User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/01

Note: Copy-paste from history

To all and sundry:
As IgnoreAllRules (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) I recently commited vandalism in the form of bad-faith reversions of edits by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs). It was petty and childish of me. Whatever frustration I felt, whatever personal justification I applied, whatever small sense of satisfaction resulted, there is no excuse for such behavior. It only served to increase tensions and divert energy from our common goal. I apologise to all involved.

Insults in rhyming couplet will be kept and treasured forever.

Your name is allegedly Aaron Brenneman

But I think that's silly! Er, Amen.

Aaron Brenneman, he looks like an orange!

And it's not just that, he happens to be very borange! --Dmcdevit·t 09:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Please leave new messages at the bottom. The right to ruthlessly refactor is preserved.

The Magic Dudes[edit]

Your last comment and signature on The Magic Dudes VfD made me laugh really, really hard. Thanks. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

CSD Proposal[edit]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that you don't meet the criteria for voting on the polls for the above. Hiding 08:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism in Poland[edit]

Hey, Aaron. I've reverted the article to a more NPOV version by Piotrus. Someone has been reverting it to a very POV verison so as to increase the number of delete votes. Feel free to take a second look. Thanks. HKT 22:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Some comments on your reasonning:

His arbitrary removal of a "spurious" nomination to VfD - perhaps I misspoke in my edit comment. The vfd notice was simple vandalism by an anon. Check the history [1] - the vfd notice had been removed twice over, by others.
His alteration of another editor's VfD vote... again, I think you're being unfair (and your wording implies that I changed the vote). I didn't change his vote, merely removed wikipediafascism - VFD isn't a soapbox for people ranting and insults; it's there for voting.

As to the other two... well, I still think they were right, but I won't try to discuss them. William M. Connolley 09:21:09, 2005-07-14 (UTC).

Removal from the Order of Canada VfD[edit]

I checked Wiki-policy, there is no rule stating about what happens when a nominator votes keep, or the other votes related to the noms. I will try to see if people will return to the page and review their votes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been ten days since I wrote the above, and for some reason, the article is still up for deletion. I am just going to see now if the vote to keep will increase or the voting will stay the same. The article has stabilized, and I am pretty happy with it. Not sure what will happen, though, or not sure how long before it is closed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CDS Proposal[edit]

Hello! Sorry to bother you, but since you voted on the earlier CSD proposal about unremarkable bands, it would be appreciated if you cast your vote for this version. It has been reworded to address concerns raised against the earlier wording. Please take a look at it and consider if you support or oppose it. Yours, R adiant _>|< 08:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Rabid commentary[edit]

I thought I'd deal with your comment here, since it is outside the scope of VfD. Last point first: no, I wouldn't feel in any way cheated, because I could just go and write the article again myself....unless it had been locked away for 4 months. I couldn't merely recreate the old content, granted, but my creative powers are not so limited that this would be a problem. By not being bound by a vote I didn't participate in, I just mean that I feel free to vote this time based on my own assessment of things, and not purely on the fact that it had been VfD'd before. If I had voted before I'd feel somewhat morally bound to vote the same way again if the article was largely unchanged. Of course, your example is something of a hypothetical point: the chances of the community being so deserted as to create the scenario you describe are very slim indeed.

Finally, and because I like answering rhetorical questions, about policy. My answer above about being able to vote how I like having not voted before applies here, too. If a policy came up for a re-vote and I had not previously voted and it had not been changed, yes, I would feel free to go whichever way I liked. That's quite different to not being bound by the policy in between of votes on it though. The better analogy would be: "do you think that a deleted article should be undeleted just because you didn't participate in the vote". I would not think that, provided the VfD had been validly conducted and closed. If it was invalid then, yes, it should be undeleted and I would consider it on its own merits in my own way.

(and 4 months is a third, not a quarter). -Splash 15:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Diaper Lover Talk[edit]

I've been meaning to reply to this for a couple of days but never got around to it. You probably want to talk to an admin who has more experience with dealing with content disputes. I've only been an admin for a couple of months and do more stuff on RC patrol and dealing with vandalism. Sorry I can't help. Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Link cleaning[edit]

I think you did a great job cleaning out the unnecessary links in the Infantilism article. Joyous (talk) 15:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Exceptional Situation / policy[edit]

Nah, 'twas an exceptional situation, so I just took some exceptional steps. Hopefully they were those steps that were the least disruptive and closest to consensus. I consulted documentation beforehand, and read several related votes. I also politely talked with everyone who dropped by and asked me what I was doing, and provided them with links to the relevant docs.

This time last year, I don't think people would have made much trouble out of it, even if I'd done most of it without admin priveleges. :-P

Anyway, come morning, User:Angela and several others took over for me. and that's that. It's now out of my hands. :-)

A growing number of people on wikipedia have policy as first priority, and the continued correct functioning of wikipedia only as their second priority. I think the reason for this is that it takes time to integrate people into the wiki culture, and new folks can't oversee everything that's going on, so they reach for hard and fast rules to grab a hold of to start with.

Being so strict on policy is a bad thing. It makes the community rather brittle, and gives people like the GNAA a foothold where they can enter and disrupt our activities.

Kim Bruning 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the vote of confidence. I needed that, I think. :-) ^^;; Kim Bruning 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Hello, Thanks for updating me on rules. I'll take care of these from now on. Ishika

External links - ICOC[edit]

I see that there are other pages you are editing for external links. Thanks for the intro on my talk page. I have a crazy full-time job so I have to find time to get the discussion moving more quickly (TGIF) but I will try my best to respond in a timely way. ma

The Bible[edit]

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Shamrocks[edit]

Actually, check our sigs. I had put the note on their talk page one minute before you alerted me :). I just had to finish speedying them all. After a few I realized it was the same author, but the author is apparently not showing any intention to create actual articles. WIll keep an eye on it. --Dmcdevit·t 00:36, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes.[edit]

It was being vandalised. It remains a target. It's a user space page, I should really be the only one editing it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah... I was very busy at work... this came out more abrupt than I intended! But... I am a target and this is one less thing I want to worry about :-) Ta bu shi da yu 00:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Knedlik[edit]

No hard feelings, guess I made a rookie mistake:) Thanks, ya gotta love ol' Omar. MrShamrock 07:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsaber[edit]

I did [2]. Didn't see anything wrong with the my rollback and "Useless Information" is not really appropriate as an entire section. On closer inspection, I would fix the link. However, I don't know why its not appropriate but if you feel it isn't, go ahead and DELETE the entire section (and fix up that link on the bottom). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:19, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, someone already did that. I shall protect the page for now. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:21, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Again, that was a mistake, I only noticed the giant section disapearing, my mistake but it has already been fixed. =) As I said the page is now protected, if sometihng is still wrong please tell me so. Thanks! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:24, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, nobody is perfect after all =) (I think that was a great example, both of us had good intentions but made mistakes) Happy editing to you and I'll unprotect it in a couple of hours once the vandals have cooled off =) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway[edit]

Feel free. ~~I tend not to like RFCs, so~~ I won't be starting one myself, but if you want to start one, I'll certainly certify it. Ambi 15:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I removed the Arab hacker example from the RfC? Someone on IRC pointed out that it's the only one of the examples there that may be somewhat justified. Ambi 16:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

I apologise if the tone of my comment seemed uncivil. However it is difficult to assume good faith when you open an RFC against an administrator who does such a difficult job, and doubtlessly receives enough flack as it is, for closing VfDs as "no consensus" when a simple tally of the votes would make it clear that there really was no consensus. I could find nothing even remotely resembling abuse of admin powers in any of the evidence you provided.

This kind of thing only serves to make people more pessimistic about the whole VfD process and pretty much tipped off the mess we have now with VfD getting deleted. I consider myself a deletionist, and I wish the process could be as logical and smooth as possible so that we can remove the bad articles quickly and easily. This RFC has served to improve nothing about Wikipedia, and only appears to be a mudslinging attempt to get revengence against an admin who was only doing his job. --malathion ^talk 01:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snide - adjective derogatory in an insinuating manner.[edit]

(Copied from Tony's talk page.)
Tony -
Ok, I'm just going to be straight, rather than careful and precise.
There are two possibilities here: either you're a nice guy or you're not. Being a nice guy in no way precludes you from disagreeing with me, or even agreeing with me while thinking I'm a jerk. Since I'll never actually know, I have to use faith and treat you like a misguided nice guy.
Your often responsed to critisicm with "I'm sorry, you're upset and I have no idea why."

Intentionally or not, this is condescending. Both upset and distress mean "mentally perturbed". But not using the word anger or an analog, you deny even the possibility that the other person has a reason to be angry. Being "dumbfounded" at their "distress" compounds this further.

I'd like you to go back to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The 20 Cent Quest and try and look at your comments with a fresh set of eyes. Whatever your intentions, you don't sound like a nice guy here. You sound like seomone who made a claim, didn't like it being challenged, and made subtle and artful attacks rather than backing up your claims. And it made me angry, no question.

It would be dishonest of me to say that this exchange had nothing to do with the RfC. I believe I would have done the same thing had it not occured, but I don't know. There are a lot of strong feelings being expressed, and I'm listening to what people have to say. Your comments to date do not give the appearance that you're doing the same. I would only ask that you try and learn something from all of this, just as I will.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from above to preserve continuity.)
Aaron, let me just say that your comments frequently cause me utter and complete bafflement. Interacting with you on the movie VfD was almost painful because however politely I tried to make my statements you reacted as if to some slight. My "comment" is met with an "irritated comment", which comprises all kinds of quite bizarre accusations and bear an edit summary "Reply to Straw man.". I politely rebut the accusations, inasmuch as I can understand them, apologising for upsetting you, and you launch into a tirade accusing me of using loaded language, describing my actions as "pernicious". Aaron, please think it possible that if I say I find your statements baffling, eyebrow-raising, and inappropriate, it may be because you seem to be disposed to take expressions of disagreement as personal slights. The least I can do in the circumstances is to endeavor to avoid upsetting you further by having any more to do with you.--Tony Sidaway ^Talk 06:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony - did you even read anything I wrote? You're reply is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate to you. Please, please, try and see someone else's point without being "baffled". If you are actually incapable of doing so, have someone else look over that exchange. Pick someone with whom you disagree but respect, and ask them if it's really so incredible that I would feel that you were not being straightforward. There is no question I can sometimes be a pig: curt, sharp, and prone to excitability. The only question is will you take any responsibility, or simply contine to be baffled.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, please try to understand that I long ago lost patience with your antics. I don't know whether this is an irritable, passive-aggressive persona that you consciously adopt or whether it's the real you. Enough, I'm done, I've given up trying to cope with your tantrums and accusations. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's clear now that the problem isn't me. How could I have been nicer above? How is that a "tantrum"? Do you not notice that you've totally ignored everything I've said? I suspect that we'll have to work together here for a long time, and that we'll be treading a lot of the same ground. You really do have a choice, to continue as is, or try to make things better. Do you like making people mad? Wouldn't you rather have spent this time writing articles? Come on man, it doesn't have to be like this.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

20 Cent whatever[edit]

Radman - your vote "Keep, non-notability not established. Furthermore, nominator's assumptions are based in original research." seems on the face of it to be done in spite. Ok, I've made you angry, ok, you think the RfC is stupid. I understand that, fair enough if you feel that way. But this isn't any kind of "campaign" or "quest for vengance" or anything like that. If you actually think that this little flash movie should stay in, that's great, vote your heart out. But don't just do it because you want to stick it up me, mate.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Stick it up me"? Ehhh— Anyhow, my vote for the notable flash movie and my feelings towards the frivolous RfC are mutually exclusive. Don't worry about it. —RaD Man (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for some advice, or something...[edit]

