User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/04

brenneman is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia before March 4th.

This is done.

Speedy restoration[edit]

But it's also bad form to restore your own article after it's been speedied.

Is it? Why do you say that? Why would I ask someone else to restore the article when I could do so myself? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. There are lots of things that "Can" be done with admin powers but that shouldn't be. Admins "can" unblock themselves rather than asking someone else to do it, but reasonable people have suggested that that course of action should be instant dead-minn.

Look at it this way: Clearly you thought the article had a reason to exist in mainspace. Clearly Zoe did not. So she pushes her button. Then, since you disagree, you push yours. This hasn't progressed any discussion, or worked towards any solution. You're saying that it was ok because you thought you were right, I believe. But Zoe still thought she was right, so what would have been wrong with her just speedy deleting it again?

There are heaps of admins around. It wouldn't have been hard to find someone else to do it for you. Barring that, when you restored it you should have taken it to AfD per Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Exception. Does that make sense?

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that there are things admins can do that they shouldn't. I'm just not convinced that restoring this article was an example of that. In editing, we follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It seems to me that the process followed here was BOLD delete, revert delete, discuss. That seems reasonable and constructive to me. Now that I know that it is considered bad form, I won't do it again. But I still don't understand why. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 01:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your position. I tend to not think that BRD applies to administrative actions, but I appear to be almost alone in that nowdays! I'd think that wider discussion was the key here, and thus something like taking it to WP:DRV or restoring it and putting it on WP:AFD yourself would have been better. Both of those venues lend themselves to slower action/reaction. How about if I redact "bad form" to "could have been done somewhat differently?" - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to your "bad form" comment; you may leave it or redact it as you wish. I started this discussion because I wanted to understand your position, not because I wanted to change it. Thanks for the constructive and friendly explanation; see you round the 'pedia. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

Hi, the notice shouldn't have been blanked - that needs to remain of course. The rest of the story is a request via email to the Wikimedia Foundation. A writer asked that we remove the AfD page, as it is coming up high on search engine results. I explained that we couldn't do this, that we needed to keep a record of the debate, but that I could blank the page as a compromise solution. It's something that comes up as a request every now and then, and blanking has seemed to be a solution that everyone can live with (the full debate is easily accessible via history of course). I'd appreciate the AfD page being restored to the (semi)blank state. It is such a little thing to accommodate someone on this, it causes no harm and prevents conflict. I'm sure you'll agree that's a good solution all round. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

AfD[edit]

You voted in the DRV, and I wanted to let you know that the article is again at AFD. Thanks. -R. fiend 15:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

again[edit]

Sorry for the slow response. I'm not sure exactly what the best way to handle these is. In the past, I've always just blanked as I did, with an explanation that the full discussion is in the history, and that's been fine with everyone. But there is a wider discussion about this starting on the mailing list [1]. Jimbo has obviously got a lot of these requests directly, as well as those we have had on the info address. So he's opened up the discussion on what should be done. It looks as though most people on the mailing list think that blanking, combined with technical means to prevent search engine indexing, are the way to go. On the second AfD, I'd say the same can be done for that once the discussion is over. -- sannse (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops![edit]

You said: "I'm not happy, in a more general sense, with discussions on the mailing list being used to support actions on the Wiki." - Oh no, that wasn't my intention. The mailing list conversation came after my actions - just a coincidence caused by Jimbo getting the same sort of mail as the info team. I linked it because it may be the start of an overall policy on these pages, which will make it easier for us to know what to do in the future - not as a justification for my actions. Anyway, just wanted to explain that, thanks for your time on this :) -- sannse (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)==Oops!==[reply]

You said: "I'm not happy, in a more general sense, with discussions on the mailing list being used to support actions on the Wiki." - Oh no, that wasn't my intention. The mailing list conversation came after my actions - just a coincidence caused by Jimbo getting the same sort of mail as the info team. I linked it because it may be the start of an overall policy on these pages, which will make it easier for us to know what to do in the future - not as a justification for my actions. Anyway, just wanted to explain that, thanks for your time on this :) -- sannse (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Democracy & Nature[edit]

