User talk:Friday/archive6

Dragonex050 (The Ford Town Albany Formula

I have worked on a formula for a year now, and its proven, but it got deleted before I could even plead my case. Its not vandalism, its a highly intellegent formula that I wrote, damnit!

Kings of Chaos

Why did you delete the page? I am still editing it, and it will have plenty of info! Blulightning 21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry and the Potters

Why did you delete the albums for the band. They had enough material. If you delete album pages like that, why don't you go to The Higher and delete those albums, or hundreds of others with even less info than those albums had. --Nineinchsin 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment from a concerned editor

I'm fucking done with helping wiki. Wikipedia is NOT censored yet you bitch about swearing? How about checking my contributions? None are vandalism. Go ahead, check the solaris 2002 film. The guy who reverted my edits was a total fuckhead but guess what? doesn't matter cause I swore right? Seems wiki is more devoted to being a orgy of 14 yr olds rather then a source for info.

Well you guys can suck my balls. I'm fucking done with contributing to wiki.

that IP vandal.

You may be interested in this: [1], as I've brought up that guy's behavior. ThuranX 04:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite

Well SOMEONE needs to hand out punishment to User:Hipocrite. And it certainly is pertinant to the RFC StuRat #2 because that's where he posted it. -THB 12:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody needs to hand out punishment. Punishment does not help build the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So why do you delight in punishing innocent contributors? 8-(( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MuffinCutter (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

U.S.. Constituionil issue

Wikipedia: Just a line to say thanx for your explanation of Article III, Sec3. Fjheart Fjheart 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Legion

I was in the process of creating an article on a band, Legion[ http://www.myspace.com/legionkicksyourbandsass ][ http://legion.bigrosslabs.com/site/index.php ] when you deleted it. I am not a part of the band, and I do not know any of the Members personally. I dont understand why they are not allowed to have an article when other bands are.

User:Guitarpunk101

You warned this editor earlier. He has now received five warnings, ans persists in adding articles about his NN band. I posted into WP:AIV, but nothing happened. Would you take a look, please?--Anthony.bradbury 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I am foolishly new to the Wiki world, and know only that my roomate and good friend swears by the Wikipedia and turns to it for resolution of many issues. I thought that it contained anything added to it, pending peer revision. i don't know anything at all about programming or submissions, so it took me a good part of the day to put up the "Ben baumer" entry. Still can't figure why I missed the capitalization in his last name, but as I've said, new to all of this. You cited vanity as one of the reasons for dismissal, and i suppose that is valid, though it was not the subject who posted, but I see your point. I guess all i want is to be able to save the text so I don't feel totally wasteful.. How can I do this? thank you for your time, but one question remains: how famous does someone have to get to warrant a page? Ben certainly contributes more to the world than all of the video games so often included, FEATURED even, in the Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for your time, Frank

Human cheese

The article Human cheese is now better sourced, with information from a [newspaper column] by Dan Savage. You may want to take a look at the current version of the Human cheese article and perhaps change your vote. --Eastmain 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Bandal!!!1

Hey,

Would you please consider a couple of links for me?

warnings

violation

Thanks! V-Man737 16:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's some unhelpful editing, to be sure. However it looks like the last was about an hour and a half ago- so it's apparently already stopped. We try to be conservative about IP blocks, due to the risk of collatoral damage. Friday (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued conflict of interest: Blocking User:light current

As you've been warned many times now, your continued use of your Admin powers to block Ref Desk inclusionists is a conflict of interest since you remain opposed to the inclusionist viewpoint at the Ref Desk. What specific incident(s) do you use to justify your latest block of User:light current ? Also, why is there no mention of this action at AN/I ? StuRat 16:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The block was explained on his talk page, as is standard procedure. The block was also reviewed, and upheld, by a not-previously-involved admin. It's there on the talk page, unless he's deleted it. Friday (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest notification

I've issued a complaint about your continued Ref Desk conflict of interest here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Admin:Friday__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D. StuRat 17:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

I'd advise against making seperate articles for minor characters in a manga. If there's little chance the article can evolve past a small stub, you might consider merging this content into the main article. Friday 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Friday (wish it was!)

I'm afraid I've just finished doing so. A merge was proposed for the article Minor Characters of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, but it was felt that merging the two would make the article JoJo's Bizarre Adventure too cluttered (see the talk page). I do understand your reasoning though. In the end it was quite difficult to decide what to do, but I created separate pages since a lot of the sections on Minor Characters of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure already exist as separate pages anyway.

I've:

• Created pages for each of the sections at Minor Characters of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure that already contained any information regarding a character and did not already exist as another page
• Linked to it from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure in a wikitable
• Tagged them with {{Expand|date=January 2007}}, as was done to the original article
• Added them to Category:JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters

However, if any of this is a big problem, feel free to revert and speedy delete. I'll leave Minor Characters of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure as is for the time being. —Xhantar^Talk 18:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as any kind of major problem- I was just makin a suggestion based on what I saw at the time. Thanks for the reply. Friday (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

RD

There is no point in going to the RD Talk page any more than there is to go to the en mailing list. Both are cesspools of vitriol. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to change that. If you're interested, theres a Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline that is in reasonably good shape, IMO. In case you think I'm being a total hardass, check out Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Silly_or_off-topic_is_not_necessarily_bad where I clarified my position. There's room for harmless fun, certainly. I don't think anyone's really disagreeing with this. Some of the "fun" crosses a line so that it's no longer "harmless", and this is what we want to avoid. Friday (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

enough

dude, its called alittle school rivalry...let it go.

so its alright for them to put stuff on their own stuff about our school being "stupid as shit"

joke?

does it look like a joke?

i mean... i know its a little slopy, its still a work in progress.

i know it says hes an actor and all that, but its cause im not finished yet, i coppied the shell of the artical from brad pitts, just so i'd have a template to work on.

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of article Bad Flirt (band)

Hi - I am contacting you regarding the article Bad Flirt (band) that was recently speedy deleted. I believe this article was inproperly speedy deleted and I am wondering if you could restore it. As stated in the Wikipedia:Notability (music) policy, notability cannot be used as criterion for speedy deletion. The admin who deleted the article claimed it was deleted because it was not about a notable band. I notice you have contributed extensively to the musc notability discussion so I was hoping you might see the problem here and help to address it. I am prepared to re-write the article to ensure it meets Wikipedia quality and notability standards. Many thanks. Iradub 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure Friday, I'll put it up on AFD to see what happens. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your insight would be greatly appreciated at the AfD page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Flirt (band) Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for undeleting! Friday (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Come again?

I fail to see how an image, with no associated caption, can be construed as advocacy. I removed the political caption. What's more, her name is linked to her biography. If I had wanted to be sneaky, I could have made an invisible redirect to her campaign article. I have reduced the size, and any political connotations. That is as far as I am prepared to bend. There is no policy about this, only a guideline. There is a very big difference. If you wish to see guidelines changed to policy, feel free to campaign for that here. Jeffpw 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What? Why do we need "rules"? Isn't a shared understanding of the goals of the project enough to guide us in this case? Your purpose of political advocacy is very clear from this version of your page. It's simply not credible for you to deny any intent of political advocacy under these circumstances, despite the changes you've made. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Friday (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanga (website)

Would you mind having a look at Tanga (website). I think it should be speedied for G11 - Blatant advertising. It has already been speedied once today. It's proponent keeps removing the speedy tag. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Ah. The moment has passed. RAHaworth got rid of it. thanks anyway --Tagishsimon (talk)

Sigh

Here we go again David D. (Talk) 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

I can edit again, Thanks JJGD 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Friday (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but I am not happy

I just issued THB a rather strong warning, not so much on personal attacks as on that rubbish argument about how "you can't prove that I was alluding to what I was obviously alluding to." I'm of the opinion that we don't have to tolerate much more behavior like that, but please do let me know if I was too harsh or if my comments ought to be further reviewed. -- SCZenz 23:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your warning was entirely appropriate. But what do we know, we're just a couple of trolls. ;-) Friday (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I really do wonder if I've gone mad and become a troll; but I figure a respected and experienced member of the community would tell me if I had. -- SCZenz 23:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't wonder, it is clear who is trying to kiss the boundary of the guidelines. The fact they even resort to the "you can't prove that I was alluding to" along with the crocodile tears and indignation seems to suggest they are trying to bait. It seems like tag team wrestling and i expect they'll just keep coming back for more. Frat boy humour and free speech on a reference desk seem like a silly cause to martyr yourself for. Their choice I guess. David D. (Talk) 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dyestat

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Dyestat

I just noticed that this article was recreated with a bunch of crap. However, I never noticed the original article get deleted (it had been on my watchlist) in December. I am assuming it got speedy deleted, or was there an AfD for it, i can only find one from 2005?

The last time i saw the article it was in pretty good shape and certainly not advertising; so i disagree with the edit summary written by the admin that last deleted this article. Could you check the deleted version in the history and give me your unbiased opinion? It's main problem is that being a high school site it gets a ton of vandalism (as can be seen by the content of the recreated article). Personally, i think this is a very significant web site for the sport of track and field. Thanks for your help and opinion. David D. (Talk) 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at the most recently deleted version, I can sorta see why it'd be deleted as an advert. It contained a bunch of links to various pages on that website. No sources, no assertion of significance. But it wasn't the kind of blatant advertising we sometimes see ("Come visit the BEST website around!!"). Anyway, it looks like it was a speedy- given the history here, I'm not sure I'd have speedied it myself, but then again I see no immediate reason why it's encyclopedia material, either. It's easy to read this and think, "Alright, some guy is trying to promote his website". If it's really significant, there ought to be sources talking about it- and I really doubt any of the people deleting it would have done so if it were sourced. Friday (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I am not that interested in keeping it, other than the fact I had to keep reverting the vandalism. Might be best to protect it against recreation. Still, I'll see if there are sources, I'd be very surprised if there are not. David D. (Talk) 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That didn't take too long. Using google news there are five independant sources, which does seem to establish it as a credible source at the national level. Of course five is not that many, I'll continue to dig. David D. (Talk) 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also cited by USATF the governing body of track and field in the US. Not sure if that makes it notable or not but certainly not a trvial site. David D. (Talk) 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, man.

