User talk:Friday/archive13

Relax, dude!

Relax, dude! I'm jus' playin' around! Besides, I'm not the anon that reverted it with the very rude edit summary of, "rv until we have some indication this is permanent asshole". Anyway, it looks like Gmail is back up again, so no worries,... =) 130.49.212.156 (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA, again

Why? Why imply that an editor is 'clueless'? Why not simply express your concerns in a civil and collegial manner? Your oppose is reasonable and somewhat persuasive; your tone is still unnecessarily divisive. I only ask that you take into heart the concerns many have raised over your comments at RFA. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've heard this tune many times before, and it's becoming no more persuasive with incessant repetition. RFA is for evaluating a candidate's competence. If "clueless" upsets you, this problem is yours, not mine. Friday (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I cannot bear the thought of defending Friday, this is mild compared to some of the insulting comments he has left for RfA candidates in the past. Perhaps it's slowly sinking in that it's not "Requests for rude remarks" but "Requests for adminship", and such comments can easily be expressed in a more courteous manner. But he's not quite "got it" yet, unfortunately. Majorly talk 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It does occur to me that lectures on civility and courtesy from an editor who leaves comments like yours, Majorly, might not be well-received. It seems that the concerns raised about your unpleasant approach towards dispute resolution in Friday's RfC (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Friday#Friday's response) still are a long way from being repaired. You're unlikely to persuade anyone to change their conduct if your approach to them is this condescending. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he can take it, this is mild compared to the stuff he dishes out. It seems the concerns about Friday's negative approach to Wikipedia still are a long way from being repaired too - why not comment about that, instead of shooting the messenger? I'm unlikely to persuade Friday to change, as is anyone. I am far from the only one concerned with the way he treats other editors, but he brushes them off as if everyone except himself are a bunch of idiots. Instead of taking the opportunity to criticise me, why not look at the actual issue (Friday's poor attitude)? I wouldn't have to do this if Friday started acting with a smidgen of courtesy/politeness. It seems everytime Friday is criticise, you pop up out of nowhere to criticise the messenger instead. Majorly talk 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It strikes me that if you're aware that your continued posts to Friday's talk page are unlikely to result in the change that you desire, there's no reason for you to continue making them. Moreover, there's no reason at all for you to make unconstructive comments which are insulting and condescending. I'm tell you, now, that I'm concerned with the way that you treat other editors, Majorly. Based on the RfC I linked, I'm not the only one with similar concerns. What positive steps do you intend to take in the future to remedy these concerns? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Moreover, there's no reason at all for you to make unconstructive comments which are insulting and condescending" - and this does not apply to Friday, who we are supposed to be discussing? "I'm tell you, now, that I'm concerned with the way that you treat other editors, Majorly. Based on the RfC I linked, I'm not the only one with similar concerns." I'm concerned with the way Friday treats other editors. Based on the RFC, I'm not the only one with similar concerns. Please stop trying to blame everything on me. If you have a problem with me, start an RfC. Don't beat about the bush. If you want to know more about me, I mostly work on articles, vote on a few things here and there, comment on this and that. If you really think I'm that problematic, start an RfC. I had no idea there were any concerns, so I'm not sure what steps to take, if any. It strikes me that you're ignoring the actual issue here, and instead shifting the blame on to me, which is most unfair. Majorly talk 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could be unaware of concerns about your own approach to dealing with Friday, as I linked to the appropriate section of the RfC above. Here it is again. Read the comments posted by my and by Balloonman: an editor who has no particular interest in supporting Friday, but who nevertheless had strong concerns about the way that you expressed yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You completely ignored most of what I said, so I'll expect you'll reply to it in a few minutes. In response to you, you never mentioned it was just with regards to Friday. The fact we don't get on is about as obvious as the fact the pope is Catholic. I read your comments at times and disagree with them, and still do. If you think that's really a concern, I can only suggest another RFC. If you're just going to ignore the real issue at hand, then it's not use in trying to talk to you. Majorly talk 20:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And before this gets going, I'm no longer interested in trying to persuade someone who has obviously got no intention of getting a clue and listening to and accepting valid criticism. This will of course just be brushed off like all the other times, so it's not like there's any point in carrying this on. I suggest to any person who has an issue with Friday's opposes (let's face it, they're always opposes) not to bother coming here, because they'll get ignored. It's a shame an admin is behaving like this, and the community apparently finds this acceptable, but hopefully they'll change their mind someday. As I said, I hope he continues opposing RfAs in the nastiest, rudest way possible so I can build a stronger RfC that will hopefully put an end this ridiculous negative behaviour. Negative individuals, especially as administrators, are bad for Wikipedia and I find it unacceptable. Majorly talk 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone comes with a complaint that Friday referred to another as "clueless." After a few rounds, Majorly responds to say that Friday "has obviously got no intention of getting a clue." The circle is now complete. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Even I'm willing to admit that the clueless may get a clue at some unspecified point in the future. And that a great many clueless people intend to have a clue, they just aren't very good at it. Friday (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re to Friday's initial response: I'm not particularly upset that you've called an editor 'clueless', and I'm certainly not one to push NPA down anyone's throat, but it's really not that hard to remain perfectly civil and post your thoughts in a more acceptable tone. Wikipedia is steadily losing admins and contributors, and we want to make the project as welcoming as possible for all users. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again. I have a lot of respect for you Friday, but you're missing the point here. You think RfA voters are a bunch of "chatroom buddies" who attack opposers, but this really isn't true. That you oppose some candidates is not by any means an issue, much less that you question their cluefulness or maturity. It's the way you apply terms such as "clueless", "immature", etc. This will be my last comment on the issue as I've no intention to badger or interrupt you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing the point. I'd concluded that I can say the things I'm saying in a more polite way, using different words. So I can oppose someone for being immature, but it's not good to use the word "immature"? What word is better for this purpose? Friday (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Shunning — What a Brilliant Idea

