Thanks for your message. I was aware of JeanLatore's request but, given the circumstances, I felt it was inappropriate for the RfA to remain open. The RfA has served its purpose of gauging community consensus as to his suitability for adminship. The comments were such that I don't think that JeanLatore had anything further to learn from his RfA, nor that there was any chance of it bein successful. I felt that keeping it open, as JeanLatore asked, would be an abuse of process and would do nothing but atract trolling and bad feeling. I feel that my actions were entirely justified. Rje (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a judgement call. It's not what I'd have done, but I can't call it all that wrong, either. The only reason I hesitate to close them against the wishes of the candidate is to prevent future whining of "I'd have passed, but some evil people censored the discussion." Not a reasonable objection, I know, but we're already not dealing with "reasonable" here. Friday(talk)19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, wish you were right.
You are wrong. I wish you were right.
Someone asked you for help. You said to just edit normally and everything will be ok. That person pleaded to you.
That person just edited normally. Then that person edited a non-controversial and correct revision to the Howard Dean article (edit fit the reference more accurately). Immediately, the worse of the POV pushers wanted their own way and banned the person. This proves that you were wrong and the other person was right. I urge you to correct things. The POV pushers are using the sock excuse to ban anyone they don't want. This manipulation of Wikipedia must stop. SundaySell (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are other examples of the POV pusher banning people simply because they demand total domination. This is not an edit dispute, this is their way for total domination. Please don't defend their sorry ways but help fight for Wikipedia fairness. One of their tactics is to get a ban railroaded through using false evidence. Then they claim that half of the U.S. and one ISP is reason enough to ban someone. Or they ban even if those flimsy criterias aren't met. SundaySell (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this. Here's the thing- This Dereksomething guy was so disruptive, the minute people see that it's him, they don't stop to look at whether he's still disruptive. This may or may not be a good thing, but that's how it is. You can stop this "that person" stuff- it's not necessary. I still don't see where the situation is as dire as you try to paint it. Friday(talk)20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I see Mastcell says there was continued disruption with the new account. I didn't personally see it (I wasn't looking), but I have no reason to doubt it either. Also, consider this: dishonesty was a contributing factor with this Derek account. Do you think continued dishonesty is a good approach? Friday(talk)20:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's how gang mentality works. Even if you mean no gang mentality, you agree with Mastcell saying there was "continued disruption". FridayCell7 had only a few edits so it's easy to look at them. Show me the disruption. There was no disruption.
Another example of gang mentality is where you say that Derek was dishonest. I am not Derek but I have been caught in the web of false accusations so that I have studied Derek. An administrator accused Derek, found evidence to the contrary, and deleted the evidence. That's dishonesty on the part of the POV pushers.
The bottom line is that some people "own" articles and the moment that they disagree with someone, they seek their friends to ban. Look at the FridayCell7 example. Please help and not be so ruthless. The reason I do not claim or deny that I am FridayCell7 is that some people will use that as an automatic excuse to ban me. They just wikilawyer and say "we have an excuse". Please just answer the question - where is FridayCell7's disruption and see for yourself how the POV pushers are bullying others. SundaySell (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that you wrote "the moment they see"... I have looked at the Howard Dean article history and Derek never edited that article. You see the Derek excuse is now so convenient that whenever a member of the gang doesn't like someone, they ban them as being Derek. They gotten so bold as to use that excuse for an article that Derek never edited! Knowingly or unknowingly, you have taken the side of the POV pushers who insists on owning articles. If you are truly interested in being fair and a good administrator, you won't do such a thing. SundaySell (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At first, you showed signs of compassion and reason. By turning your back, you are helping those who clearly manipulate wikipedia processes and stop at nothing to harm others. They aren't doing this to help wikipedia, only to empower themselves. As an administrator, I plead to you to act kindly and not let some others get away with wicked deeds.