Is this necessary? How many more of these will I have to point out to you? WTF man? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you do understand notability. You probably think I don't understand it. We have a difference of opinion- that's allowed. Sorry if my remark offended you; I was just giving my opinion. Friday (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem. Opinions are fine, but that was a bit beyond what's necessary. And if it wasn't one of many similar comments, I probably wouldn't be bothered, but this is getting to be ridiculous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Jeff, perhaps you should practice what you preach. >Radiant< 12:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're not aware of the history behind this, so perhaps you should change that before trying to get another one of your digs in? Not going to spam Friday's talk page any further with you, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeff-O-Meter for today... personal attacks: 3, actual arguments: 0. >Radiant< 13:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Off Topic?

First I'm dragged over to the RefDesk talk page, accused of disruptive and inappropriate behaviour. Later on, in my defense, I provide an analysis of this so-called disruptive behaviour, including, as an example, the whole Vichy France issue.

How is this off topic? The topic was my alleged inappropriate behaviour, and my response was my defense against this accusation. It's got nothing to do with redebating the Vichy France issue, and is directly related to the topic under discussion.

Is this how things work here? An accusation is on-topic, yet a defense to that accusation is off topic?

Please either explain to me why my post was "off topic", or restore it. Loomis 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying accusations are on-topic. Generally, user conduct issues should be discussed on user talk pages. The ref desk talk page is for talking about the ref desk. Friday (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Book?

Greetings,

Thou have taken what I said wrongly. I would have had accurate information, since I know the future author personally. Not "personal knowledge or opinions", it would be the truth

Fare thee well, Alexander the Great AlexanderTG 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem - the "truth", based on your own personal knowledge rather than on a source. And, did you say future author? Certainly a book that's not written yet is unlikely to be covered in proper sources. Friday (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

DUDE. Don't you get it? He's Alexander the Great!! Visiting the year 2007 just as if Bill and Ted themselves (may they party on in peace) had picked him up! That's why everything happening "now" is "the future" to him! Or maybe we're all high(what on earth am I really trying to link here??) and you should never edit Wikipedia when you're high. V-Man737 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. Al, thou shouldst brush up upon thine Early Modern English.) V-Man737 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment

Please stop following me around and stalking me. Otherwise I WILL report you. No more warnings will be issued.--Light current 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You must be referring to this message I left for you. This is a collaborative project. When other editors bring a concern to your attention, please don't just blow them off. It's rude and counterproductive. Friday (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You may be interested in this thread on the admin noticeboard. It is not quite going in the direction that LC appears to like. >Radiant< 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bah. Thanks for the pointer. I have opinions but I can't shake the feeling that discussion of this issue only makes it worse, not better. Normally I'd never suggest simply refusing to engage an editor who seems to want to, but reasoning has been tried many times by many editors and hasn't lead anywhere useful. I'm out of ideas. Friday (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its obvious why isnt it? Birds of a feather?--Light current 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

RX-8 owner...

I am indeed. In fact, I have two... as part of a transition towards selling the older one and hopefully getting a CX-7. At least, that's what I am telling myself is my intention. :) How are you liking the Mazdaspeed 3? I haven't seen one yet, but they look pretty slick from the reviews. -- Renesis (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Two?!? Damn. Can adults really fit in the back seat? I've been drooling over the rx8 since it came out, but needed something a bit more practical. I really like the speed 3- I'm not used to fwd (a 96 miata has been my daily driver til now) but its a great car. Reasonably roomy but still feels tight. Of course the roads here have been cold and salty and I'm still breaking it in, so I haven't been hitting it too hard yet. Even in third gear, traction can go away in a heartbeat when you accelerate hard. I'm going to try to snap a good picture of it or two and put it in the Mazdaspeed 3 article. It looks mostly like a normal 3- which is something I like. No cop will give this station wagon a second look, but the strong engine makes it very easy to speed ridiculously. Friday (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tough call

What do you make of all this? [2][3][4][5]

I can't figure out if this is socketry or impersonation...

(For a more general perspective, here are the IP's contribs and Tourskin's contribs)

Is it just someone who's sometimes editing while not logged in for some reason? Friday (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing just happened to me...! an IP posted on my talk page, signing with a user name. I asked the user about it. Apparently the user sometimes edits without signing in. Hm. V-Man737 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Friday. Thanks for your message on my talk page. On principle, I completely agree with you. You are right that if he makes an unconstructive edit - at a very basic level - it is entirely correct you should change it. If he can't deal with that civilly, it is his problem, not yours.

I guess I just naturally try to avoid conflict, and so would not have made those edits simply because I knew (as I'm sure you did) how LC would react. I get distracted from improving the encyclopaedia enough by LC's behaviour, without getting involved in another dispute that I consider to be avoidable.

I have no sympathy with his complaint, though, and am aware that attempt to focus this issue on a meritless "stalking" claim is merely a distraction from LC's behaviour. Thanks again for your comment. Rockpocket 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and this is always a tough call. Part of me was thinking "the more we're willing to let things slide, the more he'll calm down" but then again part of me thought "If he requires being tiptoed around in order to not fly off the handle, this cannot work". Normally I'd warn a user against edit warring when doing such a revert (he had previously been reverted by someone else, and he'd put back the same unhelpful change), but I knew that communicating with him directly would only make things worse in this particular case. Obviously in retrospect, I could have chosen to do things differently and it might have helped. Or, it might have just been someone else he blew up at, who knows. Maybe it's better that he attracted a lot of attention and got himself a long block- we already have seen that short ones don't tend to help. Hopefully the one month + talk page protection will give him the idea that he really does need to change his behavior, rather than expecting Wikipedia to bend to suit his needs. Friday (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know this wasn't your intention, but in the end the course of action that resulted - LC bringing his behaviour to the attention of the community via a complaint about you - was probably the best result for thr project. When I said your actions were "regrettable", I meant from LC's point-of-view. But thinking about it, what is really regrettable is that he was unwilling or unable to forsee how this would play out - even after he had been warned time and time again. We have all spent way too much time trying to find a way Wikipedia could accomodate LC. Perhaps too long. Anyway, please rest assured that I have no problems with your interactions with LC, and that I wouldn't have done it myself is not a criticism (infact, it probably says more about me than it does abou you!). If LC can take advantage of his last chance, then great, otherwise this can be put to bed and we can all move on. Rockpocket 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of liberta

I was looking at that article for a while now, I stumbled onto it while new page patrolling and was for once stumped. I assumed that what you did was what should have been done, but paused for a moment, when is that kind of thing notable? 'Cause there are other articles on these micronations around. Presumably that was deleted as it was purely an internet one? SGGH 19:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There were no sources- to me that's a huge reason. Only subjects with nontrivial coverage in multiple independant sources are candidates for articles. As it was, it's basically just a website. We can't do articles based solely on some random person's website. Friday (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

my petition

you might as well delete the article for me since i dont know enough about wikipedia code to put the link to it on the community portal with a different name

i mean its obvious "User:Mishke/petition" wont draw many hits

by the way,you an admin or something?id like to know so that i can decide whether to think of you as a freindly or not

there is one big reason i dont like admins,they always turn out like politicians,you might get a few good ones,but most end up hoisting themselves high above the striking distance of intelligent people like me

oh by the way,blue cheese,rice cakes,and licorice ARE food,youll find out easily if you look them up in the dictionary

and you do know that cultural change on a wikipedia scale cant occur unless you change the minds and hearts of people,which inturn cant be done unless freewill is severely squashed,which is largely agasint a good few laws here in the united states,and my own religion laws against running around abd beating up people to your hearts delight (as a blunt yet informative example,) were created so that actions by other people out of freewill would be penalized if they harmed another person`s right to freewill for example,law basically says "no tying up of people" "no kidnapping" etc.

ive noticed often (maybe its just from being the victim of admin target practice) that in some forums and places much like this that admins will often use there powers to assassinate people they dont like,especially users that validly threaten there position with complaints of misconduct

--конфета металл 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I find Friday to be polite and responsible; whether or not a person is an admin shouldn't prejudice one's attitude toward them. I agree that sysops of forums sometimes usurp their "power," but that is something that is closely checked in Wikipedia; in addition, the way the admin system works is in such a way as to try to minimize the separation between admins and "regular" users. Really, being an admin is no big deal. V-Man737 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, by the way, and I absolutely agree that we shouldn't worry about who has the admin buttons or not. We're all just editors. Friday (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mishke, are you talking about things that have happened here, or on other websites? I see only a small number of edits in your contributions, and no sign of any trouble with other editors, admins or not. But, if you need help with something, let me know and I'll do whatever I can. Friday (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Our mutual friend

I agree with your most recent post on AN/I. The flip side, if I might be so bold, is that any utterly non disruptive account that someone may come to suspect... should, can I controversially suggest, be tolerated? --Dweller 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree. The benefit of the project generally outweighs concerns involving a single editor. Wise folks have already looked the other way when he's made useful contributions while blocked. Friday (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You and SCZenz impress me more and more, the more I interact with you. --Dweller 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree here too. The positive contributions have always been significant and if any new account focuses on that aspect of editing wikipedia will benefit. David D. (Talk) 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope!

Heh you guessed right! Maverick423 16:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin opinion

What's the deal? Seems like we have a specialist on our hands, but I have no clue what to make of (or do about) all this. Perhaps if she got her dog back, everything would calm down? V-Man737 13:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC) PS - thanks for being patient with my constant rattlings for your administrative opinions.

Note

The issue about WP:BIO and such has ended up on arbitration. Since I recall a comment by you that the changes the issue was about really weren't all that sweeping, perhaps you'd care to comment on this. Thanks. >Radiant< 10:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Googlegate

Yes, there are people talking about it. Its on Gizmodo.com for example, as well as various other blogs.

Gizmodo

Gizmodo is a reliable source backed by Manhattan Media News. It is a news agency that uses a blog format to disperse its articles.