Hi Aaron. I'v not got a lot of free time right now, but I have listed the VfD on the Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard to bring some other Aussies into the discussion. I'll look over your link shortly. -- Longhair | Talk 01:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My post to Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard didn't identify anybody. It was a simple listing alerting other Australians to a VfD concerning a local topic. It's often good to get locals voting on topics they have an intimate knowledge of. Besides, wikis are open in nature, no comments are ever discreet unless you choose to directly email them (which I'd have treated as confidential). Onto your style, I see no overall problem, though I've only given he VfD a quick glance for now. Tony Sidaway is a passionate editor, and presents strong arguments towards his cause. You're not the first to wonder in amazement when you take his opposing side :) -- Longhair | Talk 02:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joder[edit]

I saw you created a VfD tag on the Joder article. It is obvious that everyone seems ready to vote it off of Wikipedia so I can't fight back anyway, but I suggest that the extra info be merged onto the chingar article. I see no reason why you called it a "rambling, multi-lingual dictionary article" as clear discussions of the word and its usage were added onto the article. I hope you will agree to the merge idea. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 666666[edit]

oh comon, it should have been done =) its befitting that the first 666,666 article was 666666 =) lol. Betcha you had a good laugh! Sasquatch↔讲↔看

rofl! well, better luck next time! I uploaded some screen shots of this historic day onto my user page. =) Sasquatch↔讲↔看 07:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Outsider Art links[edit]

Thanks for the note in support of my link reduction plan. Keeping the list tight seems especially important in that article, as there are all sorts of folks who think their gallery or home page counts as "outsider art," and marginally relevant links can multiply like rabbits. BTfromLA 07:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've posted on my User:Talk page, I'll do the same for you[edit]

Haven't you noticed that there's been one user who's consistently remained active in trying to delete all references to this community? Have you noticed that it's you? Have you further noticed that you're violating the policies of Wikipedia as they are outlined in the section regarding deletions? How much farther do you want to go with this? Dave 11:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Minister and Chief Governors of India[edit]

Aaron,

I start collecting information since a month and completed initial records, and complete list of my state. I belive there is big Indian community of wikipedians. They should be able complete the task in respective state. -Bijee 07:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Diaper lover article[edit]

I have asked inter for help before in the past, he is just an admin I trust to be unbias and fair. I do know it isnt being mediated yet, but mediation seems to be the best way we can work out a compromise until we can learn to play nice with each other. The picture is copyright by the guy who is pictured and we have his permission to use it. We haven't talked about the picture outside of email and you can see in the Infantilism and ABDL talk and Daves talk and my talk, that Dave was against there being only a female pictured. I tried to point out the rarity of male AB picts that are vanilla and allowed on Wiki, then to overcome copyright restrictions, compared to the wide availability of females in AB and the wide selection of public domain pictures to choose from. Finally, I said to him, if he demands it, he shouldnt force it on me but instead find one on his own. Tod, the person in the picture, gave him the two pictures while fully aware what it would be used for. He keeps the copyright though because he doesnt want his picture ending up on every AB site out there, we ABs love our privacy, but he has given us the ability to use it on wiki. You should email the person to ask directly. --OrbitOne 08:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you do what ever the hell you want to the articles, I gave up. I can not part my information to the world as long as you are destroying it, many others involved in this article feel the exact same way. As far as the image goes, there is fair use which the copyright holder has given out. I dont care any more. --OrbitOne 00:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Please don't edit the response section of my RfC again. If you had only checked , you would have seen that I had moved the comment to the talk page and replied. Instead of which you made yet another false, baseless and personal allegation. This isn't the way to make friends and influence people. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can I possibly look like I'm hiding anything? Firstly, I'm an administrator in good standing at Wikipedia. Secondly all editors assume good faith. Thirdly the comment was blatantly silly. Fourthly I responded to the poxy thing on the talk page. You really do seem to be going out of your way to be nasty about this whole silly affair. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, oh captain of good faith, you've just accused me of making "yet another false, baseless and personal allegation" for saying "Answering it is better than deleting it, then it doen't look like you're trying to hide anything". And, if you'll check the timing:

13:39, 7 August 2005 I replace RF's comment
13:40, 7 August 2005 You make a note on the talk page.

How about this: get someone else to tell me I've been nasty. Not that I've been wrong, because that's something else entirely. Find someone other than yourself who will look over my contributions and find personal attacks or somesuch. And get them to tell me so nicely, with specifics. If I am as you characterize me, that shouldn't be hard.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That you have made a false, baseless and personal allegation is a fact. Stop doing that, it isn't allowed on Wikipedia. And no, I won't get my Mom to tell you to stop being so beastly. *I* am telling you to stop. Just check the facts before you make false allegations. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments[edit]

Aaron, I don't quite understand why you're trying to hide the fact that you are linking to the deletion arguments on schools. What is the point? DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind message. I understand now why you reacted the way you did. It was less the point and more the way it was done and your personal history with who did it. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Portland High School[edit]

This was a valid speedy, mate. Oh, and so was Orangeade. Keep up the good work, brenneman(t)(c) 11:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on my speedies. It's nice to know that not everybody around here subscribes to that inclusionism "Wikipedia isn't paper so let's add everything" garbage. -Soltak 16:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that bad speedies get undeleted. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 16:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost spam[edit]

My apologies for the impersonal message, but you are one of a number of people who figure in recent events surrounding the deletion of VfD, a story about which will be in the upcoming The Wikipedia Signpost. A draft of the story is at User:Michael Snow/Deletion deletion. Please feel free to review it and point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations you find. I would ask that rather than editing the story directly, if you could please direct any comments to the talk page. Thank you. --Michael Snow 23:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration of votes[edit]

(Placing this prior to placing on Tony's)
Tony,
I'm forced to consider this last in the series of changes to my votes (St. Catherine's #1, St. Catherine's #2, Charlotte #1, Charlotte #2, and Sacred Heart #1) to be in bad faith. In particular, your failure to place a comment in the VfD despite my request. As you appear to be in the habit of blanking critisicm from your talk page (which is of course, your right) I've duplicated this comment on my talk page.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've been caught red handed putting misleading links in pages, and blatantly reverting any attempt to correct them. Stop doing that, it's very naughty, you know. Don't try to deflect that criticism of you bad faith by pointing the finger at others. Just stop doing it.

You falsely claim that I altered your votes. That's lying, you know, and also very naughty. Stop doing that, too. In short, stop being a silly sausage.

And no, I don't blank criticism, I blank only unwelcome comments. You'll find plenty of criticism on my talk pages; all of it welcome. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty? Silly sausage? Nonna, is that you? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to change the subject. You're making misleading edits on Wikipedia. Stop it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 12:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, or I'll say "Stop" again![edit]

Tony,
Until you get appointed god-king, issuing commands like that is pointless. Take it up the food chain if you want, but you and your orders can... uhhh, what was it you said again about riding a hat?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(That sound you hear is me laughing.)

Aaron, you do not get to decide what is appropriate behavior on this wiki. I'm going to adopt a strictly observational stance with you from now on; you're obviously not amenable to reason so I'll simply watch what you get up to and record it. I hope the fact that I'm observing you and will miss nothing may persuade you to modify your attitude, if nothing else will. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied here from other talk page.)
Tony,
Do I appear, up to this point, to have been modified by your input? I am unmoved by your empty threats. Here, do you need a link? Just in case you don't understand, let me be explicit: I am not afraid of public discourse. I am not afraid of your "observation". Use the link, make your case, let's see what happens.
Otherwise, you'll just keep making me laugh. Because that's what I'm doing right now, Tony, I'm laughing my ass off. I actually laughed out loud when I saw your last message. I spat tea on my cat.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "Do I appear, up to this point, to have been modified by your input?".

Um yes, since you ask. You've become increasingly abusive. The kind of thing you have been doing is against Wikipedia policy, you know. I'm just watching to see how far you will take it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony
I have been uncivil in my last two messages. I will acknowledge that. Do you wonder at all why I might be becoming increasingly hostile in my dealings with you? I'm an adult, I can admit when I've shot my mouth off. Can you admit that you had some part in this? Tony, you called me a liar when I posted some diffs. Is this civil?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a problem with time sequence here. My calling you a liar after you repeatedly made false and damaging accusations cannot possibly have provoked lies which you made before the accusation. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sidaway,
The link provided shows where I have added a list of diffs with no commentary. Your edit summary is, "Again, Aaron lies". Your edit begins with "Again you lie.". Tony, I urge you again to examine the civility guidelines.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School spam[edit]

I don't understand what you're asking me to evaluate, or what you're asking me to do. I simply think schools are important enough to include all of them in Wikipedia, both for their own merit, and for providing a good entry point for new Wikipedians. Un focused 07:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you're getting at, and I would certainly state that regardless of the school inclusionist goals, the means they are using are undesirable. For instance, the VFDs on schools are significantly longer and less civil than average. The pages devoted to garnering VFD votes and providing one-sided statistics see more edits than the WikiProject schools. The issue has been known to influence RFA voting and inspire RFCs, and there are related instances of sockpuppetry (many of which alleged, but some proven) and even accusations of counterconsensual use of admin tools. Many of the people involved are incivil, several are downright hostile, and most are unwilling to discuss such things as organization, standardising or systemic bias. Overall, the signal-to-noise ratio is low. I realize I'm not providing evidence here, but that's because I have better things to do with my time than seeking it (and frankly, I don't see what the big deal is with schools and why everybody gets so worked-up about it). Supposing you had evidence, what would you do with it? R adiant _>|< 12:03, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the cake[edit]

Hmm... cake :) I am not sure whether I can garner consensus as it seems opinions have become very entrenched, but it's worth a shot. --Tim Pope 06:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: The comment[edit]

I have crossed it out as you requested, as I have no problem with such requests. See bottom of talk page for continued discussion. Inter\^Echo 13:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bucko[edit]

(Copied from Dave's talk page.)
Dave,

Please understand that I am trying to be as straight-forward as possible here. Comments such as "I won't request that your profile be deleted for violating official policy," tend to demonstrate that you don't understand policy. More to the point, as I've mentioned before, you appear to not understand some of the basics of Wikipedia.
That's not an insult, and I'm sorry because I know that it sounds like one. It takes a long time to understand the interactions, unwritten rules, complex mix of rules, guidlines, precendents, and dictatorship that make Wikipedia work. And once you think that you understand everything, some one points out WP:IAR and does what they want anyway! Two thirds of the time I have no idea what is going on.
By looking at your edit history, I cannot help but notice that you've confined yourself to contributing to a narrow set of topics. Perhaps if you tried editing some other articles, get involved in some collaboration, a bit of back-and-forth over POV, and produce a shiny finished product, you'll get a better feel for things.
Because I can't imagine you're having any fun right now. I imagine instead that you're angry and frustrated and this is a bad thing.
But if you continue like this things aren't going to get any better for you. Really. I'm going to keep trying to produce a great online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I'm going to continue to make crazy edits, I'm going to keep working for balance. I'm going to keep being patient, I'm going to continue to avoid insults. I am going to keep believing.
If you think I'm out of line, maybe I am. I'd be mad to deny even the possibilty that I'm doing the wrong thing. I've included some links, the next step would probably be Request for comment (RfC), as we don't seem to be able to communicate. I was recently chewed up and spat out in an RfC I raised, but it is the next step if you feel I'm "after" you. I'd imagine OrbitOne would provide the second signature for you.
Oh, it appears I was mistaken about the VfD. The consensus appears to be a merge into Infantilism. Which means I'll probably end up heavily involved in the content of that article, too!