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to User:Friday for writing a thoughtful essay on shunning. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Two barnstars at once!! How many levels is that worth?? :) Friday (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You get a +1 modifier on your dice rolls in projectspace (+2 against the undead). MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Misclick

I blame my iPhone. It has a habit of half loading a page, loading the other half when I click the screen, then freezing up when I try to revert my mistake. Thanks for cleaning up after me. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I am just sending you a message to let you know that I am not happy with how you characterised me on admin board. I have started a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#I_am_not_happy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For the vote of confidence. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome. Seems like a no-brainer to me. It's just a minor but important tweak to the existing practice of userfication. The coolest thing about this idea is that it requires no new rules, and no "consensus". Whoever wants to do it can just do it. At first I was annoyed at the AFD.. but then I saw the opportunity to turn it into free publicity... :) Friday (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

question on Ed 17 RfA

Hi -- I don't want to create drama by bringing this up at the Rfa, but I feel that the question you asked is pretty improper, since it is framed as a hypothetical with no evidence that anybody actually belongs to the group. That's a common way of asking "troll" questions, e.g., "what would you say to people who've never met you but wonder whether you have ever cheated on a test?" Of course it's good for admins to be able to deal with trolling calmly, but even so, I wonder whether you really intended to ask a question that is so unfair? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Err, wow. It never occurred to me that this would be objectionable, and I'm not sure I see it, even now. I'm not making things up- that earlier RFA really does exist, and there really were concerns brought up in it. It surely doesn't stretch the imagination to think that some people might still have those concerns. Normally in cases like this I might oppose based on the previous RFA, but I decided to try something different and see if the candidate had anything to say about it. He's already replied to the question.. are you sure you have a problem with it? Friday (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On reflection my point was perhaps overstated, but this is often a problematic style of question. If you had said "I" instead of referring to indefinite "people", that would have been taking responsibility for the view and would have been unobjectionable. In any case I withdraw any suggestion of trolling, I was a bit annoyed by the question and responded too strongly. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually bending over backward trying to be diplomatic when I asked the question, but apparently I failed. Friday (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I found it to be very helpful with a similar question asked during my recent RfA - "As someone who opposed last time, but (in all honesty) does not have the time to check your contributions and activities since your last RfA, could you please give a brief overview of your actions in general since that time, as well as changes you made, if any, in your attitude and/or areas of contribution based on advice given at the RfA?" The question gave me a more focused method of addressing concerns brought up in my most previous RfA that the stock questions or the optional statement. I think that your question was perfectly fine Friday. NW (Talk) 04:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Query