Those bad people clearly didn't like "their article" touched. Nobody knew that the Howard Dean article was forbidden to touch. Then they get their friend to ban FridayCell7. The evidence is clear...reasonable edit in an article not known for edit wars, a known bad person (that has gotten into conflict before) doesn't like it and reverts it/making their first appearance in that article then gets friend to ban FridayCell7. You said normal editing doesn't attract attention but that bad person seems to have a long list of articles they "own".SundaySell (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Endlessdan
Hey Friday, I've replied on my talkpage to the thread you began titled "EndlessDan". I've also noticed the thread you started on his page, and it seems to be getting sorted out now. Let me know if you want me to expand any of my opinions of this situation -- it seems to be sorting itself rather harmlessly (probably because of the other crapola going on, meh). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer15:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection
Do you mind protecting my userpage against IP edits? my attempts at article clean-up has made the target of various forums - I'm off to bed and would rather not have to pick up the pieces in the morning. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought my comments here were about on the same level as those you left on my talk page. I am sorry but I did not consider either of the points that you made to be useful. BTW do you really consider your revert on the F40 article to be in the best interests of wikipedia? Perhaps merely removing sports car made the article worse, but my final wording seemed to improve the article. Your revert seemed to be proving a point more than anything else. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm serious, look at your version and the previous edit of mine. Which do you think is better? I think mine gets around the controversy regarding the term "supercar" or any other classification without detracting from the article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the version I reverted to is better. It's how things are generally done. I'm concerned that you've been reverting multiple other editors in various places. When it was explained to you why we avoid "supercar", you implied that other editors were "retards" for seeing things this way. This isn't remotely how do we things here. Disagreement is allowed, but calling other people names never helps. Edit warring is bad whether you're reverted 3 times or not. Name-calling is bad, even when you disagree with other editors. Friday(talk)18:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, maybe I suck at getting my point across or something. I think the term is retarded. I most certainly did not and did not wish to imply that any editor is retarded. If another editor called me retarded, I would report them for making a personal attack. I am a strong believer in attack the edit not the editor. I do however disagree with you on the supercar issue, I think the term is fine for the F40, and if it is not used, I think my edit was a good compromise. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is
I think at this stage, something like 50% of his edits over the last few weeks either mention me or are about me. What do you want me to say? I think the guy is stalking me. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do in these cases is to just ignore it. Don't take the bait. If you take the bait, it looks to an uninvolved observer like a typical dispute between two editors. If you don't take the bait, and he keeps offering it, it looks to an uninvolved observer like one editor repeatedly trying to bait another. If it really becomes a problem, someone will take care of it. Friday(talk)19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point - I've avoid quite a few of his snipes but it's getting a bit tiresome.... looking at his talkpage, he's been warned off before. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has their own communication styles.. his may seem odd, but mine probably does sometimes too. I really doubt it's anything to worry about. Friday(talk)19:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, are you sure they weren't good-faith edits? The article on Urine therapy seems to say this is plausible. Without reading the article, the edits seem like complete vandalism. I left a message on his/her talkpage referring to reliable sources, but without realising the user was already blocked. Does this really warrant a block without any warnings? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They might have been. But, good faith or not, putting in unsourced stuff saying "urine therapy is the only way to cure this" is not good. I blocked mainly because it looked like the person was going alphabetically through articles. If they respond and want to understand what we do here and contribute constructively, I'll unblock. Friday(talk)
Friday, based on this comment you made at WP:VP, I am reminding you of Wikipedia's policies of no personal attacks and civility. Your statement crossed the line from a comment on the proposal and instead has become a comment on me. As you know, this is absolutely prohibited. Would you mind apologizing? Bstone (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, no essay, guideline or other policy provides for exceptions to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Let's keep it professional and not let our emotionals get the best of our typing, shall we? Bstone (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, it wouldn't be sincere. I hate insincerity; I think editors should be able to give and take constructive criticism. Can we just agree to disagree on this one? Friday(talk)01:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Malleus here, Bstone. Relax about it. Friday disagrees with the proposal, and points out where there may possibly be an ulterior motive in your actions. Take it with a grain of salt. Asking for "an apology" rarely generates anything. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad, Keeper, but I might just have to agree that Friday's clear and unambiguous violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL will have to go without an apology. Looking at Friday's RfA indicates this has been a systemic problem, so I take comfort in knowing I am not the only one who Friday has made the subject of her insults. Bstone (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So adding an insult (to Friday) makes you somehow fell better, or justifies Friday's? Your claim is without merit. Friday was not the first to say that the Ombudsman proposal is "silly". And are you really using Friday's several year old RFA as justification for your post? Yes, Friday coulda worded his post better, but you need to understand that his question there was not without merit. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insult? Hardly. Just grouping myself with those who have been on the receiving end of Friday's critical personal attacks. That's all. Bstone (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors need to be a little more robust, instead of running off complaining to Mummy whenever someone says something they don't like, shouting all of these wp essays/guidelines/policies that they've probably never read and certainly don't understand. I by no means agree with everything that Friday says, but I do have a great deal of respect for Friday's honesty and integrity in stating his/her opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly agree that in general, focusing on the content rather than contributors is good. However, some of what we deal with here is disruptive behavior. When dealing with this, it's sometimes useful to look at the bigger picture. I know I'm not always the most diplomatic- my natural personality is to usually be quick and blunt. And, I realize excuses of "hey, that's just me" don't count for much if people's behavior is problematic. I try to stick to relevant issues and I try not to be a jerk, so I don't think my behavior is actually a problem. Sure, I've occasionally gotten complaints, but I get complaints all the time, even stuff like "You jerk, you deleted the article I wrote about my dog." So, I don't always consider the complaints valid. I certainly don't think there's been anything resembling a pattern of bad behavior stretching over years, as you seem to be implying. Friday(talk)14:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that your RfA is cited as evidence of a "systemic problem". Looks like you actually got near-universal support. The most interesting thing there is to see that Alkivar, of all people, opposed you on grounds of civility :0 MastCellTalk18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how 50% of those who opposed him have wiki-died, I'm now feeling very frightened of Friday. - brenneman
Twinkle
Excessive templating 1
If you see the edit summaries i'm using twinkle; it doesn't give an option to not inform the user. However i've done the nice, mature thing and, after only-warning him, applied to have him blocked :). Ironholds22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was adding the CSD using twinkle, which put it there automatically. At the time I didn't know that it had survived a Afd as there and there was no information about this on the talk page. It had very little content and was suitable for an A7 CSD. - tholly--Turnip--17:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many people use it and it means that you can very quickly add any type of CSD, AfD or any other clearup type tag to an article. You can also request page protection, unlink backlinks and see the diff on the last edit of the page you are on etc. It is very useful and speeds things up alot. - tholly--Turnip--18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suck it and see, as they say
I'm going to join the twinkle brigade. (Somehow that doesn't sound quite like I mean it...) I'm afraid I may be suffering observational bias, where every encounter I have with the damnable code is similar to the exchanges above. "Your honour, I cannot tell a lie. The script made me do it." It's entirely possible that, iceberg like, Twinkle is mostly perfectly fine under the surface and it's getting bad press from the spiky bits sticking up. Watch this space. - brenneman06:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope there's some middle ground to be found. A tool that helps people not have to remember obscure syntax is good; a tool that does questionable things the users aren't aware of is another thing altogether. Friday(talk)18:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help I'm New
Hi I uploaded a page like two minutes ago. I went to add a picture and it's being edited by another user? already? What do I do? Also when is it safe to delete the article draft from my user page?
thanks,--Erikaj001 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback
Hello. I'd like to give the rollback feature a try. I've spent some time reverting vandals, but going through history, saving last edit, making warning, etc. Too many steps. Thanks Llamabr (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But at the same time, don't look like a hypocrite. If you defend Kurt for clearly being unreasonable, you should defend every other editor. Sceptre(talk)14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something enrages the a portion of the community doesn't mean it isn't helpful. Kurt's opinions, on the other hand, are labeled outlandish and discredited even by some of his biggest supporters. If you read the comment I refer to in the RfC, Kurt continues his inflammation of the community despite lack of apparent tangible benefit. This is not only not an impossible standard, it is quite reasonable. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!)19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't anybody listen? People are bandying around "disruption" way too much. The MFD and disputing of RFC/U was actually in good faith based on the fact RFC/U hasn't progressed in nearly nine months: it's just poor timing that it was done now. I'm not angry, and I'm not seeking to disrupt Wikipedia: I actually wrote and rewrote that nomination for around thirty minutes so it would be taken seriously, and not influenced by recent events. Sceptre(talk)17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. I don't think you thought the last thing I warned you about was pointy either, though, and it clearly was. At any rate, you've been edit warring also. I think you've been here for a while, right? You should know better. Friday(talk)17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. I was concerned because it seems you've been a bit erratic lately. As long as you stop edit warring I don't see any good reason for a block. But, if you find yourself getting excited over things, consider just logging off and do something else for a while. Wikipedia will still be here later, and you know, cooler heads work best and all that. Friday(talk)17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I was reverting on the MFD and the process page respectively was because I strongly object to it being labelled as a violation of POINT, and I was trying to make as many people aware of the debate as possible. Sceptre(talk)17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, "POINT" is too often quoted by people who don't even bother to read it and understand what it means. (Hey, what about me now going to nominate WP:POINT for deletion? Hey, good idea!) Fut.Perf.