Cheers,
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot, I believe you've misunderstood the relationship between GNU Free Documentation License and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Please see User talk:OrbitOne#Recent changes, but I always do love to be proven wrong. Which is lucky, because it happens all the time.

brenneman ^(t)^(c)

Well, you're right, I am new, and I don't fully understand all the vagaries of Wikipedia. But I have seen the rules for deletion, and understand them. I understand that you're violating them. I have seen requests for User Profiles to be deleted. I ahve seen references to User profiles that have been deleted. I have seen the reasons why. I have seen the majority of them have been deleted for vandalism. I understand that quite well. I also understand what vandalism is. And, I understand that it is what you are doing. Do you understand what you are doing? And do you understand what the consequences are? When the time comes, there won't be any more opportunities for you to reverse course. Before you bite off more than you can chew, make sure you think about what you are doing. Because as verbose as you may be, the moderator who deletes your profile will not be giving you a long speech about it when it happens. Dave 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American?[edit]

Dave,
I think that you may have been confused as to whom the author of the comment you were responding to actually was. While this is understandable, and in fact the reason I'm always clucking on about signatures, your response was not appropiate. I've placed some comments beneath yours, and I really suggest that you ask some one else for their advice. Find an advocate and drop a note on the page, please. Because "Why don't we just delete you" is a threat, and I will not tolerate another.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No? Well, I won't tolerate your harrassment or your vandalism. Keep it up and you'll earn yourself one deleted profile. Dave 03:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are bound by the same rules as everyone else, bucko. Don't push your luck. You don't intimidate me, and I'll be the first to request you get the boot from this page. I don't think there'll be a shortage of supporters either, judging from the way you flame people.Dave 03:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Conflict in Infantilism Article[edit]

Aaron:

Thanks for your personal message to me concerning the conflict in the article "Infantilism". I take no offense to your position. Two things, though...

First, I have NO IDEA how to use the personal messaging system by which you contacted me. Can you explain? (I have no idea whether you will get THIS message - lol)

Second, while I appreciate your advice, there is just simply NO WAY I could summarize the objections I have to the attacking text without going into a full explanation. This is what I said in the beginning, and I tried several "lesser" explanations but this guy named "Orbit" is one of the most unreasonable people I've ever dealt with. No amount of explanation is sufficient for him.

Dean Dean W 07:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infantilism and Christianity[edit]

The main reason for me choosing christianity as a focus point is because I have no idea what other religions would say. I do not have access to a rabbi to ask about judaism or a hindu monk to ask about hinduism. If the christianity section should go though, I would like to keep the OI section since they are the only group that tries to treat or remove infantilism as a practice or desire, not because of religion. --OrbitOne 07:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave them alone, man. This isn't the right place for it. If you resort to flaming people, you'll discredit yourself the way Aaron does everytime he opens his mouth. Treat matters with civility, and if someone like Dean comes along and says, "hey, I'm leaving you alone, why don't you leave me alone, too?" than do them that favour. Dean didn't come here and start slamming us. He hasn't been sending offensive messages to anyone or threateneing to delete anything. He's not rabidly foaming at the keyboard about how this page can't be allowed to exist, or how he doesn't like the picture, or anything. He's just saying, "Leave us in peace." Let's do just that.

Now, does anyone here support my opinion that Aaron should be banned from Wiki? I want to get a consensus before I make the formal declaration. Should we forgive him, or flush him? And if we forgive him, should we make sure he understand that he's not to persist in this harrassment/vandalism that clearly violates Wikimedia policy, or should we trust that he gets the hint that people aren't going to put up with that crap anymore? Do something on generic religion, Orbit. You do have access to that. JUst not this one particular kind of religion to the exlusion of all others. Use general terms, not specific ones.Dave 12:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To correct you on one point, Dean has slammed me repeatedly over email, but I havent flamed his group. I feel that their role in removing infantilism as a desire or practice does justify the inclusion of the group in the article. --OrbitOne 16:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was moved from following an unrelated discussion regarding Islamaphobia.
I will take this as a hint that people read my possition and comments and religious bias. Okay, where do I start? Oh yeah. I 1) do not want to put my head in my ass by making wild claims about religions that I do not know enough about to state what their possition is on Infantilism and 2) I am reporting the veiws of the christian church when it comes to Infantilism. 3) The Islam article backs up my claims, Islam is born from Christianity and believes in the bible as well as the Koran, -but- seperated when it comes to the subject of Jesus being the son of god, Islam taking the veiw that Jesus was a prophet. 4) As I am reporting the church veiw, I myself am not writing anything that is POV, rather, I am writing NPOV about a statement made by churches which is POV. Sorry for making it so long, but being called a racist rubs me the wrong way, thanks. --OrbitOne 16:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit, how many times do I have to repeat the phrase generic religion? Do you just not get the concept? It doesn't mean talking about religions you know nothing about. It means using neutral terms that don't specify one particular faith. Instead of Christ, use God. Instead of Christianity, use the word Religion. Instead of Sin, use the word Error. Discuss ideas that are common to all faiths. Like understanding, compassion, etc. Why? Because there's more people out there than just christians, that's why. And they're all valid, too, no matter what the majority composition of the US is. Don't be an aaron, for God's sake. You're more enlightened that that. And where does racism factor into any of this? And why do you hate Dean so much? Leave the poor man alone.Dave 22:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then the section about Infantilism and religion shouldnt be up. If I talk about generic religion and Infantilism, I with great success have gotten my head into my ass. --OrbitOne (Streaking)

Ummm - can you guys take it to your own talk pages, or the article talk page? Oh, and Orbit (Streaking? Ahhy - my eyes!) please see the note regarding Islamaphobia and a small misunderstanding above. Thanks! ^_^; brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-social behavior?[edit]

While it would be very nice to deal with anti-social behavior, I don't think that large-scale problems in that area can be solved by the Wikimunity, since it would defy the core principle of allowing anyone to edit. That said, feel free to put some evidence together and put it to RFC; just don't expect any concrete response, as behavioral RFCs usually don't get much. On a related issue, I am going to put Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks up for an official proposal soon, which may help.

Oh yes - recommended reading material is the RFC section of RFAr (not sure what the link was, but the RFAr requested comment on their proceedings). One of the suggested options was a 'content committee' that potentially would be able to deal with such issues.

I'd also like to say that while the school inclusionists' methods are wrong, their goals are not - people who wish to spread their POV about religion or racism, however, are wrong on both counts, which is far worse. R adiant _>|< 13:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

RE: Companies aren't speedies[edit]

Yeah, I don't think the current status of CSD makes much sense either, but that's the way it is: Only vanity articles about *individuals* are speedies. As you can see on my rant about deletionism, I don't like the situation. But I follow the rules. --malathion ^talk 20:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I think I'm doing just fine. :) Zoe 06:51, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

RE: Image watermark questions[edit]

The site it is from is http://www.wpw.net, but I don't have an exact link for that image. --Phroziac (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one isn't really an embedded copyright, just a ...wait, it is embedded. But i was thinking in the way thats visible to software and shows up as artifacts, this one is just text in the corner. I warned you that page image was disturbing, your fault for looking :D. As for copyright, it needs to be released under GFDL, or a fairuse claim could be made, but that's only for if the article is about the image, or if the article is about what's in the image, and it would not be easily possible to get a free version of the image. A picture of a mustang GT is not fairuse'able in an article about the mustang GT, for example. --Phroziac (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: spodi[edit]

I'm not angry or annoyed with you about putting up for deletion, a little dissapointed but nothing personal. I admit it needs cleaned up however it makes me cautious to spend the time cleaning up and formatting the article when it's on the chopping block. Also, although it needs cleaned up I do think the content is encyclopedic, I attempted to be as factual as possible. Vicarious 15:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting[edit]

I relist VfDs that have only had a small number of valid votes. It's not been done so often recently but is an accepted practice. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway[edit]

There is currently an RfC against Tony Sidaway, which several editors have signed. The guy shouldn't be making unilateral decisions which are intended to undermine VfU. It's clearly his intention. Zoe 05:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I should probably be outraged that you deleted my votes, but I just don't care. Wow, my renewed good feelings for Wikipedia have evaporated really fast. Zoe 06:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

You're much too cheery. Ugh. And did you notice that Tony decided to respond to my comments and yours and other's as well, on the Talk page of the RfC and not on the RfC page itself? Zoe 06:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That is because of this little notice:

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

As the subject of the RfC, I cannot vote on or endorse outside comments, I can only comment on them. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 06:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwwwww[edit]

Thanks for the kitten. :) Zoe 04:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

One Piece[edit]

As x goes to infinity, the number of spam links on Wikipedia will increase exponentially.

(actually, I've noticed a lot more of this lately. I suspect we will see more robots-adding-referrer-links soon.) Nandesuka 05:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, person I've never talked to.[edit]

Hello, person I've never talked to.
I'll be brief - Is this true?. Do six undeletes count as WP:3RR violation?
brenneman ^(t)^(c)

Looking back I think it was only 4 undeletes rather than 6. If one admin undeletes and one or more admins redelete then anyone reverting (by deletion or undeletion) within 24 hours is in violation of 3RR. No one ever said it doesn't apply to admins and deletes and undeletes are just another way of editing. - Tεx τ urε 14:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geni[edit]

What the fxxx give User:Geni the right to throw around threats like this? Zoe 04:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no, not more kittens!

I was about to write up an RfA on her, but decided not to. Zoe 04:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

But the question is, is it a good effect? ;) Zoe 05:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Josh danahay[edit]

Thanks for nominating for speedy deletion. I'm not familiar with that process. Best, Rkevins82 - TALK 06:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exam Diff[edit]

Tony,
Why did you create Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination) when Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff 2 already existed? Your naming convention is better in retrospect, but a rename would have been simpler.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I screwed up. I wasn't aware of the existence of the other listing until Uncle G mentioned it, and even then didn't realise it was related to your recent tagging of this article just before Radiant tried to delete it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 12:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/B1249[edit]

I closed that VfD as no consensus because I do not believe that there was consensus to delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

66% is not consensus. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edit[edit]

Please do not alter my contributions in my signed name in a talk page...I was just warned of this and was told I could be blocked because I was asked not to, so I am asking you not to alter my signed edits to the talk page. Thank you.--MONGO 08:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, don't cite me out of context. Changing a section header to clarify what the section actually is about is entirely different from unilaterally removing somebody's name from a membership list. R adiant _>|< 08:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Basic wiki concepts...nothing wrong with being bold...are you insinuating that you can teach me some new tricks...I'm looking for some article creation on your part...your edit summary suggests that you are more interested in janitorial work, not that this is a bad thing, er somewhat lacking in creativity. I think your edit was more than bold...it was rude...I inserted it along with my timestamped entry...you then post that the title of the subject heading can't be changed...by whose authority? My edit to User:Radiant!'s talk page was right on.--MONGO 10:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism help[edit]

No problem...I'm a newbie around here, so I'm not sure how to warn vandals who have already been blocked in the past...that Australian vandal has gotten to other articles, too. Should I just rewarn him on his talk page? GinaDana 00:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made you laugh[edit]

Well, I was mean, I was just shocked when he was told to go ahead and give us 1000 links! Eek! :) Zoe 04:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Vfd trouble[edit]

Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) continues to behave strangely with respect to VFD closings - in particular, relisting any discussion with less than five votes even if they all vote the same (e.g. here), thus unilaterally creating a quorum policy, except when he already agrees with the outcome e.g. here; closing 3del/3redir results as "keep"; and closing VFDs as keep when he in fact already merged or redirected the article. I believe this to be misleading at best, WP:POINT at worst. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? R adiant _>|< 23:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant is quite wrong to state that I'm creating a quorum policy--articles relisted are still VfDs and the purpose of doing so it to attract attention to them so that they will be discussed and the discussion can then be closed with more confidence. I have been doing this for a week or two, and I see to recall that you praised me, Aaron, for doing so. Radiant's claim that I do so only when I disagree with the outcome is incorrect--the Anguilar VfD was evidently treated as a bad faith nomination and completely ignored for several days.