AfD Progressive Bloggers

You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you.Edivorce 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mac warranty

It might only be the laptops. You can add memory I think, but most of the parts are in a sealed compartment that can't be opened without obviously damaging it. I think they also use evidence tape. --froth^T 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Blogging Tories

You have edited the article Blogging Tories. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you." Edivorce 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

re:hey are you simular to me

are you bored like me sitting,in the house doing nothing?

            from unknown name person

Anonymous Users

Perhaps my words were overly harsh, but I was understandably angry that an entire question of mine was removed by this anonymous user because s/he took it upon him/herself to deem it inappropriate, and only meant to get into an argument. It clearly wasn't inappropriate to anyone but that person. The question sparked an entirely civil and enlightening discussion among a great deal of users. One actually called it "the RefDesk at its best". Being that it was a completely appropriate question, and restored within minutes of its deletion, this anonymous user was obviously in the wrong, and should have apoligized. Instead, s/he made further negative comments about me. Keep in mind also that according to WP:WHY, anonymous users are restricted to a certain degree with regards to editing. Deleting someone's question along with a lengthy friendly discussion on the topic is a rather severe thing to do. I doubt you wouldn't have been as irritated by it as I was. Yet will this anonymous user even be left a message that it was wrong to have deleted my question? Of course not. Without a user ID, there's no talk page to even put it on. Loomis 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

From my page, you ask:--GordonWatts 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the talk pages where some controversy has erupted, I have some ideas on what may help resolve the dispute. First, stop trying to promote yourself as an expert here on Wikipedia -it's irrelevant. There's a whole internet out there you can do this on, just keep it off Wikipedia. Also, you say you're not editing Schiavo-related pages, but you're still arguing on their talk pages. Why? Wouldn't it be better to just drop it? The alleged conflict of interest is a very serious issue. If there's ample evidence that you're here to promote yourself and your own opinions rather than being here to produce a neutral encyclopedia, the ban becomes a very real possibility. If you're here for the good of the project rather than for self-promotion and soapboxing, you need to start working much harder to demonstrate this. Friday (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions; Like I said: While I don't edit as much nowadays as in the past (I don't get paid to edit), I usually don't have much argument over my edits, or, if I do, we usually get over it. Sometimes my suggestions gain concensus -sometimes not, but see my edit history on those links near the last paragraph on my RfBan page -the ones that 10 of trades sought and that Orange Monster allege existed; I posted a few links. That should answer your questions; As long as people don't poke at me, I won't answer back, and even if they do, I might not answer back.--GordonWatts 19:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Thanks for the reply. Friday (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Community Ban Discussion

You said on the community ban discussion of User:GordonWatts, "why are people talking about how other editors have been rude to him?". That would have been me. I was just showing that User:Calton (who submitted the community ban request) is very rude and often incivil. By that, I was showing that some of the comments made by User:GordonWatts were responses to User:Calton and at times defenses of his (User:GordonWatts) statements and that the back-and-forth between User:Calton and User:GordonWatts was instigated by User:Calton by his rude and incivil comments as it has in many, many other occasions.

My apologizes for taking the discussion off topic, I was just trying to show that User:Calton was also at fault in this situation. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no big deal. And it's true that GW has been treated poorly. If the only problem with him was him fighting with Calton, this would be understandable. I see the conflict of interest as a major issue, though. Friday (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PlayRadioPlay!

It appears we work from opposite ends. I've closed the debate and went to delete it and you'd done it already. I've salted the page. Steve block Talk 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And you got your peanut butter on my chocolate! Whatever works :) Friday (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Normally I hate peanut butter, but just this once... :) Steve block Talk 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Friday

Hi Friday...my name is Floyd Bowman, and I would like to ask a question concerning my article I posted named "Ryan Bowman." I would like to ask why it has been deleted, for it has just as much importance as half of the articles posted. It is a big story, one that has been around for a few years...and it is very important to get it out to the general public. You see, Ryan Bowman is my brother, and he's been missing...and I thought it would be my duty to get the story out there, Wikipedia preferably. Wikipedia, as you obviously know is the main source of many individual's information, and I would find it an insult to Ryan's memory to delete this very important article. Please get back to me with a response.

Floyd

No original research

From my talk page, here is a transplanted reply.--GordonWatts 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:No original research. Since this is an encyclopedia, editors must use sources, not be the source. Phone calls you've had are irrelevant here. Keep in mind that talk page discussion should conform to our core content policies- original research isn't appropriate on talk pages. Friday (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not advocating using my phone call to another editor AS a source. (As a news reporter, if I wanted to use MYSELF as a source, I need not go to another editor -I myself, as a first-hand witness to many Schiavo event AM a source myself -no different than any other of the hundreds of writers who canvassed/visited that Terri Schiavo's hospice that month.) Rather, all I was trying to demonstrate, Friday, was that the other editor was kind enough to speak to me on the phone -that's all -no request on my part to use our phone call as any source of source here. I know it's been getting thick lately, but, please don't read into my writings something I didn't actually say. No offense meant.--GordonWatts 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the little box on your userpage...

...exactly how many more snide comments should I expect from you today? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be snide at you, but when people are in strong disagreement it becomes easier for things to be seen that way, I suppose. The merge suggestion was meant to be funny, but to make a serious point too. I was half tempted to make the page into a redirect, but this would have interfered with your editing of it. I have no ill feelings toward you, but I do think you're being way too fanatic about this at the moment. Friday (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You've been a dick to me almost non-stop this week. It's very tiring, and I do not deserve it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually trying to be funny with the "Dear Vile Dark Lord" stuff too, in hopes of diffusing any ill feelings, but I see that I failed. I'm sorry. Friday (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't had a history of it, maybe it would have diffused it. It's difficult to see it any other way, but perhaps that's why I'm so "dangerous." --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

...and I assume you have decided to ignore the last year or so, too? What are you grasping at? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" isn't going to go away. I think it's best for everyone if you stop fighting that particular battle. Friday (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it's in everyone's interest if we start a renewed focus on it. It's obvious it's causing problems. Would you like to be part of the problem or the solution? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously we're all here to help. I dunno, I think maybe we're too far apart on too many things to have much meaningful discourse. But the eternal optimist in me always likes to think everything can be solved by talking it out. I'm at a loss for what else to say at the moment, though- I can't see how more bureaucracy could possibly help the project. Friday (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks!!

I really appreciate your quick help! Many many thanks!! :=) CoYep 15:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What part of the word vandalism don't you understand?

What part of the word vandalism don't you understand? Somebody marked an article for deletion; and when the page is updated to answer the criticism by supplying external links to justify the article's retention, the pertinent information has been destroyed.

Last time I looked, that meets the definition of vandalism, regardless of who does it. Discpad 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Friday (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Terry Shannon nominated for Wikipedia deletion

• Good call on that AfD, by the way. Hopefully someone from the army of hosiery will source it now. EliminatorJR 19:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is a moot point now, since the article is no longer slated for deletion. Discpad 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz

ER

No problem, thanks for responding! I was wondering if it was worth it to put that into my sig. Just H^{editor review} 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I responded again, thank you for the debate. What Jimbo did may have been in good faith, I cannot peer into his soul just by his words and actions on that instance, but irregardless of his motives, Wikipedia has lost a valuable contributor due to his actions and lack of moral leadership. If Jimbo acts unequivocably as the "head wikipedian", what kind of example is that for us lowly peons? If it were up to me, i'd start some kind of P2P Wikipedia, similiar to what Kazaa tried for music, but I don't have the technical or legal expertise, so there's not much I can do other than voice my dismay at Wales' occasional tyrannical actions like these. Just H^{editor review} 03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you. Why would you say Wikipedia has lost an editor? A desysoping is not a ban. If Yanksox choses to leave, that is his choice. Don't you think the overall good of the project is more important than whether any one editor currently has the sysop bit or not? It's no big deal; nobody's even saying he can never have it back. Jimbo made a temporary solution and referred the matter to Arbcom for longterm resolution- what's wrong with that? I can't see why you'd use the word tyrannical in this case- Jimbo was reasonable, explained himself fully, and things like this very rarely happen. Where's the problem? Friday (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A butterfly is just a caterpillar with wings when you get down to it. But, if you rip the wings off a butterfly, he doesn't revert to being a caterpillar again, he just becomes a deformed butterfly. People are no different. I've seen it in real life, and I saw some of the signs with Yanksox (the page blanking). What makes me wonder why Jimbo acted in good faith is how he could so callously just rip off the wings of that butterfly rather than trying to figure out why he's sick.

Yanksox is likely never going to get back his "wings"(adminship), we both know that, and if the person behind him truly did invest a part of themselves in this website as it seems many do, there's going to be an emotional scar there caused just because Jimbo felt lazy and decided to "turn off the sysop bit" rather than try to do what a Wikipedian is supposed to do according to all the wiki-propaganda(discuss, compromise, empathize, etc.) Just because it's rare doesn't change the fact that it's wrong and that someone was harmed here and that Jimbo seems to have no worries about that. Just H^{editor review} 13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Emotional scars? Wings being ripped off? This is just too dramatic and over the top for me. If Yanksox was behaving erratically, this is more reason to remove the bit for now, not less. It's just about harm reduction, but you're taking it as a personal insult. Personalizing things that aren't personal causes a great deal of wasted time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't need to make it personal. Friday (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you

Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I see no indication that I'm involved in the above diff, but I see my name on your big list, with no explanation of how I'm involved in this case. I don't see that I am involved in this case. Friday (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh?? Now, I'm the one confused now. I know it's hard to remember all your edits -and your involvement wasn't "major," but you did make quite a few posts in this matter, and I don't see how you could have forgotten them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard&diff=109823827&oldid=109792611

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard&diff=109673043&oldid=109671548

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard&diff=109661123&oldid=109659117

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard&diff=108881010&oldid=108879582

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard&diff=108678985&oldid=108678046

If you forgot all those posts' involvement, don't you think you just might have overlooked a fact or two in opining on my matter? Remember: You don't know me, and snap decisions (like I see above) can very often be inaccurate! Most of your 5 suggestions (above links), right or wrong, seemed reasonable, Friday, but this last one here was pretty condescending: You don't know if I am good or bad for the project. If I am so bad, then, prey tell, why have I not been disciplined any more than these two times? Things that make you go 'Hmm...' All the same, you opinion is welcome, but if you do opine, please study up on all the facts and allegations first, and the original page might be a good place to start. In any case, if you are too busy, I will understand. Have a nice day.--GordonWatts 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

just help please

i am doing what wiki is made for! i can list them to. but i dont like being blamed for a crime i never did. so are wiki addm. playing the blame game or what? i just want to know what am i doing wrong? --Lolicon(Anti Child Porn)Saikano 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

images are needed

These images are needed for the article I'm writing. Please undelete them. I can not take these pictures myself.