☼17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that referring to me? Sceptre as good as admits it in his comment above. WP:POINT redirects to "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". The disruption was the reversion on MfD and process page, while the point he was making was that he didn't want it to be labeled as a violation of WP:POINT. Sorry to use your talk page for this, Friday. Martinp2318:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Friday. Dear me, here I used to think of you as a good-faith editor, and you possibly thought the same of me. But now we know we were both wrong. We have been judged and found lacking, and so have a host of other people—previously in good standing, you know. [1]Bishonen | talk19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
She has a reasonable point. Her criteria were not good. I don't see that anyone ought to take this as a personal slight- she's not saying "those who endorsed are not editors in good standing", she's just reconsidering her standards. Friday(talk)19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was referring to where she says "I also thought, naively, that those making the request would be doing so in good faith..." Bishonen | talk20:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Sure, that part is kinda bad. But, that's one of a few conditions listed in that sentence. The full sentence is "I also thought, naively, that those making the request would be doing so in good faith, out of a concern regarding my use of the tools, and after other efforts to communicate with me about my actions had failed." I believe I personally count on all three conditions she listed there, but maybe she disagrees. Maybe it sounds like I'm lawyering, but I'm really just trying to read her words at their face value. Her response is what I expected. But, her conditions for recall as she pledged them were pretty bad and easily-gamed. Were they gamed here? Well, I'm sure some participants were approaching it like a game- those types of editors are common. I'm equally sure that some participants were doing it in a good faith and reasonable effort to improve things- those types of editors are also common.
Where does it leave us? The biggest problem with this situation is not the recall. Recall is what it's always been- subjective and voluntary. There's not much to be done when someone changes their mind. The biggest problem here is what some of Elonka's critics have been saying for a while- faced with criticism, she often does not respond to it in any substantial way. Rather, she attacks her critics instead. This is effective politics but lousy wiki-editing. It's effective, no doubt- look how many people call the RFC or recall a "witch-hunt" or "mob" and then look no further. Friday(talk)21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the "pitchfork" rhetoric is coming out. I didn't choose to comment either way in Elonka's last RFA, but I read it carefully. If she hadn't pledged to be open to recall, I would have opposed. I remember looking for that pledge, and checking that it didn't leave a loophole. As you know, one of her formulations did, by mentioning "tools", but the other one did not. She was a very controversial editor, and I don't believe she would have passed without that pledge. Bishonen | talk22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Ummm, sorry to butt in, but here's my perspective on this: "I also thought, naively, that those making the request would be doing so in good faith, out of a concern regarding my use of the tools, and after other efforts to communicate with me about my actions had failed."
Doing so in good faith: I would say most of those who asked for her recall were doing so based on the evidence presented at the RfC or based on their knowledge of her interactions. In any case, wo should assume good faith.
Out of a concern regarding my use of the tools: That's where I would say that the status of admin is in and of itself a tool, especially when it is used to impose special conditions, enact article and topic bans, and argue to revewrse community consensus to unblock disruptive editors.
And after other efforts to communicate with me about my actions had failed: Well, the RfC was certainly one way to communicate our concerns. She made the decision not to address any of those concerns, but to criticize in turn those who criticized her, never acknowledging that she might have erred (except in accepting to submit to recall).
Unfortunately, I would tend to say that her objections on those extended points don't hold any more to scrutiny than just the first sentence.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, she's wiggled out of the second condition, but I'm with you on that. I think it's preposterous wikilawyering to claim that admin tools and admin status are meaningfully separate. If you run around saying "I'm an admin, do what I say or I'll block you", this counts as wearing your admin hat by any reasonable definition. However, one type of bad behavior I've seen from her repeatedly is lawyerish tendencies, so I can't say I'm surprised. One thing I think is really interesting here is that a few people have endorsed the recall after she said she wouldn't go thru with it. I don't remember seeing this before. I believe this indicates that community support for her is waning more than she realizes. Friday(talk)14:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first point, and it ought to be obvious. If I intervene in a dispute, then my intervention is usually backed explicitly or implicitly with the possibility of blocks, page protections, etc. If I impose 0RR or 1RR on someone, then that is an administrative action, because it's backed by the fact that I'll block them if they violate the terms. Whether I actually end up needing to push the block button, or whether anything ends up in my administrative log, is a technical matter - the intervention is the administrative action.