I do sometimes close VfDs as keep and then on the basis of being bold I perform a merge or redirect or whatever I think needs to be done, even if I don't see a consensus to do so. What of it? A closer is also an editor.

And of course a 3 del / 3 redir discussion, we established on the RfC, must always be closed as a default keep. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was not established. It was Tony's opinion which was heavily disputed by just about anyone else. Most admins would close this as a consensus to redirect. R adiant _>|< 13:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

VfU?[edit]

I though you agreed to stop doing this?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any admninistrator would willingly agree to stop correcting bad speedies. Sometimes I rewrite when only a tiny stub exists, but in a case like this with plenty of detail I see no reason to duplicate the work that has already been done. Such out-of-process speedies are summarily undeletable according to the deletion policy: "Deleted pages can be restored, by administrators, if and only if there is support on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, or the page was speedily deleted out-of-process." Since the article clearly identified this person as the author of several books, including a Farsi language book and volumes of poems, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents clearly states that authors are notable, this was a clear ase of deletion out of process. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Obligate" vs. "oblige"[edit]

The "history" is that the words do not have identical meanings, they are both commonly used, neither is incorrect in context, and one should not unilaterally decide to expurgate a particular word from Wikipedia because one feels it is "ugly" (this is the reason the expurgator has given on his Talk: page). "Obligate" typically has more of a legal flavour (to compel one to do something), whereas "oblige" typically has more of a social flavour (to do something as a favor). As well, their usages differ slightly in American and U.K. English. If you compare definitions in a good dictionary you will note this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who calls the tune[edit]

Put up or shut up? Excuse me? It is possible that things are being "put up" that are not yet ready. Tony doesn't get to decide when the community is no longer tired of his abusive actions. He can be weary of my saying that he listens to no one else, but he could end that very easily by starting to listen to VfU, by voluntarily taking a break from being "Mr. VfD," or by trying to establish consensus for his solitary view that VfD only has delete or keep outcomes. That would be an excellent way to get me to stop complaining. After all, I wasn't complaining before he started doing all this (and insulting everyone who disagreed with him), and now I am. I wonder what changed? Geogre 00:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC) (BTW, admins don't get to undelete "bad" speedies. They get to undelete "improper" speedies. "Jimmy is the greatest" makes a claim for notability the same way that "Jimmy is a famous author" does. When Tony can demonstrate that an article is also not a substub with no context, he'll have gotten somewhere. Demonstrating that he can use Google is not much.) Geogre 00:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony[edit]

I made an addition to User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway. Let me know if that's the proper way to do it, I don't really understand the RfC procedures. Zoe 05:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Only an RfAr will stop him. Zoe 06:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Melechesh[edit]

CSDA7 applies to persons, not groups. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7, G4, etc[edit]

Hi Aaron. replied on the Cam Wilson AfD Talk page. Do you think we could talk more on that page rather than the AfD project page? Or maybe on our own Talk pages? I'd hate to inconvenience the closing admin. Very best wishes—Encephalon | ^ζ 05:18:57, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Aaron, Splash and I have been tuning up the proposed text change; we think it's more or less ready. Do you have further suggestions? Also, how should this proceed? WP:CSD is locked, so at the very least a change will require the cooperation of one of you higher beings :). I'm wondering if more needs to be done than that? Splash seems to suggest no polling will be necessary, and I'm inclined to think he's right; are we? The latest version is here. Best—encephalon έγκέφαλος 15:39:52, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Systemic bias on Alexa?[edit]

Hi. In a recent VfD nomination you mentioned "systemic bias on Alexa." Could you turn up the detail knob on that a bit? What are you referring to? Thanks! Nandesuka 04:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

brenneman is an asshole[edit]

Brenneman ought to be deleted...and he has no authority on discussions regarding deletion of JTV. I know about JTV and it is a valuable resource.

Thanks! ^_^ brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good sign! Whatever you're doing keep it up, it's working! Dmcdevit·t 05:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Aaron, the JTV afd never got created, apparently. The only edit to it in the history is mister happy above. Zoe 05:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my bad. Zoe 05:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia widow[edit]

As the author and after further reflection under more sober circumstances I have tagged this article for speedy deletion as I believe it meets the criterion of General article 7 (1.2.7) at WP:CSD. hydnjo talk 19:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Wilson[edit]

I, personally, will ignore this ideosyncratic interpretation of speedy and will continue to delete recreated articles until such time as policy tells me not to. Zoe 20:30, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Re: I'm Sorry[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't think I was being that snarky, but if you felt it was too intemperate I'm willing to trust your judgment. Nandesuka 04:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's[edit]

I don't know how to close AfDs. The process has changed since I was here before. :) Zoe 05:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I can delete. :) Are you not an admin? How long have you been on Wikipedia? Would you like me to nominate you for adminship? Zoe 19:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The black book[edit]

Hey Aaron, I've noticed that I've been entered into your black book! This sounds most ominous, but I'm going to view it as a compliment of sorts and be quite happy with it. That "random," by the way, is kafkaesque. Brrr.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 07:10:34, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

VfD Technics pr804[edit]

Hello there, you ruled Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Technics pr804 about Technics pr804 as a delete. Shouldn't the article be deleted in that case? ;-) --Lomedae 09:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Big Head Todd and the Mobsters[edit]

Hilarious. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 04:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essential tremor[edit]

I just noticed two edits of yours, reverts on this article:

01:49, 9 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Essential tremor (Removed material added re-added (twice now) without use of talk page. Please use talk page before re-adding this material. Also please use preview.)
01:32, 9 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Essential tremor (Please note that reverts without an edit summary or use of a talk page are fair game for removal. If there is a reason this section should go in, please use talk page.)

This seems a little OTT to me. Couldn't you just have edited the section to remove the superfluous external links? Insisting that the fellow go to a talk page about adding a section on support groups for a neurological condition to an article about that condition that already contains links to those same groups' websites seems, well, somewhat unnecessary. If they're worth linking to they're worth writing about. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 02:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did edit the section to remove the extra links. Then there was nothing left, so I removed the section. When an editor repeatedly adds material back without edit summary than another use is removing, asking for use of the talk page is reasonable.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you were very reasonable there. It is simply false to say that there was no informational content other than superfluous links. Since you did revert twice, I'd have prefered to see you actually use the talk page yourself to explain why you kept doing it. I still don't really know why you did it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony,
Thank you for your suprising interest in this issue. You'll note that the section was:

The Tremor Action Network is widely regarded as being the most supportive group for those with essential tremor. Also known as TAN, the Tremor Action Network is based in the USA, and has messageboards open to all for sympathtic and informed support.

The National Tremor Foundation is a friendly and supportive organisation based in Essex, UK.

I've bolded the section that was neither repeated nor NPOV. If you believe that this information warrented inclusion in the article in a little subsection all it's own, you are of course welcome to argue that. As to the rest, my edit summaries were quite clear, as seen above. I would do exactly the same with any persistant adding of external links without edit summary or use of talk page.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the fact that the information you repeatedly removed warranted inclusion where it was NPOV (it obviously did, and you were obviously easily able to identify it) it was your bullying approach and your utterly false claim that someone must use a talk page prior to adding information to an article. That kind of behavior isn't only contrary to policy, it can be extremely damaging in an environment where we must do everything we can to cultivate, not alienate, new editors. If you do it again I'll come back and remind you of this. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 04:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony. Feel free to do so. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Divider line[edit]

Yeah about that divider line at the vfd - not my idea orginally. :) Causes some problems though and since I had to move a couple of votes above the line, I thought I should make the message clear ("PLEASE VOTE ABOVE THIS LINE"). Thanks for making me aware though. I propose that discussion be done on discussion page. Let's wait and see what happens. Thanks, a-n-o-n-y-m 02:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bicycles[edit]

Hi Aaron. I see that there was a small exchange about the use of a bicycle image. I was the VFD closer who added the picture when closing a school deletion debate, this one in fact. I added that picture as a little joke, and nothing else than that (except perhaps venting some frustration of going through the three step process of closing, removing the VFD tag and adding a link to the talkpage when the server is slow).

I will usually not vote in deletion debates over schools, and the times I do so are either to vote "merge" on a stub which could easily be merged, or "keep" on a school which I think is particularily notable. Alright, I am guilty of creating an article about the high school I attended (Bergen Katedralskole), but I think that one is notable. Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 00:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dolby article.[edit]

No idea what any of what you just said to me mean. Wikipedia needs to make it more intuitive for someone to post questions about an article.

Signature Help[edit]

Say, I noticed your super-neet-o signature with the ^(T)(C) stuff and was wondering how the heck you do that (auto-magically), is it a Wiki Feature that I can enable?! ThanX --D0li0 08:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Please share!! Jwissick 00:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Littmann et alii[edit]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eric Littmann quote: "The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP"

That seems pretty clear to me.

Actually, if you look at Talk:Big Brother (USA TV series)#Merge you'll find no support for requests to merge/re-direct individual contestant articles. Before doing a re-direct, you should discuss on the talk page and see if there's support. It's ok to go ahead with re-directs on your own, *if* you expect nobody to contest it, but not in this case. The main article is already huge, and discussion of merging/re-directing into it, should be discussed in one central spot. Given, the re-direct was done unilaterally, I'm well within my rights to remove it, on my own. If there's no proven consensus for the re-directs, I will continue to do so. However, if you garner a consensus to support the re-directs, I will respect that.

What you fail to understand, is that mergers are a two-sided affair. There's a source *and* a target. Editors on the target must be involved. Otherwise, you're doing a page blanking.