• Image:Upright vacuum cleaner.jpg

• Image:Scrub sponges.jpg

• Image:Yarn toilet brush.jpg

-- Chuck Marean 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like they were deleted as fair use images? I don't do a lot with images, so I'm not inclined to overrule somebody else's deletion. Maybe try going to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you believe they were deleted wrongly. Friday (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

wwasp / Aspen Education Group

Maybe I am in over my head. I am trying to make a portrait of some institutions in another culture, which from an European view point are just as bad as the russian Gulags were for people back in the 1930's. Of course we now know the truth about what went on back then. No children have ever been improved by eating their own vomit etc. What would it take to remove the undelete tags. We are talking real newpapers reports about read deaths. And the number of casulties would rise [6]

I dont think that I have used wikipedia as a platform for attack. I have described the industry as others have described the People Temple group, which also were cheered when before they made suicide. A concept for business, which consist of dragging a child out of the child own bed in the middle of the night in handcuff in order to transport it to some torment so the child can become an adult fast and intense is a difficult task to describe in a positive manner.

How would you describe it positive?

Covergaard 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bry Webb

For what it's worth, I don't agree that an individual musician should ever be merged into a band's article. For one thing, the musician then doesn't appear in the appropriate musician categories. And for another, musicians sometimes collaborate with other projects outside of their main band. As far as I'm concerned, the only time a musician and his band should ever be treated in a single article, rather than separate ones, is in cases (e.g. Bright Eyes) where the band is the musician. Bearcat 19:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Or when there's nothing verifiable to be said about the individual that would allow us to have an encyclopedia article about them. Friday (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Until such time as Wikipedia decides to discourage or forbid stubs, I respectfully disagree that the length of an article is or should be a consideration that enters into whether the topic merits an article or just a redirect to another one. YMMV. Bearcat 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

May I request a copy of my articles, which were deleted?

Covergaard 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand

By all means leave my orginal statement as it is and I'll add to it, I need help later on though establishing diffs RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Friday (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've sorted it, any chance you could show the diffs that show communication has failed? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bonney Eberndu

(Reply to comment left at User talk:Cbrown1023) Actually, the sources were in the national UK media - The Times, The Guardian, the BBC. This was a high-profile case that, in a UK context, is notable. Eberndu meets the letter of WP:BIO - multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources independent of the subject themselves - as four separate articles, in mainstream media, were written purely about him. I appreciate that from a US or overseas perspective it may seem like a fairly minor event, but Wikipedia needs to avoid national bias. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for help: Puncture fairy

I created an article entitled Puncture fairy. It was proposed for speedy deletion. I posted a hangon' note and gave good reasons to keep it on the talk page. It was then deleted without giving any answer to those reasons. Please help. I would like a copy of the article, and a second opinion, and a rational reply to my request to keep it. Bards 13:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say on the talk page, before it suddenly disappeared, that the article follows similar articles such as Magic smoke and Fearsome critters. Bards 13:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday: This was deleted on a CSD run. Looking back it doesn't appear to be nonsense, but a non-notable term used on cycling forums. I asked for sources, but was met with an accusation of bad faith. – Steel 13:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Steel359 lies. Look at his talk page. He asked for "non-trivial" sources. I replied saying there are over a thousand minor sources. This is to be expected for a comparatively recent term in common usage. It is used in cycling forums and in cycling clubs, and by avid cyclists. I hope to find stronger sources, but first I wish to reverse the speedy deletion and open debate. Bards 13:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i you really want this to stay deleted, so be it. There is nothing else I can do; you are in charge here. But I think you are wrong. Bards 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no inclination to help someone who calls people names. However, if this were a valid topic I'd restore it anyway, for the good of the project, not because you asked. But, Wikipedia is not a slang guide. If there aren't sufficient sources such that an encyclopedia article could be made on this topic, then there's little to be done. Friday (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Shore Mall

That article was unfairly deleted if you ask me. So what if it's not enough? I created the page as a stub, in hopes that someone would discover it and expand it beyond stub status, thus making it a worthy article. Why don't you go ahead and nuke ALL the damn stubs on Wikipedia, Mr. Deletionist?! TenPoundHammer 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to believe that the mall has gotten non-trivial coverage in reliable sources? This is what would allow there to be an encyclopedia article (not a directory entry) on this topic. Friday (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sorry for snapping at you a bit in my previous talk; I'm just a little peeved that the article was deleted when there're so many articles out there just like it (malls of questionable notability). This page indicates that the mall is a prominent mall in the Atlantic City area (keep in mind that Atlantic City proper doesn't have a traditional mall, just two small malls attached to casinos). Also, this page indicates that the mall's Boscov's is the highest grossing in the chain. The next time, please try not to be so swift with deleting a page - maybe just put an AfD nom up instead of going for a speedy. I would appreciate that. TenPoundHammer 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no worries. As for the other articles, one inappropriate article does not justify another. We can go the AFD route, even now, if you'd really prefer. But, the result seems like it'd be obvious, doesn't it? Without sufficient coverage I don't see that there can be any other result. If the result is the same, spending more time arriving there is time wasted, is it not? Friday (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but if it's nominated for AfD, there's still the possibility that the AfD nomination might end up with a "keep" or "comment" vote. TenPoundHammer 20:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD sometimes gives random, true. But, we don't want AFD to be random. Ideally we'd like it to be consistent, and be based on an application of policies and good old common sense. So we shouldn't use AFD in hopes of the die roll resulting in a wrong answer. Friday (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look

I can't remember whether stuff like this is an issue... Would you mind taking a look? It seems the user is very young, and doesn't mind telling people so. V-Man737 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I sorta wish people wouldn't announce their ages like this. But, I don't see that anything needs to be done about it either. Any attempt to do so would only bring more attention. Friday (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Woodbine Avenue

Hello, I've restored the Woodbine Avenue article. The discussion at the AFD made it pretty clear that that particular article should be kept. Moreover, all other major arterial roads in Toronto have articles, as can be seen by the template at the foot of that page. It would seem odd to have the one street be a red link. Most other cities in Canada, and elsewhere, are equally well covered. - SimonP 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One inappropriate article doesn't justify another. I see no valid reasons for keeping Woodbine that were given on AFD. People are just saying "arterial road", as though this is somehow relevant. Just because we're already on the way to turning the encyclopedia into "list of Canadian roads" doesn't mean we should continue down this path. Friday (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've brought this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 6 for further input. Friday (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My User Page

Greetings,

I have had the misfortune of someone altering my user page adversely. In other words, someone messed it up. Is this allowed on Wikipedia? We need justice!

Fare thee well, AlexanderTG 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean this, it looks like garden-variety vandalism. Friday (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean. BTW, how do I add those little colored sticker things? You know, the ones that say stuff like "I speak advanced English"

Fare thee well, AlexanderTG 18:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Behold I say unto thee, the peoples of Wikipedia do call these little colored sticker things "userboxes." And behold, if thou dost click upon that there link that I have placed for thee, thou shalt be tutored in the ways of userboxeringism. But, beware! A two-fold warning I give unto thee. For see, if thou desirest user boxes, thou wilt have much toil and affliction in obtaining them, as they are scattered like unto the many nations that thou hast scattered. And behold, when thou hast found the userboxes thou desirest, beware! For thou shalt still feel that thou hast not enough. But I say unto thee, if thy will is strong, thou canst resist the userbox temptation, and thy user page shall remain humble in appearance, unlike mine. ;_; V-Man737 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Saikano, again

I honestly don't know what to do with this guy. I'm leaning further and further towards believing he's a troll rather than a misguided kid. He's claimed to be a minor, and he's claimed not to be a minor. He posted his address once and telephone number another time. He's been mildly disruptive (especially with his expressions of love for lolicon), though I haven't seen anything necessarily blockable from him. Now there's this edit to his user page. If he had made some good faith or useful edits to the encyclopedia, I wouldn't bother. The last edit I can see looking at his contributions history was to the anime Saikano on February 22, and since then he has done absolutely nothing helpful in regards to the encyclopedia. I came here, since you're keeping an eye on him, and I honestly have no clue what the next step should be in dealing with him. AniMate 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up about User talk:Ashibaka. He's on his own now. —dgies^t_c 02:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I figured you might want to distance yourself given the nature of some of the more bizarre statements this editor has made. Friday (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't like me, I'm not a big fan of you lately...

...but if you're going to highlight the don't be a dick metapage on your userpage, then don't be a dick. So tiring. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we disagree without the namecalling? There's no reason this disagreement should be personal, so don't try to make it personal. I don't dislike you. But, I find your discussion of this issue to border on disruptive at times. I was serious in my comment- you've been around for years and you still refuse to accept that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. That's your choice- you don't have to accept this, just as you don't have to participate here. But don't expect the project to turn into a bureaucracy just because you won't stop insisting that it should be one. Friday (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on already. Yeah, as if the tone wasn't set with the "dangerous" comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I quite like both of you. And if enough people round here dropped messages like this one, I think there'd be less Wikistress. --Dweller 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, when good editors fight each other it's frustrating. Politely agree to disagree and at least listen to the other opinion. It's just impossible for everyone to agree on all things. And the world would be a boring place if we did. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks guys. Jeff, I think we both sometimes let ourselves get peeved when we disagree with each other. So, sorry if I come off sounding harsh. I'll maybe try one more way of explaining where I'm coming from in case it helps: if I do something (say, a deletion for example) that you agree with, but it's contrary to a strict interpretation of some certain rule, why should we spend our time arguing over the rules? Such discussion does not improve the project. It's not that rules are bad, or useless, it's just that they don't always cover everything. It's much more productive, when there's disagreement, to focus on what's best for the project, rather than on how to strictly interpret the rules. The rules are only here to serve the purpose of writing the encyclopedia, they're not an end in themselves. Friday (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, let's just not get into it anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww, shucks, I was in the middle of typing something. Well, here's what I was thinking- Jeff, if you'd rather just drop it I understand. I realized I'm probably framing things unfairly to you in the comment I just made. Jeff, I assume it's fair to say that in your opinion, following the rules exactly is always what's best for the project? So to say you're not putting the good of the project first is unfair to you, sorry about that. Here's where I think we'll never be able to understand each other: I do not start with an a priori assumption that following the rules exactly is always best, and it appears to me that you do. I've seen (and participated in) too many situations where following the rules exactly wasn't what's best. I guess there's no arguing about a priori assumptions- they just are. Friday (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, here's my issue - you're consistently a dick about things like this to me. You don't have this attitude with anyone else, and I try to keep it civil with you on the talk pages of these discussions, and it always eventually comes down to you making some sort of backhanded statement or assholish comment. I can either ignore it or point it out in the hopes that maybe, someday, you'll change the behavior. We don't have to agree all the time. Or ever. but for god's sake, at least fake that you have a little respect for me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect I come off sounding like a jerk to other people sometimes too. I'm not trying to single you out, honest. Here's where we're not getting each other tho- I was trying to be nice with the above- trying to smooth things over. Maybe I'm unusually incompetent at this, I dunno. You're a good contributor, and I do respect this. I was trying to turn things back to relevant issues rather than personal issues, but I guess it didn't work. Sorry that we failed so utterly to communicate this time. The eternal optimist in me has hope we'll understand each other yet. Friday (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Chipping in with my assumptions: you're both people with huge amounts of knowledge about this Project and who do enormous amounts of good for it. At the risk of sounding patronising or giving the impression that I'm not following AGF, I'd urge you both that when you disagree with each other on technicalities big and small, please try to remember the undoubted truth of the words in bold. I'd add that as well as your differing opinions, it's your mutual passion for this Project that makes you butt heads so badly. --Dweller 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you plan on ceasing these types of comments or not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What would you have me do? If you get so involved in these kinds of discussions, people are going to disagree with you. This is how things go. We're allowed to disagree with each other. Friday (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you disagree without being a dick? It's all I'm looking for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying. It looks to me like other people are having the same basic disagreement with you, and they're apparently able to do it without dickery. I'll try being more like that. Friday (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're finally recognizing the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think this is one-sided. But, of course that's what everyone always thinks, so I could be wrong. As pointed out before, we both have our opinions and we can both get maybe too over-excited about them. I'd actually like to understand better where you're coming from, because at times I think the disagreement is mostly in our heads. Surely we have enough actual disagreements to fight over that we don't need to spend time inventing disagreement where none is required?  :-) Anyway, if it helps, I do appreciate and respect the work you do here and I bear you no ill will of any kind. Friday (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice comment, Friday. If you don't mind me suggesting, refraining from directly responding to Jeff's posts on Wikipedia / talk pages for a little while, unless really necessary, might be a good idea, to avoid giving false impressions of ill will. I'm aware that's a strong thing to suggest that you do. And it comes with no subtext that I agree (or disagree) with Jeff's accusations against you. And now, that IS it, I'm outta here for a few days. Enjoy your weekend. --Dweller 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to make a new page pleeeease let me!!!!!!!