Greetings Friday. You may have seen it, you may not, but as a result of the discussions surrounding trying to find new candidates for RfA, SebastianHelm has set up WP:VETTING. The idea is that experienced editors give frank (but cordial) feedback to would-be candidates, so that those who would have a rough time at RfA are spared the trauma, and those who would be good candidates but aren't confident that they'd have a chance are encouraged. The process needs experienced RfA observers, and seeing as you are such an editor, and if you'll forgive me for saying so are often found in the oppose column, I wondered if you would consider watchlisting the page and contributing feedback from time to time? Regards,  Skomorokh  21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! I don't have much time for Wikipedia these days but RFA is one of those things I'm still interested in. Got in on the watchlist now. Friday (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, I really appreciate it!  Skomorokh  00:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk

I know. I hope this explanation will clear up what I was asking for

Talkback

Hello, Friday. You have new messages at Until It Sleeps's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Until It Sleeps ^{T • C} 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you check this guy...

User:Independència? Sometimes he makes useful edits, such as adding interwikis to the Catalan Wikipedia but most of his edits are small, difficult to detect vandalism to Spain-related pages, and since those pages get little traffic it takes very long until his changes are reverted... Take this diff as an example of his bad edits: [1] changed "country" from Spain to Catalonia (?) in the infobox. Or this one: [2]. There are many more, just check them yourself. He also typically removes the .es from official URL and changes it to a DNS alias like .net. He knows very little English so he rarely edits sentences in articles. All this comes as no surprise since his nickname means independence in Catalan, claims in his Babelbox that he can't speak Spanish and says that he comes from the "Catalan Countries"... Thank you! --Belchman (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the talk page.. I don't see where he's repeated the behavior after his latest warning, so I don't think anything needs done right at this moment. If he doesn't stop he'll need to be blocked, though. Friday (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I actually laughed out loud when I read this :-) Majorly talk 23:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I completely suck at this whole "online communication" thing. I figured that was the kind of horribly offensive comment that would make people mad. Then sometimes I say things I think are very mild, and people complain about them. Friday (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The first bit was a bit offensive, but even I am not going to moan at you for whatever comments you make off-site (and I am trying not to complain to you at all as it was all getting a little repetitive). The second part however was an excellent analogy I thought was spot-on. (Maybe I am biased here though as me and Shalom have a little bit of history; I opposed his RfA a long time ago and he still apparently hates me for it). Majorly talk 00:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My response to your comment about role of admins

After reading my reply to you with the benefit of hindsight, I worry that it may have been rather brusk. Please understand that was never my intention and if I came off as rude I am truly sorry. Please chalk it up to a hurried response, typed up while thinking about other things. Have a cookie. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

L0b0t 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 someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

You weren't rude, so no worries. Also, anyone who gives out cookies can be as rude as they want. Friday (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Candc4 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Friday

In the pinnacle of irony, your statement about Wikifriends and Wikienemies will shortly be ignored or result in backlash because you lack the appropriate wikifriends to go after who you are going after. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know I was going after anyone. I thought I was trying to urge people to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses. It's true, I have no wikifriends (or wikienemies) but this makes me immune to certain kinds of backlash, doesn't it? Friday (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

In regards to your comments towards Malleus elsewhere - I feel that all parties that are acting abusively should be kept from the power that would allow them to cause great damage. "This is apparently merely a grudge between rival factions of admins." - and they should all be desysopped. Admins should be completely objective in order to perform their duty. It would be nice for ArbCom to enforce that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

People who show evidence of regularly acting on emotion rather than reason need to not be in positions of responsibility. Those who are ruled by grudges are acting on emotion, not reason. We're all human, and we're all irrational sometimes. But some people are irrational a great deal of the time, and we need to limit the damage such people can cause. Friday (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. For my part, I am only going to be here long enough to complete my goal - fix 20 major authors and their pages up to a respectable level (bios to FA, major works to FA). I am approximately 40-50% to that point so far. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Candc4 What Was Wrong With My Last one it looked fine and it wasn't no game guide —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