--rob 06:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guesse what I'm have the most trouble understanding, is why does the larger issue of what to do with individual conetstants get discussed over-and-over, and every place *but* Talk:Big Brother (USA TV series)#Merge, which is the one place it should be discussed. You can't split the issue up, on a per-article basis. Rather, I'm simply asking for a *central* discussion, and basis for agreement. The word "knee-jerk" is not what *I* did. If you explain your full logic on the relevant talk page, *before* acting, you'll find you're less likely to be reverted. If certain articles were special cases, and you explained that *first*, I might have left them. Even, if you have a good reason to make such a major change, if you fail to explain it, a revert is quite likely. You made several major changes, with no attempt whatsoever, to discuss it, in a central spot. --rob 07:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Actually, a couple re-directs probably had a good case, which I'm quite open to. I suggest this: go over to the Talk:Big Brother (USA TV series)#Merge list the proposed re-directs from strongest to weekest cases for the re-direct, with specific reasons. If you do that, I'll agree that at *least* one re-direct is warranted (like Eric Littmann. I'm not a fan of smaller stubs. I think the contestants warrant *good* articles, but not *any* article. So, I'll take your suggestion, and offer Eric Littmann as my sacrifice to compromise. --rob 07:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radman[edit]

See, the names you're using are just to be funny. His names are explicitly aimed at getting a rise out of me, and after putting up with it without even commenting, I got fed up. Yeah, he succeeded. And I knew as I was doing it that everybody would jump all over me, but I just don't care. And he refused to stop doing it. I know it's childish, I freely admit it, but it's not going to continue. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

re: CSD discussion about G4[edit]

Please let me know when you think this discussion is stable enough to archive. The CSD Talk page currently stands at about 72 k. This discussion is a big part of what's left. Rossami (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to my User Page not welcome[edit]

I really am done with you Aaron, your postings are not welcome on my user page. Do not post there again, I will consider any such postings to my own User Page to be vandalism and will be deleted and ignored. Don't bother responding to this message either, I have no interest in your threats or other nonsense. Your User name is "Aaron Brenneman" not anything else, implying a threat that I might be blocked or otherwise restricted for addressing you by your USER NAME is a new height of even your usual hypocrisy. Consider this my last reply to you, here or elsewhere. --Nicodemus75 01:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on (insert long title here)[edit]

Why is it bad for that article to exist? --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved to Phroziac's talk page.)

Something rash[edit]

Page blanking[edit]

Aaron, it would appear that you've gone and done something rash, here. Did you read my amending of my prior statement at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aaron_Brenneman? Don't go stomping off, man. You're a good editor. Drop me a line or shoot me an email if you want. I'd buy you a beer, but you're in England or something. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 04:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aaron why don't you just stay and avoid the idiots for a while. If you let them drive you away they win. David D. (Talk) 05:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is truly offensive. "idiots"?? What is wrong with you? Not enough to have "nigger" in one day, it's "idiot" now too.--Nicodemus75 07:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I hope you're not pissed off at me. I honestly and truly think my position has remained consistent from Zoe's problem yesterday to your problem today. That's the last I'll say on the matter, unless you get back to me. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll be off getting stuffed, then. Later. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Welcome back. :) ---Fernando Rizo T/C 09:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you will be back. Should any of your subpages be speedied as you've requested, you only have to ask and I'll undelete. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back soon. A lot of us, myself included, don't really have the energy to continually keep Tony accountable, and you've done a fantastic job so far. It'd be a real loss if you were to leave for good. Ambi 11:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go[edit]

Take a break, Aaron. I did. Of course, mine was almost two years. :) But we all always need some time off. Come back when you're feeling less stressed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also sorry if you are leaving, I appreciated your efforts to resolve difficulties by discussion. It's a pity this place is so bitterly divided. Kappa 01:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM[edit]

Transferd from my user talk:

To whomever is sending me e-mails. I'll include those lynching photos with goats.exc in my "list of things I wish I'd never seen". As they took the time to find my e-mail address, create a new hotmail account, collect those photos, and send them to me, I hope they'll take the time time to read this.
My comment was not intended to be taken as a racist comment. It was a parody of Tony's suggestion that I should not be hurt or offended because there existed a group for whom this label was self-applied.
I did, and still do, believe that anyone who read my comments without prejudice will see that. However, I understand that I have caused hurt with my comments. I deeply regret this, and do wish I had chosen my words more carefully.
While attacks against me as a "deletionist" are hurtful, they do at least have some basis in reality. I do vote delete more than keep. That is no excuse, however, for those who would dismiss myself (and others) as "deletionists". I am more complex than that.
Attacks against me as a racist, however, are completely misguided. Please feel free to examine my contributions, as I can offer no further evidence to the contrary.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing I want is to drive anyone away from Wikipedia...so I strongly encourage you to stay...I was on RC patrol and came across the edits you made and reacted primarily to the term "they even call each other that" when you used the "N" word to make a point. I doubt that, as Sidaway has pointed out, you did this in malice. I also qualified my last comment by essentially stating that I also get worked up and write things I don't always mean. With that in mind, don't for a minute run away from this. You do a lot of work that many here, myself included, find tedious but it needs to be done. In that, your purpose here is probably more of a contribution than mine as I usually try to write and or expand articles about 75% of the time. Now as far as spam mail, I don't do that sort of thing, I don't have a sock puppet account but I do log in from two different locations so if a developer checked my IP s/he would find this to be true. I confess to coming across as hostile or forceful at times, and that is a fault I have to admit...perhaps it is a spinoff of my occupation. Take a break, cool off and I will do the same. Ignore those that seem hell bent on working against you...I mean, look at this garbage that has been on this person's userpage for months:User:Brodo in which s/he calls me his "neofascist sockpuppet". So, you see, not everyone is out to get you, least of all me.--MONGO 02:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have my empathy.[edit]

I only came here to say that your comment on the AfD forum certainly did not justify the kind of harassment you've suffered since. Now it appears that you've been driven off by a combination of factors, certainly including the harassment.

I can't do anything to stop the harassment, or solve your other issues, but I can offer my empathy. It's clear you have a passionate interest in Wikipedia, and I hope you'll return, even though we'll probably almost always continue to vote opposite each other on schools.

Best regards, and I hope you return soon. Un focused 02:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye[edit]

Goodbye Aaron. I have not always agreed with you, but you have been a great editor and nice to work with. There is still a place for you here at Wikipedia if you choose to return, and I hope you will some day. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go Aaron. I hope you'll return. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that was fast[edit]

Ok, I've thrown a tantrum. I've been careless in what I said, and compounded that with an immature response. I'm dreadfully embarrassed.
But everyone has been bloody nice, and the supportive e-mails have happily erased the horrible ones from my memory. I've learned something about myself, and about WP, and will now carry on with the exciting work of contributing here.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, I am glad that you have reconsidered, even though the other day I was so offended that I could only think "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out." I don't wish to re-ignite this type of acrimony again - and I am sorry that I purposely called you a deletionist as a way to annoy at the end of the exchange. My use of the term to refer to "those that vote to delete" (either to a specific AfD or in a more general way) is neither intended as dismissive, nor as an insult; it is certainly more convenient than type out "those who vote to delete this article" or "those who frequently vote to delete" each and every time I wish to use that expression. In any case, I am sorry if someone intentionally harassed you via email, but I assure you it wasn't me - I do not even have your email address, and whoever might have done so is extremely childish. Hopefully, we can get along and put this episode behind us. (P.S. I retract my earlier comments about discussion on user pages or elsewhere).--Nicodemus75 08:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wedding videography[edit]

Dear Aaron, I reposted my external link for wedding videography. Please tell me if I am within wiki standards, since this is actually my first post ever. Also, instead of deleting the additions, could you modify the text so that it is correct so I make sure that my other additions are done correctly? Thanks a bunch and I look forward to being part of the wikipedia community. Gavin Holt 18:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TLAs[edit]

A proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move TLAs from AAA to DZZ and other related pages to Wikipedia namespace. Please visit Talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ for the related discussion. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

Welcome back, Aaron. I have to admit the old place didn't seem the same without you. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, since I'm back for a little while in free time today, I thought I'd stop by and say the same. (I'll never figure out what's going on between you and Tony...) :) Dmcdevit·t 08:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you editing again. Welcome back. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka's RfA[edit]

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Nandesuka 00:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Album stubs[edit]

Hi. I'll be happy to undo the deletions if you wish. I only left the message after I'd deleted a couple of others that didn't even give the name of the artist. Thanks for the heads-up. :) - Lucky 6.9 04:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No bitchiness noted. Not to worry. :)) - Lucky 6.9 04:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfU[edit]

I'm still recovering from looking at the diff on my watchlist about half an hour ago. I do not think that instituting the proposal was too bold in itself; it has a clear consensus, verging on unanimity, on the talk page. It has been advertised widely and has not been rushed. However, there needs to be some consequential changes: specifically to the naming: Deletion Review now appears on VfU whilst the title is unchanged.

Also, I'm still a little unclear at how we're going to work it. There were a couple of suggestions of 'mechanics', although nobody commented on them specifically, save for Tony Sidaway's suggestion of loading in favour of keeping/undeleting. I personally don't like the current suggestion by DES because it's too long, but I can see that it might work quite well. However, my original intent (not that this matters, but anyway) was to retain the majoritarian system since it makes undeletion easier than than a consensus; I hadn't forseen that it was seen as too hard by some. I wanted to change as little as possible to make change as easy as possible. One thing at a time, you know? Finally, there were some concerns over taking speedies out-of-scope; I'm more or less persuaded others are not: they now appear as in-scope on VfU.

So I don't think you were too bold, but I do think we need to iron those things out, and quickly. Perhaps we should snip the mechanics suggestions into a proper section of the talk page, VP/RfC it, drop notes on the participating editor's talk pages and try to seek their opinions on that aspect specifically. I extracted 3 proposals from the discussion — see User:Splash/Deletion Review, but DES said he didn't like any of them. He preferred a retention of the majority system (as do I, for simplicity) based on process-not-content but offered a non-majority system as you can see on both my talk: and VfU talk:. How do you think we should collect those things up and try to sort them out? -Splash^talk 00:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caning[edit]

No problem...I just put it back because the guy who removed it had already removed one perfectly good sentence, so I was a little suspicious, and the link didn't look exceptionally bad. I'm not attached to it though. Thanks for the notice. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Was that you who archived? My apologies if it was: I assumed it had been done by my best Wikipedia friend trying to hide something. ;-) By all means, rearchive if you want to.

I agree that it would be good if there was something completely separate from arbitration, but the fact remains that the arbcom asks people to try other means of dispute resolution first, and RfC is often the one they choose, all the more so given that the mediation committee appears not to be functioning. Also, I don't think it's only the RfC's perceived association with the arbcom (as a first step) that's the problem. I think it's also the format. It's a pretty nasty thing to do to someone, let's face it: put a series of complaints against them and ask others to comment. I see it as exactly like putting someone in the stocks and throwing rotten tomatoes at them. So I don't see how anything with that format could be improved.

Just thinking out loud. We currently have article RfCs, and user-conduct RfCs. How about a third type: an issue RfC? Let's say for example that I annoy you by reverting something you've written once a day for three months. You can't have me blocked because there's no 3RR violation. You can't take me to mediation because the waiting list is very long. You can't go straight to arbitration, and a user-conduct RfC is very messy. However, you could post an issue RfC, asking for comment (perhaps mentioning no names, or perhaps giving diffs from the dispute: we'd have to think that through) about the substantive issue that the dispute boils down to i.e. the issue of slow reverts.

That has two advantages: first, it avoids the personal stuff, but secondly, it forces the person bringing the RfC to focus on exactly what the issue is, aside from personal ill-feeling, and they might actually find that when they do that, there isn't as much of an issue as they thought. Would something like this work? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You made me laugh[edit]

Ok, I admit it, I did laugh heartily when I saw your comment. →Raul654 07:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Share[edit]

SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH USER ZOE ON User:LevKamensky TALK PAGE. Shillori 12:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank, I always appreciate a chance to say something nice about someone I like.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfU mechanics[edit]

I've replied point by point on my talk page. Generally i do think your changes were not for the bettre, and i've give my reasons. But I am not at all unhappy with you proposign or defending them. i on't own this idea or even my proposed text.

My vital points are:

DR should treat keeps and deletes as nearly identical as possible.
If a majority thinks process was violated, some action must result.
DR should be as final as possible.
The DR mehanics should be as explicit as possible, leaving little to implication.
"process not content" must be enshrited as a DR principle, in general.