my name is brionna harris and i am trying to make a stephoun wikpedia page. he is a upcoming music artsist/model. i am the moderator of all of his internet sites. i am just using his name —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephoun101 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Protect

Could you protect the Rogger Dojh page real quick? We're having a problem with recreation. It's a nonsense page. Thank you! BlackBear 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Friday (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RM2k3 Tutorials

There are not many tutorials based on RPG Maker 2003, and the ones that can be of use are by far and few between. Most tutorials are rushed posts, in order to establish legitimacy of a user's familiarity with RM2k3, or are poorly constructed or written. This wiki can become an encyclopedia-like tome of information for users who are still constantly grasping the simple use of the program, as well as for intermediate or expert users, who are looking how to implement a certain feature, or to find inspiration or a general idea on how to program their code.

Before immediately deleting this article, please allow me the chance to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. Please give me direct instructions as to how to establish this as a credible source.

Luvodicus 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I don't see how that's possible. This could be useful content and it could certainly go somewhere on the net, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to. Friday (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a series of very useful instructions on how to use a program effectively be considered encyclopedian knowledge? Sure, there's only one Tutorial, but I've almost finished the second, and am preparing the third...

Luvodicus 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

John Street (Markham) and Henderson Avenue

Hi Friday,

I want to address the issue of these articles, which got deleted earlier this month. I agree with your deletion, but I was researching today, and actually, these streets have historical value. Such as John Street (Markham) is one of the eraliest streets in Markham, completed in the 1800s, when the community of Old Thornhill begins. Henderson Avenue is named after one of the settlers in Old Thornhill, and is one of the streets where setllers begin to settle.

Since they "now" have historical value, can I re-create them?

 Smcafirst | Chit-Chat  posted at 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone recreated them with some assertion of significance, I suppose they shouldn't be deleted again for being recreations. But so far you're just making your own argument for why they're "historical". This is not what we do. If reliable sources talk about the historical significance, this on the other hand counts for something. I do wonder what could be said that wouldn't better be merged into an article on the history of the town, though. Friday (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not busting balls...

...but a legitimate question: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sergei_Fleminkov - we don't speedy possible hoaxes because they might be true. I took it to AfD so people could actually get a look at it and maybe find something that I couldn't. Could you please reverse yourself for that possibility? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone by name of being an escaped serial killer without sources is hardly kosher. So, the unsourced statement cannot stay, right? Without the unsourced assertion, there can be no article, right? So, it's speediable both by the letter and the spirit of the rules. There's no prejudice against creation of a sourced article on this topic. Until such a time as this happens, no content is preferable to inaccurate content, right? Is there some advantage to undeleting/unclosing this that I'm not seeing? Friday (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The possibility that some eyes may, in fact, find it and verify it. It wasn't in the letter or spirit of anything, of course, but you'll do what you'll do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It had a couple days for this. How long do you think it's appropriate to leave unsourced, probably incorrect, potentially damaging content up? To me, there's better reason to get rid of this pending verification than there would be if the content was less potentially harmful. Friday (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. We'll never know, I'm moving on because it's the same circular discussion I have with you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being silly. You object, and when I explain my actions (citing both the rules AND other reasons) you just continue to assert that I'm wrong but refuse to explain yourself further? And now you're "moving on", complete with grumbling about what I've done and yet you still don't explain why you think it was bad? If your goal is to preserve useful content, I can understand this (altho I don't think it applies to this case) but you're sounding like your goal is merely to complain. Friday (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I already have. Thanks for again assuming motives otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stasha Goliaszewski

Your article about Stasha Goliaszewski the activist was deleted, so now you're writing about Stasha Goliaszewski the physicist? What's going on here? Friday (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Goliaszewski"

I am Stasha (Stanley) Goliaszewski. I am a physicist and during the period 1979 through 1985 worked for MIT as a physicist in the radar design group. In 2001 I started the process of changing to Stasha and in the process became a transactivist. The activism has been directed with working with groups and organizations, like Out & Equal to insure protections to transsexuals in the work environment.

One of the reasons I have added my information is a lot of my friend and people I work with, i.e., Lynn Conway, Jameson Green, Mary Ann Horton, etc., are listed and have references.

I do not wish to violate anything. But, the more Trans people that are seen by the public the better it is for all of us. Lynn Conway has a site of "successful transsexuals" to provide examples/role models for others.

The reason for the change from activist to physicist is because my work as a physicist if note worthy, I'm not sure that being an activist is enough, base on your guidelines.

Stasha Goliaszewski

Wikipedia is not for the promotion of any causes. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Friday (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Frigday -- have you been sniffing my socks again? 8-))

OK my secret is your secret- Yes? BTW congrats on good detective work. You must have been undergoing training from Hipoc rite! 8-) Im sure you'll turn into a good admin one day (soon?)

Re: Psst

OK, opening it doesn't void the warranty but a lot of the internals of the mac laptops are sealed with foil tape.. ripping the tape voids the warranty --froth^t 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey

This user would like to wish you a happy St. Patrick's Day.

Trampton 13:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

.......?

Friday im going to tell you why he is the likely person:

• he was the first and last one to be on there to edit! between the time i did it to the time i returned "HE" was the "OLNY" person to be on that area!--Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mr.Taka

I noticed you have talked to Mr.Taka. It has been confirmed through this checkuser that Mr.Taka is, in fact, Saikano. Can you take the necessary action? Leebo ^T/C 19:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was any doubt. I thought we were waiting to see if he would prove disruptive. I have no hope that user is capable of doing anything useful here, he simply lacks the necessary competence. I suppose we can block him again, but would it help? He'll just make another account. Is it better to have him in one place we can keep an eye on him? Friday (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

He was plenty disruptive today, receiving multiple warnings for attacks and vandalism as well as causing disruption for "phantom" vandalism. I guess I don't know exactly what should be done. Leebo ^T/C 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And I apologize if I jumped the gun. I only noticed Mr.Taka today. Leebo ^T/C 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No harm done or anything. I suppose it's good to know for sure. I'm just not convinced blocking him will help, since we already know we have no effective technical means of preventing creation of more accounts. Maybe I'll try having a word with him altho I've seen no evidence that he can be effectively communicated with. Friday (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he did appear to take action to avoid obvious problems like shouting about lolicon and pedophiles, spamming the WT:ANIME page, or revealing personal information. It looked like he was doing better, focusing on weather articles. Unfortunately he still just can't control his temper. Leebo ^T/C 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Saikano because I don't believe creating a new sockpuppet should give him an extension on our collective patience. Quite the opposite, in fact. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but as far as I can tell, we have no effective technical means of blocking him from creating a new account. I guess we'll just keep an eye out for whatever account he uses next. Hasn't been hard to spot so far. Friday (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to the punch

I was about to tag the letters page for CSD, problem is move will always leave a redirect. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Add whaddya know, today's Friday. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of beating me to the punch... Eh, happy Friday anyway! ^_^ V-Man - ^T/_C 23:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ein minute, bitte

i'm creating an article about an aspiring rapper/co-founder of his own record label. The Black Wall Street 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I love you Friday, you're the best!

Hey friend!

Hmmmmmm..."a comment on the quality of your contributions is not personal"...interesting. If that's the case I suppose it would be safe for me to say that your posts aren't worth a pinch of shit. Nothing personal, of course! I'm simply commenting on your posts. Personally I'm sure you're the greatest of guys! I love you, man!