Proposal

In light of the comments made at a current Request for Arbitration, I have proposed a new process. Full details are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Proposal by Uncle G. Uncle G (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Friday

Friday, I remember you being rational and level level headed from a long time back. Could you take a look at this, please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#benzodiazapine_drug_misuse.2C_lack_of_credible_sourcing Skrewler (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Monty Hall problem

You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Monty Hall problem#Changes suggested by JeffJor, Martin Hogbin, and Glkanter. Rick Block (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Mentorship

When I read Wikipedia talk:Mentorship, I noticed your modest comments; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A big request

I don't think you much care for me, which is why I'm asking you this--I don't want people saying that "Oh, it's just Kurt's blind supporters lining up behind him again." But regardless of your personal feelings, I do think you are one of the most fair-minded people out here, and among those most likely to not be blinded by emotion in this.

First, please understand that I'm not asking you to take my side on the substantial questions involved here. All I'd like you to do, if you don't mind, is act as a third-party to mediate the dispute between myself and, primarily, Coffee (talk · contribs) and Will Beback (talk · contribs) both at ANI and my talk page.

My take on it is this: WB and Coffee repeatedly assert that I am bound by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion#Conditions proposed fifteen months ago, which, I admit, do prohibit me from even participating in discussions directly concerning me. They are demanding that if I have anything to contribute to a discussion that I post it on my talk page and, if they decide it is a worthwhile addition, they will copy it over to the discussion. Since it is much more likely that any uninvolved third party will see a discussion about me on ANI than will just randomly stumble across my talk page, they are basically putting themselves in the position of deciding what arguments I will and will not get to present to the Wikipedia community in matters concerning me.

Even leaving the aside of two people who are clearly not impartial appointing themselves the arbiters of what I do and do not get to say publicly, I contend that the conditions proposed above by Postlethwaite are not in effect, because there was never any consensus to that effect. WB and Coffee simply repeatedly assert that they are, and do not bother responding to my arguments to the contrary--and, because of the role they have assumed for themselves, I am now unable to present my arguments in a venue where they are likely to be seen by uninvolved third parties.

I contend that the sanctions I am under--if they're still in effect, which I don't think they are but probably am not going to dispute many further--were those suggested by Coren (talk · contribs) as an agreement he personally made with me to unblock me in September of last year, which expressly permit my participation in project-space discussions directly concerning me.

To make it worse, Coffee has now gone and declared on the ANI thread that the matter is "resolved," and has essentially demanded that no one re-open the matter without his permission.

Again, I'm not asking you to take my side on the question of whether or not I should be allowed to participate in project space, in general, or even get involved in that dispute at all. All I'm asking you to do is to review my arguments and the way I'm being railroaded without being permitted to participate in the discussions about my own treatment. If you, as well as one or two uninvolved people I will ask, all agree that my concerns expressed here have zero merit, I will shut up about it. But if you think I have any merit to my arguments--even if you ultimately disagree with them--would you be willing to help me put them somewhere where they can actually be debated by the Wikipedia community as a whole rather than just a few already-deeply-involved parties? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• A friendly note - Before you go and make a decision based on what Kmweber is saying here, I would appreciate if you reviewed the entire timeline. Thanks, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry the delay.. I'm not real sure I have an opinion on that. Friday (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well poops.

Just a thought

If you had sent the link to that page off the bat, we could have saved a few minutes of back and forth. Like I said, I read the TOS, not the entire Wiki website ;) So, rather than a comment that seems like it could have come from anyone, a link explaining the offense and why it was taken care of the way it was would be much more helpful. I do not envy you and the job you have to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CleverHandleHere (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What can I say?

I'm a friggin' time-savin' genius.