If your text can be alted to include those points, I would support it. DES ^(talk) 01:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Im Back[edit]

Check the OI page Aaron. I feel Dean shouldn't be allowed to scare Wiki into not posting how his group. He doesnt have the right to force people not to talk about his group. He hasn't given a solid example of how the section was NPOV or hostile.

DR[edit]

Aaron, there's been a lot of discussion over at VfU Talk over the new proposal, and in the thick of comments by DES, yourself, Splash and others I've lost my way as to which version all of you seem to have settled down to. Would you be so kind as to help me with that—perhaps just drop a box with the proposal on my page or point me to a spot where it's stated in full and clearly? Regards—encephalon εγκέφαλον 03:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aaron. It's a very good start. I'm troubled by 4 (strongly enough that I would oppose a version containing it), and 3 is well-intentioned but in my very humble opinion misconceived—it will lead to havoc if passed. But the rest is promising. I have to go now, but hopefully will be able to post soon.—encephalon εγκέφαλον 04:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:203.134.48.170[edit]

I tried to talk to him, but he wouldn't, look at his talk page User:203.134.48.170. I put in the warnings, but I am so upset I put in the wrong number, but then fixed it. In the past 30 minutes he has repeatedly insulted me. If he would have chatted to me nicely I would have explained. It is past that point. Please lock the article from him. Please talk to him, I can't.

I am having trouble with User:203.134.48.170 he won't communicate with me, only attacks me personally through the Edit summary box when he edits:Special:Contributions/203.134.48.170

HELP...!!!! I am getting really pissed off at this guy. WikiDon 06:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How long did you block him for. I want to work on the article, but can't with him around. !WikiDon

Replied on WikiDon's talk page. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, did you just give him a 24-hour? Also, read the Talk:1986 NBA Draft and see I was fair. I did make some edits to the page, even some that he wanted. I am not total opposed to all of his edits, just the way he has gone about them. Thanks WikiDon 08:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

I hope this is the correct place to respond :) [in response to the timeshare page edit]

I did read/skim the "welcome page", but did not really see anything about adding links... well, the "policy" about adding a link to a page on wikipedia.

However, I do understand your point and the whole purpose of wikipedia...

anyway, my question is:

If I can add value to a page and offer a "summary" of the view... then give a link more for details....

is that allowed?

Given that I did read the Objections and clarifications of the NPOV (interesting no less)

thanks

ADDED -- I read this part, it appears to be vague or up for interpretation

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic

re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum[edit]

if it's absolutely unrewritable you are welcome to renominate it for deletion, if you do remember to note that you have done your best to attempt to inform other users that it has been tried as per the previous afd and failed. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check your counts, with that one that the person struck their vote and changed to undecided I don't think it's quite up at 75% to delete and I felt uncomfortable deleting without a clear consensus. Again though, if you think it deserves deletion wait a few weeks or a month (as recommended) then renom it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, here. I don't think Deletion Review is ready for a guinea pig, yet. -Splash^talk 02:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee - is that voice I hear my conscience? Ok, I'll cool my jets. Conscience, while this one was in the range of "discretion" (although at the top end to me) what sort of closure would you consider clearly in the zone of DR?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any closure where an editor thinks the admin has misread the (no-)consensus, either accidentally or wilfully. I imagine it would be hard to challenge closures which had much above 75% support either way, and easy to challenge those with less than 60% (so the answer to your direct question is 0-60%). Between that range, the likelihood of competent challenge (unlike most of today's offerings on VfU) would depend on how controversial the article was and how well expressed the closure was. It would also depend on the strength of the basis of the views of the numerical majority who are being overridden. What I mean is that, just because the evil numbers are between 60% and 75% doesn't automatically yield a basis for a DR. Would that about tally with what you'd expect? And where's Encephalon gone? -Splash^talk 02:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LevKamensky[edit]

I guess you'll have to ask him why you're on his list. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki[edit]

I apparently struck a chord, and was quickly slapped down. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Thanks for the chuckle! I have to wonder whether the phrasing was a mistake after all... certain edits, well...! ;-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orange[edit]

Hey, that orange thing on your page resembles a "You have new messages" notice. 24.54.208.177 03:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And no...[edit]

...because if I had said "should not", I'd have been giving the wrong impression. It's a little bit of enforcement on my part, and I considered a stronger phraseology. Removing those nominations will cause great anguish if done prior to acting on the outcome of the debate, which is going obviously to be undelete. Neutrality has indicated no desire to discuss the issue. I do not think the admin who undeleted one of them was right to do so, because we have a process and we should respect it (that particular one still has a AfD tag linking to a now-closed debate). Once the process is started there should, imo, be extenuating circumstances absent here to shortcircuit that process. Yes, I know VfU in particular is often short-circuited to an undelete, and that is usually wrong unless it's a simple correction of an obvious mistake. So if those school nominations are removed, prior to acting on the debate, I will replace them. I get to decide that because I thought of saying it first, and I'm well within admin discretion to decide that the debates will run their course, and well within reason to take action to preserve process. It has also been backed by another admin since. I figure you no longer intend to remove the debates, given Neutrality's participation, so the point is a little moot. -Splash^talk 23:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On recent past experience with Neutrality and AfD-stomping, he is disinclined to either respond to messages, or to undelete when it is obvious that either process or outcome demands it. I have little sympathy with an Arbitrator so inclined; imagine what his response would have surely to be if a problem-admin were before the ArbCom and the case included similar evidence. He could end the flogging at a stroke by pressing his 'restore' button, but chooses not to: he even votes keep deleted and so asserts his closures were entirely proper. There is no suggestion that anything would have been different had discussion preceded listing, although I suppose that is just retro-speculation. Discussion before VfU is always best, but it is by no means required, even though it perhaps should be. When I dispute a closure, I use a talk page, and would strongly encourage others to do so, as I figure would you, admin or no. But unlisting a well-within process listing on those grounds, and effectively branding it out-of-process, once it is well underway is too much — and would be setting a precedent which I do not think would be helpful. In effect, yes, I was/am pulling the admin card, though not on you specifically: my message on VfU was to discourage anyone from having the bright idea of following your suggestion when you yourself had not done so. In that respect, it's not at all unheard of for an admin to oversee a contentious debate, and delisting would certainly have been contentious. And yes, everything's fine, but I am being a little more assertive than usual in this particular case because I am getting tired of people (admins, usually) shortcircuiting VfU. That said, if someone speedy undeletes, I won't object especially loudly, (although I might a little bit) as long as they do the job properly. -Splash^talk 01:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Don't think that I decided you were misbehaving or anything. It would have been clear if I thought you were. I was careful to only say that we were straying towards a wp:point, without actually making one. It would be hard indeed to make a wp:point over encouraging discussion. I just thought that the delist idea was a path that would lead to bad things that were avoidable. -Splash^talk 01:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loudspeaker[edit]

Hey! Thanks for deleting that list of manufacturers! I guess I was waiting on someone to come along and do the dirty work, he he he. Jaberwocky6669 06:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herbalism[edit]

this link clearly shows I did not remove all your changes. I've reverted myself so I hope you are happy now.Geni 23:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK[edit]

This is to caution you that your repeated assumptions of bad faith and false accusations of spamming appear to be in violation of WP:DICK. 24.54.208.177 02:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to please! - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trillian[edit]

Instant message me at AOL Instant Messenger ID nlarson256 if you want. Maybe we can resolve these AFD issues better in that format. We don't seem to be making progress currently. 24.54.208.177 02:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you went away. Well, I'm logging off. 24.54.208.177 02:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review[edit]

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This user is demented[edit]

This user is obviously strange. For some reason he has chosen to take a personal vandetta on the articles I have created or editted, by tagging almost every erticle for deletion.

He obviously likes the conflict it causes (as can be seen by the dispute box on his user page). Can someone please ban this user indefinately before he causes more conflict. Treelovinhippie

It's more of an impersonal vendetta, actually. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkalai has been asked to go fuck himself.[edit]

I have asked Mikkalai to go fuck himself. 68.66.98.168 09:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice for you. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revision3[edit]

Oh hell. I'm not sure what's happening, but I think it's a phenomenon I call "topic warring." Inclusionists disagree with me strongly...

What I think is happening is analogous to what is happening with e.g. webcomics, in which the fans of some niche phenomenon basically band together to assert that practically every webcomic automatically belongs in Wikipedia. And if you challenge this, they say "well, you obviously know nothing about webcomics so you shouldn't be expressing your opinion." Of course, IMHO Wikipedia is founded on the assumption that people can do valid research and make valid judgements outside their area of expertise.

So I think the same thing is happening with vidcasts. People interested in vidcasts are using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle for vidcasts in general.

I'll look at it some more later. Might or might not vote. My advice is cast your vote as you think fit, ignore any flaming, shrug it off if the article is kept. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 4 October 2005 User:KHM03 (rv to last version by KHM03)[edit]

KHM03,
Hi. I'll try and be as polite as possible. Except in the case of vandalsim, simply reverting someone's changes is considered poor form. Reverting to your own version is quite bad form. You may have views that differ from mine, the appropiate place to work them out is on the article's talk page, not via edit summary. I'll look forward to seeing you there.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was only to make the article the best it could be; I simply felt that the version most recently edited by me was superior to the version most recently edited by you. Nothing personal; no offense intended. KHM03 23:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. KHM03 11:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But will it stay red?[edit]

[3]. I bet it doesn't. Loser has to write "I'm a wikinerd" fifty times on their talk page. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll bet on people being sensible and basicly sane yet again, you're on. Make it the user page though, talk page is for wusses. --fvw * 00:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen how tidy my userpage is? That's really upping the ante. But I have faith in To... um, WP:IAR!
(Goes away to plan how to fit 350 words into nice box across bottom.) - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Say, you don't happen to have formatted that box already do you? I need it :-(. --fvw * 00:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I blinked and missed it[edit]

It seems you went and placed a block
Two dozen seconds by the clock
I've never been blocked as being a vandal
And sometime wondered how I would handle
The pain and shame and humiliation
But, now, alas, the situation
Bears the most frustrating fruit:
Now I've been blocked, but never knew it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner's RfC[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for your comments, which were helpful and uplifting, and honestly, I was despairing at the end, and needed that. I really appreciate your support. More to the point, I appreciate your kindness, which I needed too. Thank you. --Blackcap | talk 02:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to. I told Snowspinner I'd drop it, and I plan to, if just to keep my word. I really don't think I can do anything further that would actually aid the situation. Anyway, I'm supposed to be taking a break, which I need. And you're right: it probably would have been a good idea to have that addendum first (20/20 hindsight, eh?) but I honestly doubt that Snowspinner would have responded any differently. Hey, I never told ya, but I got a kick out of your headings that you created at the beginning (community smacks nominator around a little bit, Snow walks away feling a little cocky) even though I was pretty sure someone would delete them. Guess I've mentioned it now: you've got a good sense of humor. I hope it stays that way, and fucks to anyone who says "be serious." Talk to you later, --Blackcap | talk 05:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, regarding the break: I just realized that that's total bullshit. I feel fine now. I'm tearing down my break notice. --Blackcap | talk 05:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction[edit]

I've commented on your Afd vote for David DeAngelo. I agree with your assessment on it. The guy is promotional as is Ross Jeffries. There is more to the story (in answer to your question on media coverage): would you take a look at Seduction Community which has had a lot of press (see references on that article), and vote on that? DutchSeduction 04:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

while I have no idea what "transclusion" is, I have already started using subst: -- Thanks for the note.Kewp (t) 11:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard[edit]

It sounds like a very sensible idea, Aaron, like most of yours. I do agree with the general gist of it—that personal attacks should be more actively discouraged, rather than often just glazed over—but I'm no expert with how your specific proposal lines up with currently existing policies. I note that Tony and Filioct have had some constructive things to say on the talk page; they're both obviously very experienced with this sort of thing, so I daresay their discussion will be quite fruitful. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do seem to remember that there is currently a page on WP that is somewhat similar to this; I've never had occasion to use any such device of course, and I hope I'm not pulling this out of my imagination, but perhaps a look there might provide some ideas too? All the very best enceph alon 12:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC) NB. By the way, Aaron, your talk page is of an impressive length. Since, however, they're rather unlike some important things in life where length is a plus, I hope you'll consider shortening it soon. :) enceph alon 12:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Transclusion[edit]

Thanks for the heads up! --Fire Star 13:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What happened there? An explanation:[edit]

The comments get fatter, not thinner,

For they remind us all of Snowspinner.

