet_alternate_ranks_and_insignia drama?

I'm confused by your repeated use of the word "drama". Is there something inherently dramatic about redirects that I'm not seeing? Friday (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I continue to be very curious at your use of the word "drama" in this case. Are you using this word to mean "something I disagree with"? Friday (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

drama -noun see meaning #4 and perhaps #5: 1/2 --Cat out 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes.

I am an alternate account of a long time editor who does not wish to get embroiled in an issue. It would be reasonably trivial to determine which longtime editor this is based on my statements about asking a question on the RD and getting a lame answer, but I'd ask you not do that. Thanks. RDWarrior 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Good luck. Friday (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

nandesuka vote

In case you don't recall, Nandesuka blocked me for a month over a content dispute. No mediation, no arbitration, just unilateral, overly long action. Not really the sort of fair arbitrator wikipedia needs. Justforasecond 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall. Someplace I can read about this? Friday (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientology

It's ok - if the media picked up on it - I'd point them towards the pictures of cocks, oral sex and various other things like that and scream "will someone not think of the children". that would solve that problem. As for scientology, it's a wacko cult, that's the prevailing outlook of my culture and that's what I'm reflecting. --Charlesknight 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, alright, but wikipedia is not a forum, not a place for our personal opinions. Friday (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Or what? --Charlesknight 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Friday (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Restoring some sanity

In this edit you were one of those editors I was referring to that I deeply respect, yet over the last month find myself losing that respect, and Jimbo's post to the list jerked me back to reality. We have crossed paths a few times and I have found your comments to be of excellent quality and well considered. --Trödel 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.. but what have I been doing wrong the past month? Friday (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing individually, as a group I think we have been unproductive - good editors fighting instead of working together to reach concensus - anyway - I am going to step away for a few days - maybe I'll see my comments as stupid when I get back --Trödel 05:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it's all too easy for things to get derailed- thanks for trying to get them back on track. Friday (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback

If you review what's been going on, I have just had dozens of images and many many hours of work simply blown away by said admin Quadell who refused to listen to any argument at all, or provide any examples whatsoever of the so-called reasonableness he professed to have. Not ONE. The odds of me somehow influencing said admin are greater than me hitting the moon tonight with a slingshot. I tried. I was totally ignored. I was told this is the policy and Jimbo Wales supports it and tough sh*t, oh but courteously, of course. What should I do, say thanks? Bullsh*t. I now have page after page I have worked my ass off on that look like hell, and have had image after image deleted when no free image exists. Of course, said admin didn't bother to fix layouts, etc. He just mass-deleted nearly everything he marked. Period. And god forbid he find any of the free images that might someday exist, which is simply asinine beyond all measure at the outset. You're an admin, isn't there anyone that's willing to stand up to this lunacy? Any other suggestions? You're welcome to take this discussion off-line and e-mail me if you wish - I'm going to be writing and speaking publicly about this issue until and unless it's changed, period, and it will affect all I say about the Wikipedia project, which I generally support, until it's modified. I am a member of the real press and I do actually care about this stuff, and my work. Tvccs 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm the admin Tvccs is referring to. Many of Tvccs's images were tagged as being replaceable, and he objected to these. (As you may be aware, our first fair use criterion requires that "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" in order for us to use a non-free image, and counter-example #8 states that "an image of a living person that merely shows what they look like" would "almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use".) On some images, Tvccs disputed that a free replacement image could be created. On others, he did not dispute this, but merely stated that no free images were known to exist at this time. Following our rfu policy, after a week those images which seemed non-replaceable were kept, and those which fell clearly into the example of counter-example #8 were deleted. All discussion was saved; feel free to review.

You may be interested to know (if you don't already) that an RFC was previously filed against Chowbok for doing this same work, and Jimbo Wales weighed in to offer support for Chowbok's work. In my opinion, there are many newer users who like using non-free images on Wikipedia, and who really don't like our image use policy. Some of these users, such as Tvccs, seem to take out their unhappiness on the admins who do the hard work of enforcing our policies.

Incidentally, I have to say in my defense that I did not "mass-delete" anything. I reviewed each, and decided based on the nature of the image and how it was used in the article. I listened to all Tvccs's arguments, and did not ignore him. I do disagree with him, but that's not the same thing. It's also not true that I "didn't bother to fix layouts". I edited every article these images were included in, so as not to leave ugly missing image boxes.

Thanks for caring about this issue. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current block - a suggestion

Friday - from the text on your user page I understand that you are open to feedback on your admin actions, so may I offer the following feedback, and what I hope you will take as a constructive suggestion. I believe your week-long block of Light current was an over-reaction - I have explained why I think this on AN/I. However, I know Light current can be flippant and annoying at times, and it can be difficult to remain calm when dealing with him. What is done is done, but would you perhaps consider reducing the length of Light current's block to, say, 48 hours ? I think this would show a good example of reasonableness to both Light current and to other observers of your dispute, and will avoid the further escalation of what is, fundamentally, a quite minor disagreement. Thank you for listening to my suggestion. Gandalf61 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, replied at AN/I. He's been blocked many times before with no noticable change to his disruptive, juvenile behavior. I don't see this as a minor disagreement- I see Wikipedia as a project to build an encyclopedia. He sees it as his own personal playground/chat room. These goals are not compatible. If his goals conflict with the goals of the project, I'm sorry to say he is not welcome here. Friday (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I fear I've overstepped my bounds a bit, and I hope you can let it slide. I've unblocked Light current, for reasons which I have described here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Light_current (diff). I think that he is generally a helpful Ref Desk contributor, and I hope that he has gotten the message that off-colour and newbie-biting remarks are not appropriate.

I don't think that the block you placed was unjustified, and I think that you're being unfairly pilloried by certain individuals because you asked about the Ref Desk's purpose. In any case, I'm asking all of the involved parties to adhere to the highest standards of civil and courteous behaviour. I have indicated that this unblock should be treated as a parole and not a pardon, and that I or anyone else may restore the block if LC doesn't stay on the straight and narrow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)