Any thoughts on today's edits? I may have been too close to this for too long to be objective anymore.--SarekOfVulcan 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the rewrite -- I think it's a much stronger article now.--SarekOfVulcan 05:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per your suggestion for page protection, I requested it. Dmcdevit now says something contrary. This is the type of non-sense we have been trying to avoid. Can you clear this up? john sargis 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on RFPP, but the gist is the problem seems to have been solved. It's now more of an edit scuffle than an edit war. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Snowspinner[edit]

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Snowspinner. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Holy Father[edit]

Thank you very much for your explanation. My main motivation in sending User:Jeolmeun to DRV was to try to get him off RFP, which he seemed to be trying to turn into a forum for the content dispute. Since it was from a AfD I thought that was the right place -- and if you haven't cleared it up I suppose that's becuase it's an inherently murky situation.

You're spot on as far as the problem goes, and I would of course not automatically revert a substantially different article. I reserve doubts about how useful such a standalone article might be though. I'm not entirely sure a detailed historical and theological analysis of it would be worthwhile -- perhaps as part of an article like Papal titles or Titles of the Pope or something like that should someone (not me!) feel moved to write it, but not by itself. I don't know what else might fit there -- possibly a dab page pointing to both God the Father and Pope, but ISTM that anything other than the briefest of notes on the Protestant problem with the phrase as a papal title will devolve into one of those "interesting" POV essays that seem to plague religious articles.

I just looked at it for the first time today and the last revert from last night, by someone other than myself, seems to have stuck. So that's good. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Block of Tony Sidaway[edit]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were involved with this situation with the SuperOffice article. Had I known, I would have left my message on your talk page too. As for the unblocking of Tony Sidaway, your heartfelt concerns about allowing time for discussion are not warranted: Tony has agreed not to undelete the article, as it's now before Deletion Review. Since Tony is the person who noticed the irrationality of this deletion, it is only logical that he be one of the parties to participate in these discussions you desire. Thank you for pointing this out to me. After all, as I'm sure you are aware, open discussion is paramount on Wikipedia. - Mark 09:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Mark. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

re: your note[edit]

Thank you. That's very kind of you to say. Rossami (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Who you calling a Morlock![edit]

I prefer to consider myself part of the "great unwashed masses", thank you very much. PS, have you considered standing for admin? I'd nominate you if you were interested, (it would be my first nom) or support you in a minute if you were nominated by someone else. I think you've been asked before but I think maybe now might be a better time. Despite you being deletionist scum... er I mean "well intentioned but misguided". (feel free to answer here, I watch talk pages after talking there, for a while) ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I like about my version is that we get to eat the Eloi. And, aside from me demuring, you really really don't want to be the person who nominates me. Once of the biggest problems with the current culture is a combination of "guilt by association" and "trial by aspersion".

The first is pretty clear: If you are publicly associated with one person, either by explicit criticism or by implied support of their actions, it often happens that "allies" or "opponents" appear. This is also known as the "pile-on".
This leads handily to the second: People tend to believe what they read. If I say "Lar has done this! It's an outrage!!!" the most people won't take the time to check, they'll just believe it. Then later if someone says, "Actually, that Lar isn't bad", they'll still hold on to the first (negative) impression.

So, although a fair amoung of time has passed, based upon being recently told on IRC that I can expect people who consider themselves "opposed" to me to be "in my face", I'd imagine that any RfA I have will involve no small amount of blood-letting. I could wax philisophical about how we should leave high school behind and concentrate on the encyclopedia, but I'll save that for another day. Thanks for the compliment, though!