He, upon a time, offered the moteity

Of a thing called "semi-policy"

And argued, both loud and long,

That an insult would sound a gong

And straight 'way summon the guards

To remove it hence, and leave in shards

The discussion once found there.

Many complained and thicken'd the air

With laments, ruth, and some things worse,

For the matter made some of them curse!

Their words disappear'd from view, }

Which made them their oaths renew, }

And all was yellow and blackest bile too. }

And some who questioned then and some who now }

Might be supposed to have a Holy Cow }

Upon the field still grazing to lough }

When she the prod on her soft flanks has stuck

And to be missed most sorely when struck.

Geogre 14:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion[edit]

I certianly know about the subst prefix and what it does, and why it should often be used. What i don't know is on what recent occasion or occasions I have failed to use it that you thing I should have. Please let me know the context, so that I can review and improve for the future. DES ^(talk) 14:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O I see. I have been quite intentionally not using subst on {{test}} and its variations, so that it is essier for a future person editing the talk page to see exactly which level of warning was given. I don't think that the user talk pages of anons or vandals tend to be renderd often enough to have much of a server laod effect. There are always trade offs. DES ^(talk) 23:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)[edit]

Thanks for the acknowledgement! I've (hopefully) addressed your concerns on the AfD page. Collating the list did take a while, but it was what I felt like doing at the time, so there was no particular virtue in doing it, nor do I have an unhealthy attachment to it. If you're convinced it's actually harmful, please feel free to delete it! Personally, I certainly don't think it should be read instead of the discussion above it, but I feel that in the proper context, it's a useful bit of info. Cheers, and thanks again! :) --Ashenai (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also:

"Aaron Brenneman, scared of ninjas,
Voted delete, which I found outringeous."

Question on the Tony Sidaway RfC[edit]

Hey, I was curious if I could/should add these comments by Tony, which I believe are a violation of WP:NPA. Since it wasn't associated with VfD/AfD related stuff, I figured this was a grey area I should check with you on since you began that RfC, I'm still fairly new to that process. Karmafist 15:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting obvious nonsense[edit]

Hi, since you are interested in means of deleting obvious nonsense that doesn't fit the WP:CSD, I thought you might like to comment on this --Doc (?) 14:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NicholasTurnbull[edit]

You were quite right about the 'sour grapes' comment. I've also apologised to PedanticallySpeaking - David Gerard 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thebroken[edit]

"Ours is not to reason why"... granted, there were bald assertions, but I must have faith that longstanding editors who know the deletion criteria and the AfD process and still make such assertions have some basis of knowledge to do so. BD2412 ^talk 00:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Bite? eh no, I think not.[edit]

A. This wasn't a bite but merely a request to an anon that if the he/she intents to add such content to external link into the article for ease of cross reference. I also requested he/she do so on the IP's talk page.

B. As the information quoted in the Washington Post is based on testimony of a currently imprisoned terrorist, I don't know for sure that this constitutes a fact based accord. The Capitol would have been the easiest target aside from the Pentagon to spot from the air (aside from the Washington Monument) that would have had a maximum impact akin to the Pentagon attack.

C. I may have, and may still revert the addition so I saw no reason to add something I had yet to fully examine and either decide to keep or argue for it's removal. Had I put the information in to begin with, I would have added the links.

D. The same IP has a somewhat ambiguous past editing history. My perception is that an anon with a checkered IP history editing in a contentious article such as the September 11, 2001 attacks may not be absolutely trustworthy.

In light of the above, I think I was absolutely civil so I see no reason for your comment.--MONGO 07:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I know you don't mean to offend, but I think I explained myself as coherently as possible. I didn't put the footnotes in because I don't (yet) agree with the edit to begin with. I'm well aware of the talk pages and find that more often than not, anon's don't use them. As shown here I use the talk pages a lot, with almost 1 in 5 edits to talk pages...anyhoo I think this is now a circular conversation and I won't explain myself anymore.--MONGO 07:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contructive criticism[edit]

Your a complete gay wad.

Thanks for noticing. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarian dictators[edit]

Sorry for the double edit btw... My reason for this was explained but a bit hidden on the talk page of the redirect; the VFU debate made pretty clear that the earlier content would not be restored, so I figured redirect it somewhere useful. As well, it seems like usual practice to create the page for the field first and then break off a list of related individuals later if it became too bloated; e.g. the way taxidermist is a redirect to taxidermy. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hopefully I will be able to keep the new page under a lot better control POV-wise than the category. See you around. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Hello! I understand your concern. I had collected earlier those links to essays, studies and publication (books), some of already deceased authors, about specific religious topics (articles) and I think they may give, in most of the cases, more insights into the development of those same articles. Anyway, I've finished the relevant links' edition. See you!

Also I understand why one may not like too many "External links"; however there are subjects which an encyclopedia can not thouroughly develop (it would become a book instead of an article). Users, like myself, who want to go deeper in studying a subject - of an article for example as Alchemy, Essenes, Dead Sea scrolls or Francis of Assisi - use all those links to search for more knowledge, to understand, to construct conceptions, etc. According to this point of view, when someone cuts good external links or in an indiscriminate way, without knowing what those links are about, the article becomes more poor, limited. Wikipedians should perhaps be concerned to cut dead links and links to publicity but let remain the link good knowledge source: there are many valueable data in the World Wide Web, and not only here at Wikipedia (but Wikipedia only beneficiates if it keeps an open attitude toward external knowledge). Thank you!

Thanks for your reply. Repsonded on your talk page. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I've seen your reply and donnot agree. And I'll give you a few examples (with links I've put; but there are also more valuable links from other users removed):

Essenes:

" * Smith, Enid S., Ph.D., 1959, The Essenes Who Changed Churchianity www " This article, essay is one of the first 20th century preserved studies on the "Essenes" (and published around the time the "Dead Sea scrolls" were found). Articles like this are difficult to find in printed version (and even more in electronic version). Doesn't it fit to the article Essenes to the studious user who investigate about the Essenes?

Alchemy:

" Karl von Eckartshausen (1752-1803): Two Prayers for Alchemists " and Theophrastus Paracelsus: The Aurora of the Philosophers ": these are two texts from 18th and 16th centuries alchemists (Paracelsus is regarded by studious as the major alchemists of all centuries and the "percursor" of modern experimental chemistry). These texts are rare, the last one is from that kind of manuscripts which are kept to restrict visiting and study at major world libraries: isn't it fit to be as a link at Wikipedia related article (Alchemy) to further study of whoever may be interested?

Well, I had already give up coming here; it seems I don't want to learn. --GalaazV 05:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminated manuscript[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to tell you that I've restored the Illuminated manuscript pic (because I took it) but put it in a gallery. Two good things follow; the pic can still be seen and other people can add pics to the gallery without the rather short article getting overloaded, I hope that's OK with you. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 10:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording?[edit]

I was wondering if you had a fix for my wording on Deletion Review? We can do it here, if you like or there, I don't particularly mind. As it stands, I don't think it will cause confusion, particularly with the help of Septentrionalis's addition to the 1st line.

I think we're almost there in terms of making the move, although the speedies question is a bit of a millstone. I think the immediate remedy to that is to accept the status quo and continue the debate through the move. After all, the main reason for the change is to being kept debates into scope rather than to stir up the speedy process. I'm going to put a to-do list on the talk page in a little while, but I'm happy to fiddle with the words. I don't think we should worry about them overly having said that, since they will probably need amending once first used anyway. -Splash^talk 00:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll give it a final nudge later today. As for the rant, well, I quite agree. If people checked their egos and politics at the door, we'd all get on famously. It is a fact that this place operates without consequences for most, and the ArbCom are about to amply demonstrate their lack of spine by referring Steve to RfA. When they do so, I'll register my opposition and write a stinging inditement of the Committee to go with it. The reason we don't have revolutions (often) in real-life is that the government knows it'll get a kick in the teeth if they screw up. If admins here screw up, they just find a friend to cheer for them and it's all ok. Even when they do their research so carefully and act with so much thought as to summarily undelete copyright infringing text. Bah. -Splash^talk 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note[edit]

In regards to your edit at [4], I point out that the freedom of anonymous users to edit Wikipedia is a foundation issue, and that the mere fact of their anonymity is not sufficient grounds to revert - especially in the case of something that has been in a page for 18 months. Snowspinner 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. <fx: does waggy finger thing at Aaron while shaking head sorrowfully> --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there![edit]

Could you take a look at this, and see what you think? Thanks! Trollderella 19:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC) [[5]][reply]

A thanks[edit]

-- just because :-) --HappyCamper 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IgnoreAllRules[edit]

Hi! Would you be able to say anything about User:IgnoreAllRules? Thanks! - David Gerard 10:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know that your supreme power is unchecked my any sense of responsibilty. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be fair to say that you are aware of the identity of the IgnoreAllRules vandal? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, so do you know who it is or not? What "responsibility" would you be speaking of? Please answer the first question first - David Gerard 23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Mr. Gerard <bats eyelashes> is that an IP sniffer in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading the above might think you knew the identity of a vandal but were disingenuously concealing it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only people lacking in frankness here are you and David. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you can show everybody just how frank you are and tell us all what you know about the vandal. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 04:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problems[edit]

The problems are pretty obvious. The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy. To claim that it's been arrived at by consensus is to state a very palpable untruth. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, do please stop being unreasonable. You've twice falsely claimed that I should use the talk page or block you for 3RR. Since you've come nowhere near to breaking the 3RR, and I have no intention of doing so, and I have used the talk page whereas you have simply taunted me in edit summaries, it's becoming utterly surreal. I'll have another go at reformulating a policy-compatible version of the wording here. Do please try to discuss instead of edit warring/ --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please address my points, Aaron. Putting a redirect over my requests will not make them go away. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, stop playing silly buggers. I'm trying to reconcile the nonsense on the page header with Wikipedia policy. I have been posing many alternative suggestions to try to work out what it is that you object to in my formulation of Wikipedia policy, but until you stop blindly reverting we won't be able to get anything done. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's soooo easy to hide something when every edit is... hey, look over there! A link to all my contributions! Drat, my nefarious plan to keep my antics secret is foiled by those meddling kids! - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring[edit]

Thanks for that. I was beginning to think that all of Wikipedia had lost their wits and civilised discourse was a thing of the past.