Loomis 00:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See, this is exactly the kind of irrelevant trouble-stirring that I was criticizing. You do your best to make disagreements personal, and then you go out of your way to prolong the disagreement rather than ignoring it or resolving it. Do you see the problem here? Friday (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do. And I hope I'm not naive in my belief that other readers (including innumerable lurkers) can recognize facetious insincerity and blatant condescension, not to mention obtuse, self-aggrandizing opinion-mongering on the Reference Desk that would be an embarrassment to anyone with a modicum of decorum, let alone conformance with the task of providing information in the serious e-channel that is Wikipedia. But hey, no matter how sophisticated the Global Village, it evidently has its village... well, you know! -- yrs. truly, Deborahjay 00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Brooks Landing

I apologize for removing the speedy deletion tag from the Brooks Landing article (I had forgotten about not removing those tags from self-created articles until after I did it), but what was the point in deleting that article in the first place? It was notable in that it was the first indoor shopping mall in the Nanaimo area (when it opened in 1966 as Northbrook Mall), and it should not have been deleted just because another contributor said it should have been (without even giving a valid reason for having it deleted); I never even got the chance to put a hold-on tag on the article to allow me to explain why the article was important and shouldn't have been deleted. Starbuck-2 20:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no big deal, just making sure you knew that we ask people not do to that. As for the content in question, your own opinions about why this mall is important to you don't matter. Since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we use sources. If reliable sources are talking about the importance of the mall, that's something to consider. The only source was just a directory listing. Wikipedia isn't a directory, it's an encyclopedia. I saw nothing in the article to indicate why this mall out of the millions belongs in an encyclopedia. The bulk of the content appeared to have come from direct personal observation, which is not something we want to be using here. See no original research. Friday (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so if I or someone else were to do research about the mall using sources like newspaper articles documenting its opening and progress through the years and include them, would that allow the article to be restored? Starbuck-2 01:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO it's secondary sources we should look for in cases like these. Whenever a new McDonald's opens up, this gets in the paper, but we don't want articles on individual franchises. Looking for secondary sources is a handy way to help nudge us toward "encyclopedia" and away from "directory" or "shopping guide". Basically, to me this looks like it's not the type of thing that's likely to be covered in the kinds of sources we'd want. I believe wikitravel wants content advising people where to shop in a given town, maybe this content works better there? Friday (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

UUser Talk Deletion

I don't see why not. Admins. can view the page history whenever they feel like. Just more fucking rules . . . --Nélson Ricardo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.90.96.17 (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

It's not about rules. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. It's that I can't see how any useful purpose is accomplished by deleting it. Friday (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, now you;re just talking out of your ass. Admins. will just say what ever the fuck they want. --Nélson Ricardo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.90.96.17 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

That must be it. There's no way the problem could be you. Friday (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Abuse

I am not a troll or anything but the admin mysekurity is abusing his administrative powers by not allowing a fact from an official biography of Tupac Shakur to be included just because he hasn't seen the book License2Kill 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes don't have much to do with whether or not someone is an admin. But I'll watchlist and take a look just the same. FYI, if you're concerned about admin abuse, I (and, I'm sure, many others) will take these concerns seriously, but it's quite helpful if you provide diffs to illustrate what you mean. Friday (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're referring to the hubbub at Talk:Tupac_Shakur#RfC, I don't see at all how you can call this abuse of adminstrative powers. Mysekurity appears to be behaving very reasonably - he wants to make sure information is properly sourced, that's all. Friday (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Mazdaspeed 3

I was as surprised to see the 5.4 second 0-60 mph time as you were. In the May 2007 issue which I just received about two days ago there is a comparison test with a Mazdaspeed 3, a Subaru WRX TR, a Mini Cooper S, a Volkswagen GTI, and a new Nissan Sentra SE-R. The Mazdaspeed 3 won the comparison test with a listed 0-60 mph time as 5.4 seconds and a quarter mile time of 14 seconds flat. The Mazda was the fastest through the quarter mile, and the only car quicker to 60 was the Subaru, which completed the 0-60 mph sprint in 5.3 seconds. This data surprised me because just a few months ago Car and Driver said the Mazdaspeed 3 would go 0-60 mph in 5.8 seconds. I don't know what happened to drop off those four tenths of a second, but I guess they did it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iknow81810 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, the problem with the speed3 is that it's traction limited most of the way to 60, so I suppose it's conceivable that someone figured out how to get a better launch. Anyway, it's not our job to critique our sources, only to report what they say. Thanks for the info. Friday (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There must have initially been an operator malfunction. V-Man - ^T/_C 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock?

See User talk:JJGD. He seems reasonably remorseful. Maybe a timed block at least? John Reaves (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been a few days. If he wants to contribute constructively, we should surely let him. If he causes trouble I'm sure someone will notice. I'll unblock. Thanks for the note. Friday (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question

...to Gandalf61 struck a chord with me, having noted it after I posted a remark of my own there. YOu're welcome to read it, and respond as you see fit. Also I want to express my appreciation for your contributing to the discussion about the matter of RD responses, a discourse I find difficult and often discouraging, though quite valid. I hope we achieve a better Reference Desk in time, as it's a project to which I'm quite devoted. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 00:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example...

...[7]

And this went up after he had responded to the first three on the 'miunderstood arguments' list. David D. (Talk) 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Intentional or not, his behavior is a problem, and so far no amount of talking to him seems to have helped. To me, his actions are those of someone who wants to fight, not someone who wants to resolve disagreements. Friday (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Is the reference desk still a hotbed of opinionated, argumentative people? :-( Maybe it has always been like that and always will be. We need a filter. Carcharoth 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno that I'd even say hotbed. I think it has improved, but we still have a bit of the issue of a different culture there. There are a few folks who insist that the ref desk doesn't need to share the core goals and characteristics of the rest of the project. This becomes a practical problem rather than a purely theoretical one when editors remove soapboxing and other editors strenuously object to the removal. I think the edit warring over this sort of thing has mostly died down, tho. This summary of the situation, while perhaps harshly worded, is accurate in my opinion. Friday (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right. You can tell when someone knows what they are talking about. It comes across as a mature assessment of the situation, rather than the, um, argumentative, "must win the argument" approach. Nuanced arguments and a willingness to compromise would be good, but the reference desk tends to attract those who don't have those qualities. Oh well. Glad it is no longer as bad as I thought. Thanks for the response. Carcharoth 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

re:re:eating sugar

Maybe I have something like a biotin or glucagon deficiency that I don't know about (I have no idea what would cause this, as I don't understand the basics of nutrition), that prevents me from producing any new fat, and I just assume everyone is the same as me. Also food and diets are complicated, and the only real way to see if anything works is to try it out. maths and science don't always get everything perfectly right. But no I have no idea what I am talking about, and I did say everyone would disagree with me, which you are doing. And I don't have any proof I am right, and I doubt you have any proof that you are right. HS7 16:42, 22 March 2760 (UTC)

This is why we should answer questions with references to reliable information, rather than our own amateur opinions. Friday (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

“

“

Worth a try

Friday - nothing good can come from this. It's not too late to take a step back and try to resolve your differences with StuRat in a civilised manner. Is there any chance you will reconsider ? Gandalf61 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that's what I was doing. Is there something uncivilized about something I've said in this particular RFC, or do you see all RFCs as inherently uncivilized? I'm certainly open to suggestions. Friday (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. I would never have considered yet another rfc except he says he doesn't believe there's a consensus that he needs to change his approach. I was hoping to show him a consensus along those lines. Friday (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The way you are approaching this RfC is uncivilised. You have lined up all your complaints against StuRat, dragged up disagreements from months back, invited folks to take sides, and thrown in a threat of a ban. You have made no attempt to seek compromise, find common ground or see things from StuRat's point of view. You say you want to "show him a consensus" - you should be open to reaching a consensus with him. The whole tone of your RfC is provocative, combative and divisive. Once again, I ask you to reconsider this escalation. Gandalf61 21:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that what's been said so far hasn't worked. The diffs from months ago are to establish that this is an ongoing problem, and many editors have approached him to get him to do a few things differently. I want him to stop his disruptive behavior. I believe that most editors see the same problems I do. What else would you suggest? Friday (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You could talk to him, politely, without threats or aggression. You could ask someone else to mediate. You could just walk away and ignore him. Anything would be better than this poisonous RfC. Gandalf61 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't ignore disruptive editors. The good of the project vastly outweighs any one editor's interest in being left alone. Friday (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. It really sounds as if you have made your mind up. You have stopped seeing StuRat as a person. Now he is just a "disruptive editor" and an "ongoing problem". I think that is very sad. Gandalf61 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No editor is a "person" to me. I don't know these people personally. I see collections of edits. I think it helps us stay more objective to not worry about the person at all, and focus entirely on the edits. Friday (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Gandalf, I appreciate your feedback. I don't want you to think I'm being dense because I'm honestly not trying to be, but I don't see what's provocative about Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Some_conflicts_are_really_objections_to_the_pillars_of_Wikipedia or Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#About_NPOV. I think there is some real confusion that underlies some of the conflicts at the reference desk. Some contributors (yes, including StuRat) don't seem to understand certain fundamentals, like the purpose of the different namespaces, or core policies like neutral point of view. And yes, I do sometimes get frustrated when I think I have to keep explaining the basics of Wikipedia over and over again in order to get someone to understand what I'm saying. Wikipedia has a certain culture, set of traditions, and code of conduct, and we shouldn't have to debate these issues every time there's a disagreement. For one thing, the ref desk talk page is not the place to talk about these fundamental issues. Anyway, I appreciate that you want to help, and I'm open to suggestions. I'm not yet inclined to delete the RFC tho- this may happen soon enough if nobody else sees a good reason to participate. You may well be right that it's not a useful tool for resolving this issue, but I was at a loss at what else to try. I see StuRat brushing off the concerns of third parties the same way he does mine, so things like mediation don't seem helpful. Anyone who can come in and figure out how to resolve this would certainly have my gratitude. Friday (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Useful?