Enjoy your Tuesday Friday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CleverHandleHere (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

yo my page was fine and then you go and delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clee77 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks alot

you deleted my page while i was writing it. way to be rude. anyways, how do i start a brand new page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clee77 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please refrain from making any further comments on my talk page. You've noted that you think my comments are nonsense a couple of times now. No further input from you is needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Edited Version Of Dead Awaken

Candc4 (talk)Dead Awaken is an internet text-based RPG run by a man known simply as Dan. The goal of the game is to gain virtual wealth and power

Text from Main Login Page Dead Awakening

It's been four months since the infestation occurred. Four months since the dead first began to rise from their graves to feast on the flesh of the living. The world as we knew it ceased to exist. Those that perished only came back to solidify the ranks of the undead. Just when we thought that all hope was lost, we discovered the key to our survival. We discovered that the zombies could be trained…

Now, here in the present day, we are facing a much more horrifying situation. What we once considered to be the key to our survival, has become our worst fear yet. The zombies are beginning to turn against us again. Only this time, they have the ability to think for themselves. They've learned how to use everyday objects as primitive weapons, making the zombies deadlier than ever. They're stronger, tougher and their numbers grow by the hour.

Join today and help us defeat the undead once and for all.

Or join the ranks of the undead and help bring about the destruction of mankind.

[http://www.deadawaken.com/main.html

Will This Pass as Artcule Or No?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candc4 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nonexistent Barnstar of Preternatural Perceptiveness

OK, so there's no such barnstar, and I don't do the barnstar thing anyway, but you nailed it here.[3] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Friday! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 317 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Paul Leary - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

M.N.

? Slaja (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Guitarded

Hi, I was looking for information on the album "Guitarded" by the band Limp. The link from the band's page says that the Guitared page was deleted by you. It said I should contact you before recreating the page. So, can you tell me why you deleted the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat7926 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Lethbridge Collegiate Institute

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Lethbridge Collegiate Institute/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VPPR#Pure_wiki_deletion.2C_redux

I just wanted to let you know about this VPPR thread... The extension needs a little more work and another stage or two of code review and then it should be ready to roll. Tisane (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to bellyache to someone,

Friday, you once beautifully welcomed me to WP and then helped me a time or two when I asked. And I've looked at your talk page a few times, and very much admire your patience and your people-skills. You certain deserve better than to receive my bellyaching, but I'm in a once in a lifetime situation of being involved in my first fight on WP, so I'll bellyache to you this one time:

At this location User_talk:For7thGen#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Wikigender you can see the problem. This tag's time stamp is 22 minutes after I posted my Proposed Removal at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals, namely, at its section wikigender.org. I am on WP to write, not to fight. I will not fight on WP. And I do not want to know the tagger's handle, which I purposefully ignore, and I do not want to make a permanent enemy out of that person (I know I can trust you to not incriminate me in any way with that person).

There is something going on with WP's attitude toward wikigender.org, or toward its surrounding project called Wikigender (initiated by and supported by the OECD Development Centre), which I do not understand and do not want to even know about. (I do not want to have to propose Removals from blacklistings, and so forth, either.) But YOU might want to know about all of this. I guess my bellyaching really has a function -- to keep at least one WP person (you) informed. I have no idea what you might do with the information, I assume nothing in the short-term – and I assume not even you can say what difference the information might make long-term.

I'll close on a positive note: I never thought I'd be able to work forever on the "democratic" Wikipedia, without ever having to fight. WP is the best democracy in the world that I know of, thanks to you, a selfless and patient person, and I suppose a few more like you. Please keep up your good work. And I don't really want to hear any more about the above. I have written what I'll soon post on Wikigender's talk page, so I'll just post it and then if the tagger does delete this article, so be it. I've swallowed worse than that before, when my work on the Golden Rule article got totally butchered by religious kooks. WP really is a great invention, nonetheless, and you and I both hope it lasts forever, or anyhow as long as humankind itself does. For7thGen (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My page

I see you deleted my page about the star of a documentary being made at Miami University. Am i able to create a page about the movie and not the person involved? Or does it have to be a famous movie to get a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raewelch5 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