Pete, not Poet

Are you using a sockpuppet account?[edit]

I am just curious if you are using a sockpuppet account? You don't have to answer of course and if I am causing you any distress by asking, or if you feel that I am in some sort of violation due to the bluntness of my question I apologize.--MONGO 03:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your socks. Uhh, I mean "talk" - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with the reasons under which the IP trace for evidence of sockpuppetry would only occur in dire circumstances. I was just curious about IgnoreAllRules as it seems he was targeting User:Tony Sidaway and I saw that you had reverted him several times. I noticed that IgnoreAllRules was vandalizing articles that Tony had edited.--MONGO 04:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most who know my editing know I tend to not be circumlocutory so would you say that User:IgnoreAllRules is your sockpuppet account? --MONGO 04:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to further badger, but I was noticing that you didn't make any edits from this account from 02:15, October 18, 2005 to 02:46, October 18, 2005. User:IgnoreAllRules made 11 edits in 3 minutes between 02:41, October 18, 2005 to 02:44, October 18, 2005. All eleven edits had as edit summary; "I'm Tony! I know best!!". In light of recent issues between you and Tony and other rather strange coincidences that can be elaborated further if need be, well, I really like people that are straight forward and honest. For the record, I log in from two locations, both in Nebraska (armpit of middle Earth). --MONGO 04:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I don't fault the use of sock accounts, and respect that since you use your real name, one may come in handier for you than it would for me, not that you do use one. A brief spree of obvious vandalism, I could forgive that...no big deal...I know you and Tony are at odds and if indeed you performed these vandalisms, well, they weren't that bad overall, and at least you and others quickly reverted them. Now in regards to someone tracking your IP...I don't have that capability but noticed the vandalism while on RC Patrol..the username IgnoreAllRules (redlined) struck me as a potential vandal, but I was overedited by another with a faster trigger doing the revert. I often rely on Occam's Razor due to nature of my real life job...the easiest explanation is usually the right one. Now as far as a breach of admin ethics regarding an unauthorized IP query...I am not familiar with that set of rules but not sure they matter as proof any more than my little time flow above described...I mean, even if the IP was the same, you could always say that your little brother was messing around while you were away for a few minutes. I know you have morte integrity than to want to hide, so, as you've requested, I'll butt out. Respectfully, I do not want to hound anyone.--MONGO 05:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the...[edit]

Aaron, you just deleted all but one of the links to the sari article -- including several that were referenced IN the article, several that consisted only of instructions on HOW to wrap a sari, and several that went to commercial sites, yes, but to the "all about saris" sections of commercial sites.

I've been busting linkspammers for a year and a half, and I don't think I've let any "buy my saris" links past me. I'm restoring the links. I beg you, PLEASE, if you're going to delete links, check first to see if there's anyone actively maintaining the article. Zora 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora,
Sorry to give you a heart attack. Obviously I used my judgment, and I did click through each of the links. Put back anything you think I've been over-zealous on. See, the system works, co-operation, etc! ^_^
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SPAM: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters[edit]

Sorry I didn't get your message in time to say anything before the new nomination was speedily kept. Ho hum! --redstucco 08:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony[edit]

Yeah - Tony's bugging the heck out of me too. I might be on wikibreak for a while but let me know if he gets up to his antics again and I'll help you out. Don't let him get to you either - he's just doing his usual. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note I'd take a break too if I were you just to relax a bit and let some steam out. Come at it with a fresh mind, perhaps :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFU header block[edit]

I have blocked both you and Tony for three hours for revert warring on this page. I realize this is mostly a matter of principle since both of you can unblock yourself, but I would ask both of you to please consider that revert warring is harmful no matter where or by whom. Please discuss on the talk page and seek consensus on the content of the VFU header. Yours, R adiant _>|< 11:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. Please see WP:ANI. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Aaron. I saw your note earlier in the day and am responding properly now. From what happened, and from what I see on Splash's page, I think you're currently under what has been called "wikistress". Wikipedia can be very callous, unfriendly, unfair, and sharp. The main reason it is so is because it is populated by humans. :)

It doesn't have to be though—or if it is, it doesn't have to affect you much. Don't let it. Realize this for what it is: an impressively imperfect project aimed at creating an impossible thing. It is, or can be seen as, noble, and I believe some day many years from now its descendent will be. We are the ephemeral, transitory, invisible, anonymous workers helping it toward that goal. When it is achieved we'll be long gone. It is altruism that keeps us here, now, while it is massively, almost unimaginably, imperfect. A little more imperfection, a few more silly edits, a bit of reverting here and warring there, someone being impossible—don't let it trouble you. If someone insists on a view that you believe is incorrect, by all means engage him and tell him why you think it should be done another way. Don't forget the other part of the bargain: listen to what he says. Try for a solution. If it is impossible, try to do the right thing (this can be hard). But whatever you do, if you find it includes feeling that it might be a good idea to vandalize a couple of pages, even if temporarily, even for a short while, it's likely best to take a break.

With the current disagreement, I believe most editors who have an interest in deletion policy on WP will agree with the version you're trying to keep on WP:DRV. That can be seen very simply—that version is theirs. Tony feels that it is invalid, for two reasons. The first is he believes "if in doubt don't delete" is a kind of "chief precept" of deletion policy that should be prominently placed in DR. The second is he believes DR should not be restricted to questions of what has come to be termed "process". This second issue is actually more complicated than it appears. I think we're all actually closer to agreement than most think we are, but it will need to be discussed with some care in the coming weeks/months.

The first issue is less complicated. One thing I'd like to say in Tony's defense is that he keeps being told that his addition of IIDDD to the template is inadvisable, but I don't recall anyone actually explaining (or attempting to explain) why (I may be wrong though. Has anyone?). It is true that the current version has wide acceptance among the editors who're actually involved with the running and working of DR. However, if someone says that something's not right with it because it conflicts with policy, that needs to be examined, whether or not most of us agree on the current version. I can post my view on this, later. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but perhaps with a discussion on the actual merits of IIDDD, we might find ourselves—all of us, Tony, Kappa, Splash, Rossami, an everyone else—coming to an agreeable solution.

You are an excellent editor, Aaron. Too valuable to loose. Please be happy and well. I'm going to be away for a while myself, so I will not be able to contribute to any ensuing discussion, but I'm sure everyone concerned will be able to decide something satisfactory. Regards enceph alon 20:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) NB. By the way, your note on my page suggests you might believe me to be a sysop. I'm not, Aaron. I've turned down 5 or 6 nom offers now, I think. I might go up for it in a couple of months, but I'm afraid I can't do any blocks for you at the moment. :)[reply]

Hey back[edit]

(Was just about to go to bed, forgive any thinkos and/or rambling) I don't know when I first encountered Tony, but it was months ago, and I think even before you did, just in the normal course of editing, and his talk page has been on my watchlist since. I've always respected his judgment, dedication, and helpfulness. Even after he restored one of my first, zealous, speedies. (As an aside, I don't know how it is possible for anyone to get on Radiant's bad side or vice versa, but it happened. Haven't talked much recently, but Radiant and I used to see each other a lot, indeed he nominated me for my adminship. He is one of the most open and reasonable people I know on WP.) I'm pretty sure I remember way back in the primordial depths of time when this thing between you and Tony started. It was about some VFD debate, likely a school, right? Then you encountered each other on VFD again and again, it spread to talk pages, and spread more. I'm not even sure when we met, Aaron, (though I just realized that silly note at the top of this page is from July), but I've had enough rational discussions with you, and seen you around as well, that I long ago came to the conclusion that I could trust and respect your judgment, dedication, and helpfulness. I think you (plural) are level-headed and reasonable, and I would point a needy editor to either of you. You (plural) can also be abrasive, stubborn, and, yes, coy. That happens, somehow, mostly only when you encounter each other, or the issues that spark this. My point is: why?

I must admit (don't know if I should be guilty about it, but I'm guilty about not knowing :) that your admission hasn't really changed my opinion of you (good judgment, dedicated, stubborn, etc.) in that I still have cmplete confidence that I would trust a decision by you, and that you still have that inborn WP hatred of all vandals. Not to compare them, but neither of Tony's RFC have changed my confidence in him either. I think, independent of each other and the general tussle, you are best. What have you gained from it, besides much undue stress and insanity? I'm sure it's been suggested before, but now would be the time to just drop it. It isn't anything that I think mediation, or another RFC, or even (Jimbo forbid) and RFAr could help. This doesn't mean you give in, or thatI think you two can become best wikifriends overnight. But how about if you refused to engage each other? Period (well, it was a question mark). I'm convinced that by now your banter does nothing but inflame each other. Watching this slowly spiral away has been painful for many I'm sure. I've seen both of you lose control in different ways and to different degrees. But if we all are to accept your apology as sincere (I certainly do) the least you could do is start over and give it a shot. Disputes between good-faith, trustworthy editors are worse that trolls and vandals: they divide the community, and create factions where none need to be. Don't ever forget how much good you can still do for this wonderful encyclopedia, but also try to think up how much more you could have done in that time you wasted thinking about Tony. Again, my point is: why? Not just why have this dispute, but why are we all here (including Tony)? Let that guide you.

(Oh yeah, and if you really want to make me happy, fix this :) Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Signature[edit]

Haha. You're right. I guess I wouldn't blame someone if they changed my name to 'fresh eats figs'. I just started using a template because I thought the code was unnecessarily long and it clogged up the AfD listings every time I put a vote. Didn't really think of the concequences on the server. I just saw User:Purplefeltangel doing the same thing and thought it was a good idea. I'll work on simplifying the code as much as I can and revert it back.

By the way, it's not meant to be unreadable, as User:NatusRoma pointed out. I'm not sure what it looks like to you but it's just supposed to be white text on a blue background. If you're seeing it incorrectly too then maybe I should just give up : (. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 23:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think. It's not a template anymore. The problem for Firefox is probably the style=background tag but I simplified it as much as I can so maybe it will work for you (guys) now. freshgavin TALK 07:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Losing my adminship[edit]

Yeah, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm not terribly worried about losing my adminship, because I stand firmly behind almost all of my actions, and despite Tony's doubts, I don't doubt my motivations. Anyway, even if I did lose my admin priveleges, I could still edit, and I could get out of all the messy politics associated with the position. Besides, if I didn't get re-adminned, then I probably wasn't doing a terribly good job in the first place, and I could probably learn a lot from the experience. Thanks for your note!--Scimitar ^parley 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination)[edit]

No, they just convinced me that the article merits inclusion. However, that said, I'd really like for some broader discussion about what is an acceptable source for comics. WP:COMIC is quite inadequate right now. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki log[edit]

Basically the transwiki process has become this kind of endless cycle that never gets completed. I wrote the instructions there, and hope they make some sense. An article is transwikied because, presumably, it doesn't belong here. The TL, as a record of transwikied articles, is a list of articles that need cleanup in some way. Just take any article and deal with it appropriately (merge, send to AFD) and strike it out when you are done (or upon resolution of AFD) or if it is encyclopedic enough now (some are old enough to have changed substantially). Any stricken entry can be archived whenever. If we take corn soup, I'd say find somewhere to redirect it or just take it to AFD as it was transwikied to Wikibooks Cookbook wikibooks:Cookbook:Corn_soup 2 months ago with out any changes since, and WP:NOT a how-to (recipe). Finally any resolved Wiktionary entries should have {{transwikied to Wiktionary}} replaced with {{Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished}}. (Very few of the archived ones do, but going back and fixing that is probably lower priority atm.) That's it in a nutshell, did it make sense? Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 05:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd's RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Tito xd^(?!?) 17:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry![edit]

I moved Pin. and FooT at VfU about a minute before you, hence the bizarrity you experienced. Ooops. :) Xoloz 06:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 07:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]