Mixed feelings, for what they're worth: On the one hand, I much prefer seeing this discussed in a corner far away from the reference desk's talk page, where the focus should be on how to improve the desks, not a particular user. On the other hand, RFCs are a drag, lots of effort, can be divisive (I know they're not supposed to be, but a reality check shows otherwise, see also the reaction above). I don't think I will contribute to this RFC at all. I'm tired of giving attention where it's undue. I guess one reasonable approach would be to single out and focus on what is unignorable, probably the reverts. I wish to continue helping to improve the desks, incrementally and within my limited scope, but I'm not going through this strange loop again. I doubt that this helped at all, but this is my current view. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I considered blocking for his latest revert and WP:POINT violation. A single revert like this is rarely blockable tho, and given that StuRat and I have been disagreeing with each other for months, I figured this would just add fuel to the fire. I don't know how to communicate to him that this sort of behavior really is unacceptable. Friday (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's what RFC's are for. I advise against blocking or using administrative action. You are seen as an involved user with a shared history, this may not mean a thing according to policy, but psychologically it's relevant. The problem is that, just as you pointed out regarding the mix of edits at the desks, there might also be legitimate reasons for opposing certain removals among all the arguing-behind-blinders too. (Personally, I think at least one recent deletion of an edit was a bit too eager and perhaps misguided; it was restored, so it's no big deal). It's just sad to see any attempts at having a rational discourse rendered impossible by reasons that have nothing to do with improving the project. Is mediation an option? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're the second to suggest mediation. I'd written it off as unworkable, but maybe not. And I think you're exactly right- we need to separate this other dispute so that it doesn't clog up the operation of the ref desk. I don't know if anyone comes to mind who would be seen as a neutral party to be a mediator, but maybe it's worth looking into. Was this a volunteering that I heard? :) Friday (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Friday, i hate to see you expending so much effort when Stu is mostly objecting to my edits. I don't want to butt in to the conversation tho if you guys are making any progress.—eric 17:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to want other input right now. Also- I'm thinking of this in terms of me objecting to HIS edits- I think he's being too heavy-handed in his reverting. I will continue to object to what I see as disruption of the ref desk. Friday (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

La Coka Nostra

hey, its out of question the article should be "La Coka Nostra" and not "La Coka Nostra (hiphop group)", but La Coka Nostra is still WRITE PROTECTED so mergin/deleting the other one doesnt make any sense. --87.186.58.117 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected it yesterday, and it still doesn't look protected to me. Friday (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

O_O

Im..im sorry...please dont....im really sorry for the puppet things i just didn think i was treatd fairly!!! Please dont do it again! I promis i wont be a bother to you ever again please!!!--Tatshro Satou 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins closing RfC's about themselves

Hi, I don't know if you still care about this particular RfC, but it appears that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson was closed a couple of days ago by Mr. Gustafson himself (see [8]). I'm writing to you now since you're the first admin who commented/endorsed on the RfC that I could track down who's still active on WP. I can frankly think of no better example of a WP:COI violation than something like this, even if the RfC had been dormant for 13 months. Is there anything you can do to reopen the RfC or de-sysop Gustafson? Full disclosure: My own beef with him remains to be resolved (see [9]). Wl219 04:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this looks bad. But, if there's more to be said on this RFC, someone could still say it. I duno.. with it being this old and not active lately, I don't think this edit as much of a big deal in practical terms. Friday (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, the guy's rude, obnoxious, and doesn't deserve to be an admin (I've read your essays about admins). Sadly, my good encounters with decent Wikipedians have been disproportionately overshadowed by the handful of encounters with dicks and if I end up leaving the project for good, Gustafson will be one of the reasons why... Wl219 20:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

hello

did u have a problem with my page or are you just against people having there 5 minutes of fun, did it offend you in any way ?

perhaps if u will explain this i will be grateful

thanks

Re Deletion

o silly old me

i thought wikipedia was available for all to use in there own way

so freedom of speech and expression is now banned on the internet this a sad day —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomlea79 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals

Hi Friday. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edit the new proposed policy Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals now that it has finally come up for discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies. Hopefully we can reach consensus (or not) within a week or two. Thanks! S.dedalus 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tatshro Satou

He took his wiki-break, and has returned today. His activity has covered: acting uncivil, offering to nominate me for adminship (for no particular reason, as far as I can tell, other than the fact that I've been bugging him about making controversial statements and chatting about loli-related stuff). He changed one of his Saikano sigs to his new one, which I don't think he should do as it's just asking for other people to notice and block him. His sole contribution to the encyclopedia during that time was to add a half dozen fan sites to the Saikano article. I'm sure you're just as sick of this as I am, and I agree that there probably isn't a good long-term solution, but his wiki-break doesn't seem to have had any beneficial effect. Leebo ^T/C 17:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems we have quite a bit of sock puppeting going on with the whole VA Tech junk, look at my contributions and see the people that mysteriously setup accounts today or yesterday just to include the information on the Glock and Glock 19 pages. CINEGroup 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The best way to respond to Saikano is not to respond at all. I suggest blocking and ignoring. -Wooty Woot? contribs 01:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So is there consensus that we are going to ignore him? Especially since his response is a "project" that he claims to have coordinated with Chris Hansen. Firstly, it goes to show that he has no interest in reading policy, because he would see that it's original research to do something like that. Secondly, it's obviously bogus, because Chris Hansen would never organize some covert predator-catching scheme with our Saikano. It's another ridiculous grasp for attention and right back on the pedo/lolicon kick. Leebo ^T/C 16:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's even possible he's talking to a person who he believes is Chris Hansen. I dunno. I tried again to explain things in simple terms but I think I'm about out of patience. Friday (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

evidence that Tobias Conradi is here to work on an encyclopedia?

evidence that Tobias Conradi is here to work on an encyclopedia? Who made more edits in the mainspace, the abusive admins or Tobias Conradi? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, one of the last significant problem editors I had dealings with was always bragging about his tens of thousands of edits. I'm not familiar with your past- I was asking the question because I didn't know the answer. For what it's worth, maybe it was a stupid question. It looks like the answer is that you've done lots of useful work on the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Tobias Conradi account may be irreparably tainted. Why not forget it, and do your useful editing under a new account and leave all this behind you? Friday (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Game Over

OK Friday you win -- this time. I congratulate you on your perspicacity and intelligence on sniffing me out. However, I did give you a rather large clue early on, did I not?

You may not be aware, but there is a secret Admin training programme (in which I am involved) aimed at training Admins to sniff out sockpuppets and other trouble makers. You have been selected as one of those Admins who might benefit from this programme.

If you succeed in these tests, your name will be added to the beuraucrat selection list.

So, how about another game? But this time, I wont give you any head start. I play the villain, you play the detective again. OK?

If you choose to accept this challenge, good luck (youll need it). Remember this is part of your training to become a good sensible Admin 8-) (Sorry Im not allowed to reveal my name)

Thank you, mysterious person. I'm sure I can learn a lot. Any way I can talk you out of just using more and more sockpuppets? Let's be friends. Friday (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if you could, Im sure that would be another feather in your cap! why not try?

Tell you what, just to give you a fighting chance, Ill only use one sock (apart from the anons of course!). See if you can sniff me out! Good luck! 8-)

Bearing in mind that he's emailed one or more admins and we know the IP block that he's coming from, it would of course be trivial to notify his ISP if he engages in truly disruptive behaviour. Hopefully he will go back to being a useful contributor, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you define as truly disruptive/ a few jokes here and there? I dont cause wanton damage to WP. I believe in WP. Its just the authoritarianism I dont like. Any way its dead easy to get a new ISP any time so I shouldn't trouble to go down that road. Also range blocking would prevent thosands of users from contributnig to WP. Im sure you dont want that! I'm here to stay -- get used to it! 8-)

Also my ISP provider gets lots of money from me each month. It may take you a bit of persuasive talking to convince them to drop me as a customer especially when I have done no real harm to WP. Also you would have to prove the damage caused versus the benefit of my contributions. 8-)

Semi protection request

Hey Friday can you semi protect the article Cloning? The amount of petty vandalism has been extremely high for the past few months. Maybe semi protection will calm things down a bit? See what you think. Thanks David D. (Talk) 20:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Friday, can you provide me with the article for Amador Valley High School prior to its April 11th deletion? Thank you. --SilvrHawk 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I’m hesitant to declare your comment is offensive in nature and riddled with ignorance. Please do explain yourself in-depth. Here is your comment posted to my account, “Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Friday (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines proposal

You did not respond to this. A.Z. 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks against me

Your latest violation of WP:NPA is here: [10], both in the content and the edit summary. Disagreeing with someone on an issue does not give you the right to insult them. Can't you learn to behave in a civil manner, rather than attempting to provoke a response you can use to block me ? I believe many others have warned you about this. StuRat 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you already complained about that on that page, remember? I don't see that it's a personal attack at all- your statements make it clear you don't understand the policies you're talking about. If you don't understand npov, or you object, the ref desk talk page isn't the place for it. Friday (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way the frequent accusations that I'm trying to block you are getting in the way of useful communication between us. I've ignored it several times but if we're trying to be nicer to each other, it would help if you'd cut that out. I guess you still hold a grudge over blocks I made months ago, but there's nothing to be done about them now. Can we move on? Friday (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Corruption and spin

Friday, I know you are sick of this-I certainly am-but the User formerly known as Loomis is using his talk page in a continuing attempt to pervert and misinterpret what I have written in the past, by taking some of my words out of context. I do not intend to enter into debate with him: I have simply posted the relevant thread in full on his page for the benefit of other readers. I trust it will remain. Clio the Muse 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

You seem to care a lot about NPOV. I have asked a question about it on the talk page of the policy, but no-one has answered it so far... Maybe you could answer it. I don't remember now if it is actually a question with a question mark and everything, but it is nonetheless a request for answers. A.Z. 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You must mean Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Engaging_in_disputes. I gave an answer over there. Friday (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Playstation fan

You said you blocked Playstation fan (talk · contribs · block log) but it didn't show up (he kept vandalizing), so I blocked him for 48 hours. If you think the username should be blocked indefinitely, please feel free to change the block. CMummert · talk 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I noticed. I dunno if I got confused (was doing a few things at once) or if it was a software glitch. Oh well, looks like problem solved, either way. Thanks for the note. Friday (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How to stop web spiders from indexing your personal page on Wikipedia?

Is there a way to prevent web spiders such as Google from indexing your personal Wikipedia user page?

Thanks :) Anthonykinyon 13:21 PM (PST)

Zile

Hi, Can you copy edit the article when you have time? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for three hours for continued edit warring on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4. A note explaining this situation is in the process of being posted to WP:ANI. Naconkantari 22:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring? What on earth are you referring to? Friday (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. A single revert, undoing a not-well explained removal is now an edit war? Wow. Friday (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is to get everyone to stop fussing over that little mess re: the word "incontinent", without getting Giano outraged over Admin Abuse. If everyone who participated in that tiny little microdispute is equally disciplined, that will be fair. It's only three hours, anyway. DS 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to this block. And why was the talk page deleted? El_C 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|I don't see how this helps. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)}}

I support unblocking all four editors. Discussion underway at ANI. Newyorkbrad 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked. – Steel 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Friday (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

'zilla4admin

Little Friday deprecate linguistic skill of ROARRing,[11] but see how valuable skill for thoughtful input in Wikipedia space. [12] Support 'zilla for admin now? bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, yes, I will do that. As soon as I'm done hiding in my cave. *backs away slowly* Friday (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Are you an admin, could you delete my userpage? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 16:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to delete, why bother? Friday (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm going to add something, sorry. The Evil Spartan 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up

I appreciate it. UnitedStatesian 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, prepare for related edit war that may break out at WP:AADD UnitedStatesian 18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought you promised to follow the WP:1RR rule in your RFA

So why are you reverting me multiple times on the Ref Desk guidelines? Are you intentionally breaking that promise ? StuRat 05:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt this situation called for boldness. I wouldn't say I promised anything, I said what my normal process is. I still consider the one revert rule a very good way to edit, almost all the time. Just because I use 1RR doesn't mean I can't be flexible.Friday (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is what you said during your RFA:

"I follow the one revert rule, so that whatever disagreements I may have do not result in edit warring. If given sysop tools, I would apply the 1RR to their use also: if ever someone else undid one of my actions, rather than fighting over it, I would stop and talk things over."