RFA

After reading all that you have to say about the RFA process, I was wondering if you had the time to lend a critical eye on myself. Someday soon, I would like to nominate myself for adminship and was wondering if I could recieve a few ideas from you. Thank you and Happy Editing --Fumitol (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably the wrong person to ask.. I suspect I'm out of touch with how RFA goes lately. If it were up to me, I'd go ahead and give you the bit. You've been around a few years and haven't caused any trouble that I can see. But, if there is some way I can usefully help you, I'll try. Friday (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, maybe I'm wrong.. the tenure stated on your user page does not match what your contributions lists says. Friday (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would add that you have only about 2500 edits total, which will not suffice for most people. In addition, about 80% of them are in the last month, and are largely Huggle-based. Finally, there appear to be very few edits in the Wikipedia space. Any one of those three reasons are sufficient to cause a significant number of opposes; with all three together, you'll not be thrilled with the outcome, I'm sure.  Frank  |  talk  20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments, I'll take them and better myself with this knowledge. --Fumitol (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Neglected Mario Characters

As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to change your answer

This is a request to change your answer at the Help Desk here. The query was about creating a page (any page) and the appropriate answer would have been to guide the user towards links on how to create new pages. Do kindly reconsider your answer. Cheers.115.117.157.39 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Helping a new user misuse Wikipedia is not the right thing to do. If you don't understand this, you have no business answering questions at the help desk. Friday (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your response is appreciated.115.117.157.39 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Source: Violator Mainstar Entertainment

The Brett Eldredge page was deleted before it could even be completed. He is a well known songwriter and artist on Atlantic Records (Warner Brothers) with a single and CD about to hit the market in less than a month. This is his management company that is attempting to create the wikipedia page for him. We own the pictures and wrote the bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrfreeland (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mahjongg band page

Hi user Friday

This is a request to restore the page for Mahjongg (band). Allmusic.com

Mahjongg has become considerably more prominent since their page was deleted in 2007.

This December they're playing All Tomorrow's Parties (music festival), which confers a great deal of prestige within the indie rock/experimental music community.http://www.atpfestival.com/newsview/1008130848.php

Their albums are now released on the venerable indie lable K Records

They played the 2008 Pitchfork Music Festival and have been reviewed in Pitchfork Media numerous times. http://pitchfork.com/artists/2953-mahjongg/

They've been featured in the Pitchfork guide to the South by Southwest music festival http://pitchfork.com/news/28847-pitchforks-guide-to-sxsw-2008/

They've been written about in the following publications:

Paste (magazine) http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2008/01/band-of-the-week-mahjongg.html

Chicago Reader http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Search?cx=partner-pub-8505671427584150:vj9mirq6e7r&cof=FORID%3A11&q=mahjongg#1528

Village Voice http://www.villagevoice.com/search/index?keywords=mahjongg&x=17&y=24

The Onion http://www.avclub.com/madison/articles/mahjongg-at-the-memorial-union-terrace,43659/

PopMatters http://www.popmatters.com/pm/article/indie-dance-music-band-mahjongg-makes-a-play/

Tiny Mix Tapes http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/mahjongg-touring-what-will-basically-be-indie-version-stomp

Consequence of Sound http://consequenceofsound.net/2010/05/02/mahjongg-to-hit-road-for-north-american-tour/

They've been featured on KEXP-FM http://www.kexp.org/search/search.aspx?q=mahjongg&cx=005196529597108582349%3Afuytrvag5y8&client=google-csbe&output=xml_no_dtd&gl=us&num=20

Mentions of Mahjongg or links to the deleted Mahjongg page can be found on the following extant wikipedia pages:

K Records

All Tomorrow's Parties (music festival)

Pitchfork Music Festival

OK, I restored it. However that former content is so crappy as to be pretty much unusable. But it certainly looks like there is now plenty of coverage in other sources, so the article can be improved. Friday (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.134.107 (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Better? Yeah it's about 1000x better! Excellent work. I guess Wikipedia is still working.. who knew? Friday (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Judd Woldin

It alerted me to talk to you before starting this page, but I was wondering if you could copy the info on the page you deleted (via Apr 2008) and post it on my talk page. Much appreciated. Thank You Phaeton23 (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

we had an exchange a couple of years ago about "rumor bomb"