I've been on the fence about the whole thing - I was willing to let it go with a word to the wise - but I'm reconsidering based on the response to the recall issue. Her response there is actually the single most concerning thing, to me. Yes, the recall criteria are harsh, but Elonka's the one who made them up and agreed to abide by them. No one imposed them on her. If someone at my RfA had said, "Go up for recall or else," I'd have told them to go ahead and oppose me before I'd agree to those recall criteria. Setting them up as an additional selling point at RfA and then refusing to honor them when called to account shows either poor judgement or cynical manipulation, depending on how much good faith one is willing to extend.
It would be one thing to say, "I have decided that I am no longer open to recall." It's another to wait until someone calls you on your espoused criteria, and then decide not to honor them. It's yet another thing to couch this decision in sharply legalistic distinctions about "using the tools", to encourage deletion of an RfC on such legalistic terms, and to implicitly declare that all criticism is motivated by bad faith. That last item in particular leads me to believe that nothing in the RfC will have any advisory impact at all - Elonka has written it off as bad-faith criticism, and she's being encouraged to ignore opinions coming from anyone critical of her or who might "reasonably be a friend" of someone critical of her.
Of course, recall is voluntary, as you said. If Elonka doesn't feel moved to resign or stand for reconfirmation, then that's her call. But I agree with your analysis: the response to the recall situation is telling, and it makes me pessimistic that advice or opinions rendered at the RfC will be taken seriously. I'm tempted to endorse the recall on the basis of her response to it, but that would be both WP:POINTy and pointless since she's not going to go through with it. MastCellTalk21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Progressive Bloggers Prod
I declined the prod you put up over at Progressive Bloggers. This article has been through an messy AfD and DRV, and WP:PROD is not the proper venue for this article. I very much disagreed with the idea of a joint AfD for Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories after each had different outcomes in their own AfDs. I would certainly encourage you to start an AfD based on the reasoning of the prod.--RWR8189 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed by your speed but I would like to point out that all events mentioned in my article could, or are even very likely, to happen. I feel that 'future wikipedia' is an avenue you may wish to explore. Would you agree?
Thankyou
Future WIki?
I'm impressed by your speed but I would like to point out that all events mentioned in my article could, or are even very likely, to happen. I feel that 'future wikipedia' is an avenue you may wish to explore. Would you agree?
Hi. I didn't just cut n paste text from a web site. It is bio text that I have written for a band in which I am a former member. Much of a similar bio exists on the band web page and it is being donated to wikipedia for use here. Panzram08 (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)User:Panzram08[reply]
I'm not sure your full-protection is necessary, and locking an article during a current event is highly unusual. It should be noted that the reports of her death are due to an erroneous news report - see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijDA5bgxiHlTvS_r-SSjskS1Tq1wD92M6DOG1. Hidden comments in the text with that link included at the text of the article and next to the text that says she's hospitalized should probably by sufficient to resolve the issue. Please reconsider the protection. Thanks, --ClubjuggleT/C19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request to intercede vs. IP address blanking my page and copy of deleted article
Hi; I appreciated your putting protection on the Stephanie Tubb Jones article.
An anonymous IP address editor User:71.248.69.48 has repeatedly blanked my page, in spite of other editors' request to stop doing so. Could you please block that IP address from editing wikipedia?
Also, I authored an article on Steve Elman, a disk jockey and music director for WBUR of Boston. It got deleted; I thought that I did a very good job of providing references and composing it well. I read that you provide copies of deleted articles. That is very commendable. Could you please send me a copy of the article?