This does not say you do so sometimes, and sure looks like a promise to me. (One you apparently only keep when it's convenient.) StuRat 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, what is your objective here? --Iamunknown 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that Friday should resign as an Admin, if no longer willing to keep the promises upon which he/she was elected. StuRat 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's like deja vu all over again. Friday (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

StuRat, if you really want to oust Friday, you have to come up with something substantive, not "You said you'd go 1RR and you didn't this one time." There may be plenty of reasons to pursue this route, but this now-long-term grudge isn't it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think that we should hold Admins to promises they make during their RFA campaigns. As an alternative, if Friday would "undo" the recent double reverts, I would withdraw my request that Friday resign. StuRat 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see it, too. I'd love to see Friday own up to her promise on CSDs and keep a level head as well, but it's really not actionable on this level (at least not yet). You can't force people to keep promises, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

("He", by the way, not that it matters much.) Incidently, that's an area where I've outright changed my mind. I think plain English explanations of deletions are better than saying something like "G5" or "A9". Friday (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's resulted in a net loss for the project. It would be awfully nice if you went back to that, but I learned a long time ago that it won't happen with you, and maybe that will have to be dealt with at some point, but this isn't that time. And I'm glad to know you're a he, if only to save me the minor embarassment every time I see it either way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) While I think that, ideally, any person, an administrator or not, should be held accountable for promises made, I do not think that it should result in a cry for blood (or, in this case, de-sysopping). Is Friday an editor who can be trusted not to abuse sysop tools and, though he or she may make mistakes, is capable of owning up to them? Yes. I would encourage you to consider your comments here in that light. --Iamunknown 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Friday has abused the Admin tools (such as unblocking a sockpuppet blocked by another Admin). Friday does apologize periodically, but then engages in the same objectionable behavior again and again. I can't call these "mistakes", as they appear to be intentional. StuRat 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

" ... such as unblocking a sockpuppet blocked by another Admin". Care to elaborate on that? I don't think that it is fair to make wholesale accusations against someone without some specifics. Generalities just won't cut it. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See the 4th item under the "deja vu all over again" link (provided near the top of this section) for a complete description of this incident. StuRat 05:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The section of 1RR you're referring to in this case is an editor tool, not an admin tool, so I don't see what it has to do with requesting Friday to give up the sysop bit. -- nae'blis 22:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

An Admin is also an editor. Friday promised both to follow the WP:1RR rule as an editor, and promised to do the equivalent as an Admin (to prevent wheel wars) in order to get votes to become an Admin. Friday has failed to live up to that promise, so I expect Friday to resign as an Admin. Perhaps I am naive in expecting Friday to do the right thing. StuRat 02:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the right thing to apply to 1RR to admin actions, WP:WHEEL nearly requires it. Non-admin actions though don't have nearly the gravity that admin actions do, many people who hold themselves strictly to 1RR on admin tools don't do so for non-admin tools, and Friday didn't make non-administrative 1RR a condition of his RFA. --Interiot 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Friday stated "I follow the one revert rule, so that whatever disagreements I may have do not result in edit warring." Friday didn't say he only does this when convenient. Thus, it was a lie. A lie designed to get himself elected as an Admin. I find this to be unacceptable. StuRat 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is only by your interpretation that Friday lied. No one is perfect. I suggest that you drop the matter. --Iamunknown 04:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only mine, Duke53 seems to agree below. StuRat 06:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if this will help, but for what it's worth, to me, saying I do a certain thing is not the same as saying I always do a certain thing. In real life, situations vary. Friday (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you said (as part of your platform when running for admin) that you would follow a policy, then this guy may have a point. If you didn't intend to make it your policy then you probably shouldn't have said you would be doing it. Just sayin' Duke53 | ^Talk 05:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a politician, making promises. I was not "elected". I said no more and no less than "I follow the one revert rule.." which I still think is a good description of how I edit. If people have an objection to something I actually did somewhere, let's hear it. If people just want to complain that I broke some "campaign promise", what's the point? There's room for making exceptions. Friday (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"I was not "elected". Silly me ... I always thought that when a vote was taken and the majority of voters made a decision, that it was an election. Call it what you will, but if you said you were going to do one thing and did another, it could be called 'breaking a promise'. "I follow the one revert rule.." is pretty cut and dried as far as stating what you were going to do. You didn't mention 'exceptions' then, did you? Duke53 | ^Talk 05:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Silly me - indeed. RfA is not a vote. --Iamunknown 05:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What is it, then? A Rose is a Rose is a Rose. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideally it works as a consensus-building mechanism to help decide whether or not we trust an individual editor with the mop. Wikipedia policy is, after all, consensus. --Iamunknown 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Due weight is given to arguments or past performance. While not common, some have passed with very low levels of support by RfA standards. To call for a resignation based on legitimate editing practices is just daft. Campaign promise or not this will just be ridiculed if brought up in any forum. While I agree a promise is certainly a promise (and should be kept if the user is honorable) but one transgression, even a few, do not make a case. Flagrantly ignoring the promise would be a different matter, but I see no abuse from Friday with that perspective mind. David D. (Talk) 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Aah, "one transgression, even a few" is alright, as long as it isn't done "flagrantly". LOL at how far some people will go to defend the actions of admins. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess what Duke, no one here is paid. Where is the foul other than some vague promise has not been followed to the letter? Hell, people change their minds too. I wouldn't hold that against him either. The irony here is that the This whole argument is about the guidelines not being followed to the letter and a bit of common sense being used to interpret them. I guess it is charitable to assume that all users can show common sense since clearly many cannot and have to live by a very explicite rule book. Unfortunately this is not practical and is a pipe dream. David D. (Talk) 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"LOL at how far some people will go to defend the actions of admins." One could make the same comment with regard to how far some will go to construe admins' actions as abusive. Leebo ^T/C 15:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Guess what Duke, no one here is paid. Strawman ... who said anything about anybody being paid? This whole discussion is over the 'promise' made and then not adhered to. Try to keep up. If he said that he would do it then he should have kept to that. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So you didn't read anything i wrote? Just fixated on the first sentence? Plus, it's no strawman, he has no bosses here, despite the fact that some in the community wish to control him despite their own insistence to do as they please. Is that consistent? There is no abuse of power here, there is no abuse of wikipedia guidelines/policies and there is no flagrant abuse of his original promise. Stop wasting everyones time. David D. (Talk) 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Feh. The first sentence was enough to give me a real clue about your thought processes ... the rest of your prattle likewise failed to impress. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Friday where do you find these fans? David D. (Talk) 03:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

When a user is given administrative privileges, it is expected that they understand policy and have displayed this understanding to such an extent that a large number of other users in good standing show their trust. When I support a candidate for adminship, one of the things I expect the candidate to know is how to use WP:IAR within reason. WP:1RR is not a policy, it's just a ideal editing approach. I find this to be well within the spirit of IAR to bend a personal ideal when the user sees fit. It's not like bending 3RR. The phrase "I follow 1RR" tells me what Friday has done; it garners neither a predictive outlook nor a promise. Leebo ^T/C 13:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose, using that logic, Bush Sr.'s "Read my lips: no new taxes" pledge was a statement that he hadn't endorsed new taxes in the past, but would feel free to do so once elected. Somehow the electorate didn't seem to agree, and he was voted out of office in 1992. StuRat 04:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Counterpoint

You're a pretty cool guy (or gal, I suppose) and keep up the good work! >Radiant< 14:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

... a roll model even ;). Agree. ∴ here…♠ 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

∴ indeed. Keep up the good work.  :-) --Iamunknown 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I suppose for every person who thinks I'm horribly evil, there's another who thinks I do reasonably well. Hopefully the ratio isn't exactly one-to-one, but you never know. Friday (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

thumped.com

Hi Got a deletion notice for my article on thumped.com - obviously I understand your reasoning, but I hadn't finished editing the article, and mis-typed the hangon tag ... anyway, it's a site that's central to a fairly vibrant underground music scene in Ireland, which is something that by its nature is pretty much undocumented so I can't really cite references. If that rules it out that's fair enough, but I suspect that perhaps it's just that I didn't make a robust enough assertion of the importance of the site. let me know anyway Thanks Cormac —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cormacparle (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Got yr message - that's fine, thanks for the response

Al Fresco Banks - Give me a chance to update sources!

I wish you'd give me a bit of time - I felt this artist was notable so I put some information up, I'm still getting to grips but I still put external links. But I go back to the page and it says I need to put notable sources, so I go find them, come back and it's been deleted already - what's the deal? Do people not get a chance to fix stuff?

As for Google doesn't look promising - it has the official website, myspace page, artist profiles on external sites, info about gigs etc. What more is needed?

Do I really have to go back and do the whole thing again with even more sources? - why do I even bother trying to participate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hankhenryhank (talk • contribs) 15:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC). --Hankhenryhank 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHUN

Consider times 2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What I've been trying to do lately is: ignore stupid or unhelpful comments, but respond to the substance, if there's any substance there. This hopefully keeps us focused on edits rather than on editors. Even if a good idea comes from the devil himself, it's still a good idea. Of course, I fail at this a lot, because I like to think anyone can be reasoned with. I probably often keep trying to reason with people past the point where there's much chance of success. Friday (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good strategy. It does move us forward. David D. (Talk) 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it but I look forward to being proven wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The test will come when consensus is reached. For me that is when WP:SHUN should kick in. i.e. after a fair hearing. David D. (Talk) 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Boy, that put the Speedy in speedy deletion!

Hi. I tagged Ryan Sigo for speedy deletion, and then clicked on history to go warn the creator, and it was gone! Good job on getting it so quick! I don' t know if you warned the creator or not, but if not I haven't and s/he should probably be warned. Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes on article

Regarding the video game weapon article, I was only doing what was in the request column for video games. I have modified the title to be for "unique" weapons, although it still seems a bit vague. Under the new title, you won't see weapons that are common in many games, such as an iron sword. It will focus more on unique weapons, such as Link's Master Sword or Cloud Strife's Buster Sword.

Any comments? Streetsabre 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)