HI Friday. As a newcomer a couple of years ago, I started an article on my concept of "rumor bomb," which you suggested for deletion and explained why to me. you were the first one to engage me on the topic and ask me to think clearly about my motives. I agreed that there's always an element of self-promotion in anyone who wants to share his/her peer-reviewed knowledge production and authority, but as Wiki's policy suggests, there can be other more public-interested motives for sharing it. I agreed. YOu suggested I maybe add part of it to the entry on "rumor." I did, and I also significantly developed other sections of the entry, suggesting that I was not simply out for self-promotion (I sometimes did not sign in, but IP traces note that the users were frequently located in France, which doesn't absolutely prove I"m the editor of those entries, but suggests the probability.) IN the last two years I've published a couple more peer-reviewed case studies on the rumor bomb concept and have another one under review for publication soon. It has been getting citations this past year, and has taken awhile, as these things sometimes do take time to circulate (through academic presentations at conferences and publications on bigger presses--I just had one on Cambridge U. that came out last month) and media attention, and immediate citations do not necessarily mean it will become big or not. I'm not sure that's the point anyway of adding it to a larger article on rumor. But I'm writing you hear, hesitantly, because we in good faith discussed my contribution when I first joined. Now, this last month, I was reading a page on "the public sphere" (I teach MA courses on it and the concept features prominently in some of my publications), and I saw that it misreprsented the authority of different kinds of international scholarship, possibly not deliberately but out of an amateur but enthusiastic knowledge of the subject. A certain editor was responsible for the current formatting (in fact it appears he practically wrote the entire entry), and I suggested that it was content heavy in places, which was inappropriate. I made the mistake of saying it looked as though it came out of a survey course on the subject. He took great offense. I altered nothing in the article. I again made suggestions for how to improve it (I don't have time, and I didn't want an editing war where I would change what he did and he would revert). He then started claiming that all my suggestions were fallacious claims. I looked at his page, and he seems a real character, writing things like this: "Im a smartass to boot. New editors love to use this against me when we disagree. My favorate one is Natasha L. Rodriguez '08 and Matthew Carroll '07 Kent state they didn't like the fact that I deleted them off the list of Ufologist page. In short, if you where thinking about mentioning my spelling and grammor, it really isn't origional." And "Drop me a line, but please be civil. most of the people who contact me are pissed at somthing I did (can you blaim them, I can't)."

He appears to have a history of pissing people off, and I don't have time to study more closely whether he is in constant "edit wars" and possibly a vandal. There are some people who troll around wiki all the time, and get great perverse pleasure out of causing trouble, when they are not necessarily authorities on subjects into which they intervene. IN any case, he harbored a deep grudge it appears. He looked me up and saw that I had edited the rumor page and added a section on the rumor bomb. He deleted the entire section and called in self-promotion. I've carefully read the policies on self-promotion and weight, and I don't see that this is a clear violation of either, though someone who is sensitive to my criticisms on another page could understandably be motivated to see it that way.

Of course, I by no means want to be accused of "sockpuppeting" here. I contact you because we had a very civil exchange and I thought came to a sensible solution. I wonder if you might want to check out our discussion, which beccame nasty, and refer to the history that you and I began, as a type of mediation? If not, maybe you could advise me on what to do? Thanks, Jayson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beardedpig (talk • contribs) 10:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you userfy a page for me?

Can you userfy Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich – and Cheat Everyone Else for me? Thanks. AaronSw (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to userfy a deleted page

Hello, I created a page about the british band Performance_(band) and it was deleted. I think the deletion was unfair because i followed the guidelines for this type of pages, added references and links about notability when asked. I made a request for undeletion but if it fails i'd like to retrieve the content because i spent some time working on it! Thanks, NikoDisorder (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to request a userfy for the deleted article Fire It Up (EP). It recently got deleted probably from lack of references or sources. The Fire It Up EP is an official release from Kid Rock and deserves to have its own Wikipedia page, and eventually get undeleted once I add some references and sources. I also wrote on the talk page of the article, saying I would add some references and sources. I would greatly appreciate it, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrblinky (talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks

Okay, i see why my page was deleted, thanks, i will see if it ever gets popular, i doubt it, thanks, peysu6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peysu6 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

neanderthal ball

hello i was looking at the article "neanderthal ball" and it was a cool idea- i mean it wasnt offensive and harming anyone so i personnaly dont see why it was deleted- it was just outlining th rules and thing of the game- im not trying to criticize you but i think that it should be allowed to be created- just give it a try at least — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerathlete22 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things you and your friends made up. Friday (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Old article had a bad name, but the new one it is ok, I hope.