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes sense but one thing I should point out is that I have no personal desire to be an admin myself (and I don't see that as likely to change... I've been too involved in meta-stuff here and I need to cut back and write more articles (it's a bad habit of mine, Karmafist and I discussed it a bit on my talk page, meta-stuff is addicting)... I've been an admin elsewhere (LUGNET), and I think I am now thorougly cured of the desire. There were 5 of us there, there are 800 here, so it's not like there is a pressing need). So the enemies I'd make wouldn't matter as much to me as they would to someone that had admin aspirations themselves. They still might be out to get me for other stuff but I have yet to be in a POV war or anything (Bridges and engineers just aren't that controversial!) so it may not matter as much. Plus I'd like to think I'm starting to build a reputation however small as a thoughtful and fairly polite contributor. So... if at some point you change your mind and you are looking for a nominator that doesn't care as much about that poisonous fallout effect (which I agree is real), keep me in mind, that's all I'm saying. I have less to lose than many and I would be happy to do it. That's not pressure, mind you. ++Lar: t/c 07:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Wax (philosophical) on, wax off[edit]

I don't believe in "camps" or "cliques". I don't believe in "deletionists" or "inclusionists", and I try very hard to judge every contribution on its own merits, independent of the contributor. I believe that as the community grows, only faith and kindness will allow us to avoid self destruction.

I am not against any editor, however much I may object to their actions. I love wikipedia, and while someone may have ideas or method that are divergent from my own, as long as they share that love we have common ground.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw you I would never have believed that to be the case, but boy was I wrong, which just shows how dangerous forming first impressions too quickly can be. It's a philosophy that I aspire to as well. As an aside, for me the D/I labels are more funny than serious. Kind of like LEGO space vs. LEGO trains which are a source of lots of ribbing... but I know others take D/I quite seriously. Which is the problem with labels in general, when used as shortcuts they lead to bad assumptions and bad actions. That said I do tend to think of myself as more inclusionist (despite my voting record on AfD being probably 80% delete... a LOT of cruft comes up there... Speaking of which, it's been 30 days since a particularly non useful list came up, time to relist it unless someone else beat me to it already... LOL) ++Lar: t/c 07:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Fine by me[edit]

Hi Aaron, no that's fine by me, so long as others do the same. The most important two sentences for me are: "Editors who repeatedly add images or text that have been plagiarized, or the use of which would clearly amount to a copyright violation, may be blocked. In cases where an editor is acting in good-faith and the copyright status is unclear, the editor should not be blocked," or words to that effect. My only concern here is to prevent heavy-handed editors or admins arriving on a person's talk page with a concern about an image, and practically the first thing they say is to threaten a block. As a result, the recipient digs his/her heels in, starts reverting, and ends up being blocked. I saw it happen recently and it resulted in the editor leaving. I want to make sure it doesn't happen again, and I think the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians would be behind that. Of course, as you said, stating this in the policy won't in itself stop people from being heavy-handed, but at least there will be no basis in policy for what they're doing. Beyond that issue, I have no quarrel with any of the copyright policies, and I'm happy to thrash it out on talk. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Sorry. ;-) I agree about the poisonous atmosphere. As I said, all I want to do with this section is stick in just a tiny bit of protection for ordinary editors who stumble into a copyright dispute unaware of what they should be doing, so that they don't end up being blocked on a whim. I'm happy with any version that retains just a bit of protection. And please feel free to tighten as you see fit, because I can be a bit wordy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But not checkmate. It ain't over till the slim lady sings. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Farrell[edit]

As requested, I've added more media citations, an additional publication and a CV link. See what you think JQ 20:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits, which I think generally improved things. I'd still like to link to the list of blog posts. Even if they are not relevant in establishing notability, they will I think be of interest to some readers, and there's no problem about verifiability - the links take you to the posts. JQ 02:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Unsigned comments[edit]

It makes for an interesting talk page. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to see weird, try reading the Help Desk email list some time. Between the spam (mainly sexual), Nigerian scam emails, people asking us how to enroll in our school and people who want to exchange links with us, there may be one or two good questions a day. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Narrowly Avoiding The Foot Nowadays[edit]

Sigh, I know, but I wish there was a way I could just jump through the computer screen and smack anyone who uses "Because Jimbo said so" to justify something because Jimbo will be the first one to tell you that he's as human as any of us.