Friday, I think there is some misunderstanding, please let me explain. You said: “the article (originally Ghost being) has a name that is practically identical to other existent wikiarticle” (or at least, I understood that). I totally agreed, the old name was terrible. So I deleted the contents and redirected the old name to the pre-existent wikiarticle (Ghost). And explained in summaries. Indeed my article had another subject, so I improved the article (and its name) and recreated with a more appropriated one (“Ethereal beings”). But the new article was deleted today. You put in the delete log: ‎ (oops, didn’t meant to leave a redir). If you are referring to my procedure of deleting and redirecting (the old article) as wrong, I have to say: I thought it was doing what you wanted. Obviously wasn’t, so I apologize for that. But, the new article (“Ethereal beings”) is it ok, right? I suppose it doesn’t violate wiki-rules. Thank you, for your time, Hour of Angels (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

Article until now is unique.

Friday, the article not is about legendary creatures. It is about common features of only ethereal creatures (made of mystic energy). I will give you examples: vampires, deadlivings, werewolves, etc not are ethereal creatures but are legendary creatures.
I see this article inside of Wikipedia’s rules, but I agree it is not perfect. However the world wiki-editors can make it in time.
I was planning new articles (translations) from French Wikipedia related with this moved article by you. I wasn’t expecting this, so I stopped the new articles for now because I don’t want waste time. I know you are doing your work but the fact is I am old and have little time so may I ask you when the moved article will have a final position (be restored or deleted)?
Thank you, for your attention, _{Hour of Angels (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)}.

_====reply

Friday take a moment please. As I said, the subject is to expose the common characteristics recorded in literature, etc. About your question: It is not up to me, the editor, decide what is ethereal or not (I didn’t make a taxonomy). Therefore the records speak by themselves (they do that). From that the article lists, shows, describes these frequent features and their relationship with cultures, doctrines, etc. The article only describes what is found in the references. When the article uses the word “class”, “kind”, etc means something in common found in books, etc and not made by my own interpretation. Your comment about vampires (at least the popular vampire) is not congruent with records (so, wasn’t a good example). Even so, you made a point and I totally agree can be thin the separation between a solid entity and an ethereal entity. Indeed this is mentioned in the first lines of the article (take a look). But bottom line, unfortunately again the name of the article brings confusion.

So, I will follow your orientation, change the approach (starting by the name) of the article, adapt the contents and re-publish. Now, I am really considering your suggestion (legendary creature) as a better name inside the article. But I will sleep on that.

Friday, don’t get me wrong, even bringing to me some disappointment I appreciated your considerations in this wikijob. If Wikipedia weren’t good I wouldn’t use my time for it.

Hour of Angels (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

₌₌₌₌

LADentines Day

you deleted an article titled "LADentines day" and i was just wondering as to the reasons. This is a genuine event that was run in Hull this year. I admit it wasn't fully referenced but in order to boost publicity for the event I was going to complete this afterwards, probably this morning.

I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grafton68 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for promoting anything, and it's definitely not for things you and your friends made up in school. Friday (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So, where is the right place?

It appears the question posted to your comment here was not answered. Out of curiosity, where is the correct place? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What? Issues about proposed deletion should presumably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. Friday (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Competence is required

Wikipedia:Competence is required, a page you substantially contributed to, 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:Competence is required and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Competence is required during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rob (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Shunning

Wikipedia:Shunning, a page you substantially contributed to, 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:Shunning and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Shunning during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lorelei Mahoney

I was going to create this page and I see that you had deleted it back in 2008. Wanted to touch base with you before re-posting it. I have done quite a bit of research and have been putting together all of her film, acting, and writing information. Not sure what the original article looked like but the comments make it look like someone was hired to do the page. Also, can you tell me if there was something in particular that led to the comment "maybe this is salvageable." I believe that she is noteworthy but any advice that you have prior to posting would be appreciated. I also would like you to view it when it is posted so that you can comment. --Morning277 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)