I've told Lulu that now isn't a particularly good time to run for rfa due to the admin-phobia after Kelly Martin's RFC and now with Radiant's Poll, but he's doing remarkably well after his nadir last year(if this vote was being held in August, he'd have 20% or so), and within a few months, he'll have enough to pass if he doesn't this time(right now he's on the cusp).

Personally, i'm trying to stay away from the Cabal as much as possible(haven't been on IRC in 10 days or so now), I've gotten some new meds, I still have panic attacks when I have serious conflicts in "reality", but they're less common than they were at the end of December.

For that matter, since the beginning of the year alot has changed that's been able to make it easier to see Wikipedia as just a website rather than the end all/be all of everything. I quit the crooked Real Estate Agency I was working at and joined a seemingly less Real Estate Agency, got two part time jobs, cut way down on the political activism (tonight was the big night against Walmart with these guys, but it takes small steps to fix yourself sometimes, and not spreading myself too thin with things I couldn't affect like that was a place to start.) Give me a few months and maybe i'll be able to assist you and David Gerard and a few others finally mend some of the things that are broken around here, but now just isn't a good time.

Oh, btw, I know you might not know me very well, but from what you do know of me, what would be a good career for me IYO? Real Estate is seeming iffy, i'm a few credits short of a BA in Geography but i'm not sure about that, maybe going back into the media might work but I have no clue, the only thing I really want to be is in the New Hampshire General Court, but that'll cause me more foot shooting than 10 Kelly Martin RFCs in my current state, and it only pays $100 a year even if I can make it there(got slightly under 5,000 votes last time). I suppose it isn't that big of a deal for a 24 year old not to know where he's going in life, but it still sucks.Karm a fist 04:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm having a really hard think. Good question deserve good answers. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While You're Thinking[edit]

Some Usenet troll is fresh off a 48 hour ban and back on his personal crusade against me[2]. I figured i'd let you know, not sure if that's a big enough deal for WP:AN. Karma fist 20:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the key in what you said is "I". Talking to him is fruitless, I haven't done so in awhile, nor did I plan to again. The real issue was whether having others deal with it or just letting it pass altogether. Apparently he's at a small edit war at Mennonite as well now. Gah -- I just got out of a crummy situation off wiki in "reality" that could have been prevented if I just was more "on the ball" and didn't make emotional attachments, similiar to what I brought in with him in the first place. I'll try harder to achieve that as this year progresses. Karma fist 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Restored speedy[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. I've left a comment at the deletion-review page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Gmaxwell's page[edit]

Aaron, please can you explain how it can be unfriendly. I support Greg's efforts to get people to remove fair use images from the user pages, which is why I put a free use image to match his own (presumably tongue in cheek) statement. Arniep 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Cool.[edit]

Nah, I need a good poke every now and then. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. We're very cool, no worries. Oh, and:

Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/9, see above.

Any good? I'm not sure that the last word literally exists, but it's good enough.

Cheers, mate.

--Sean|Bla ck 08:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Timber[edit]

I've responded to your deletion of external links from Crooked Timber on the talk page there.

Thanks for nice comments on my talk page. I appreciate the fact that you haven't lost your temper over this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs) .

This is done.

A ballad[edit]

Aaron, regarding all the spamlinks I have seen you removing, I thought I should tell you that someone has put a lot of effort into putting them there. You really ought to show more consideration to those who only want to earn a living. Therefore, to teach you some empathy with these poor, I present to you:

The ballad of the really nasty snake

Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/10, see above.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV[edit]

Thanks for the note. It's no big deal. I fully expected Aetherometry to go to DRV. Also as I stated in the discussion for Torc, P.A.C. Bloos, I don't mind if that and the other druid articles are deleted for lacking verification. I was just following the "when in doubt, don't delete" rule. I do seem to get a lot of AfD closures ending up in DRV, though. I think it's because I don't mind closing the tough ones so there's always bound to be people who disagree. howch e ng {chat} 17:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

RfA Thanks[edit]

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Thanks from Lulu[edit]

Storm clouds ...	and silver linings	Thank you for your support on my RfA.
		Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

This is done.

Webcomics RfAr closed[edit]

The Webcomics RfAr has been closed. Aaron Brenneman is admonished to be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy. While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent. Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

spelling note[edit]

you're looking for "rationale". [3] :-p Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 16:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

RE:RFC[edit]

I felt that they were essentially using the RFC to disrupt wikipedia, specificly gather mudslingers to attack the clerk's office and Kelly, and I have no tolerance for using wikipedia as a battle ground. That having been said, I could've handled it better which is why I did not object to the block I recieved. I appreciate your forthrightness on 3RR. Hope for better future interactions.--Tznkai 04:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Crappy Admin[edit]

Having problems with the admin lately? I'd like to read about it. --Masssiveego 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass. I reckon as 95% success rate isn't bad. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Baiting and being "right"[edit]

I dunno, but I'm sure the proverbial Greeks have a word for it. Or else the Germans do. Yes, I do have some worries in that regard, and I'm concerned about how self-defining the "being right" part seems to be. It doesn't matter if one is uncivil to the uncivil, or is trolling the trolling, or ignoring-all-rules to the point of disruptive point-scoring, if one is a sufficiently and successfully "vested" contributor. Alai 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Thanks[edit]

All deleted, and Tony's template is listed on TfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenlighting (2nd nomination)[edit]

That's from October. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the Ages[edit]

Thanks. I got distracted starting an article on Charnett Moffett, but I'll add more soon. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Thanks for the kind words[edit]

Thank you for the kind words on my talk page. I'll keep that in mind the next time I nominate something for deletion, but I figured better safe than sorry, right? Thanks again. Kusonaga 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Something fishy going on here[edit]

How closely did you read my comment on the WP:DRV for List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.? There was a little joke there for you. Suffice it to say you're a bad influence!

Anyway, since you seem to be on about trout-age and trouts a bit lately, here's one in case you need to do some smacking... ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

I think this is a different thread but maybe it isn't???[edit]

No, let me know. But in that particular discussion, people either need to realise they are wasting their time or actually say they are going to go with the discussion. I'll bet money it's the former. -Splash^talk 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Can I ask a favour? Could you pop round here Wikipedia:3D_Illustrations and put your oar in on the talk? Those 3D images being uploaded and stuffed into articles as the only images the articles have, are, well... let's just say not very praiseworthy and leave it at that, I guess. Who else would be good to ask, d'you think? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've had a quick look and will have a think. Thanks for bringing it up. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

random thought[edit]

Yeah, but you've probably got the impression I get a perverse joy delving into issues like this. Oddly enough, I was doing newpages patrol when right before this bit started; it was bringing a new article to AFD that caused me to notice Tony's nomination. But newpages is a trainwreck. A depressing endeavor that's enough to drive a person to drink (and you don't have to drive me far). When people were getting on Mushroom's case for speedying a few utterly worthless articles (they're all back at AFD now, about to be deleted again, what a waste of time) I don't think any had any idea of the sheer amount of crap that's shoveled into wikipedia by the minute. By the time you've nominated something for AFD there are 2 more such articles, and by the time you've cleaned up one article there are 5.

But I digress. But hey, you're not an admin, are you? I recall you were nominated a while back but some rather foolish behavior got you voted down. Do you think enough time has elapsed that you'd want to try again? I've never nominated anyone, but I don't see any reason to rule out ever doing so. -R. fiend 06:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

Personal attacks--again[edit]

personal attacks by another editor removed by Nandesuka 14:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from posting to my talk page. I am no longer able to assume good faith with regards to you, and as such am not interested in hearing your opinon. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done.

DC streets[edit]

An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination). - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedy kept before I could get to it. Thanks anyway. Stifle 13:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]