Just in case your ears fail to burn when people talk about you, there's a thread at the RfA talk page beating the ageism drum and citing you as an example. Not that you need to comment there or anything, but just a heads-up in case you'd like to. MastCellTalk16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you have a point about Mongo, Jeffrey Gustafson, Betacommand and Zoe, though I though Sceptre is in his twenties. In any event, I just wanted to raise one quick point; when you say that Majorly is acting like a teenager (and indeed he may be), you are proving that greater age does not make one inherently mature. Thus, an adult should be scrutinized for maturity issues just as much as a teenager, no? Otherwise it becomes a matter of discrimination. Cheers, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone22:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Immature adults are a problem too, certainly. I remember Majorly being described to me by someone as a "teenager", but maybe this was not correct? I don't know- I always assumed he was young. And yes, maturity is what matters. Age just gives us a quick and easy way to guess how mature someone is. Once people are over 25 or so, I don't care much about age anymore. Friday(talk)22:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to disagree that age is a quick and easy way of guessing how mature someone is. If you had just come to Wikipedia, and somebody told you Majorly is 32 years old, you wouldn't have guessed that he behaves somewhat immature, would you? Similarly, if JamieS93 had never revealed her age group, you most likely would not have guessed. Overall, my point is that while knowing one's age can most certainly help you in determining one's maturity level, I believe it should never be used solely for that purpose. I ask in all respect, did you at least take a look at JamieS93's contributions before !voting? –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a mistake to focus this discussion on particular individuals, as it may elicit unwanted opinions as to whether or not, for instance, Majorly is behaving maturely. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm becoming less convinced that there's more I can say which will make my position more clear. Suffice it to say, in Jamie's case, a couple simple facts spoke volumes. As a general rule, if there's a chat room kid nominated by Majorly, I'm going to need very compelling evidence of unusual wisdom and maturity. I see nothing like that here - an unusually wise and mature kid would have done things differently, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Wikipedia is turning more myspacey as time goes on, and I believe the huge volume of kids here is a major contributing factor. Opposing RFAs for candidates I consider poor is one small thing I can do to try to turn the tide. So, that's what I do. It may or may not help, but I feel like I should at least try. To me, the purpose of RFA is not to just be nice and positive. I believe we should set emotions and friendships aside and try to rationally gauge the competence of the candidate. If you're not yet remotely an adult, you've going to have an uphill battle trying to convince me that you can exercise reasonable adult-like judgement. This, in my view, is quite rational. Your mileage may vary. Friday(talk)23:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Majorly is an adult. He ran for steward, and requested CU/oversight access, over the course of the last year. —Giggy07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By emergency order of the President of the United States, I have blocked you for a period of 12-20 years. Agents will be arriving to pick you up shortly.. Friday(talk)14:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cross posted
Hey Friday, since I mentioned you by name in my "advice" essay, and you responded on Jamie's RfA, I wanted to let you know that I cross posted it to WT:rfa. I didn't copy your comments because I don't feel it is right to copy somebody elses comments.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon14:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're the owner, it's best you don't get involved in the article in any way at all. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Friday (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
before resubmitting this article, I was wondering what basis you had for deletion so I can avoid a repeat. In looking at the deleting log, there were several mentions of no sources, but a google search pulls IMDB sources, flixter, TV Guide, etc. The article in question is 21:58, 27 May 2008 Friday (Talk | contribs) deleted "Loreli Mahoney" (unsourced bio, created for "one of our clients"). I can understand that you may not want agents posting articles, which is what I am gathering from the "one of our clients" but the freebase summary of the article had verifiable facts. Could you look back into the matter and either undelete it or let me know what to change to publish it? Irishmanb63 (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance, I see immediatley what the problem was with the users sources, he/she did not use anything credable. I am going to down load this, rewrite and correct some things about it then readd it to my user page. Would you take a gander at it upon completion? Irishmanb63 (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason why I am as mad as I am. It is because of living with about twenty odd arsehole's all my life. (and yes that's what I think of them.) There's bigamist's, poofter's, people with unpronouncible names, and also not being able to pronounce your own name is really tedious. I hope you understand.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email)18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Ak'sent
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ak'sent, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ak'sent. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
I thought you'd find it interesting that most of the people endorsing Lady Aleena and GlassCobra's views there hang out in and were pointed to that page from - where else but the chat rooms? The RFC has certainly been a topic of discussion there. I've been perusing the IRC channels for a long time now and still find them useful for certain things, but am also slowly weaning myself off the Kool-Aid and have found myself turning around to your point of view on how interactions there cloud editors' judgment here. east718 // talk // email // 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make it clear that I didn't ever point people to go to that page. Sure, I showed it to people, as it was a topic of discussion, but I never once said anything like "go and endorse so-and-so!" Obviously, it's not changed much, since hardly anyone has endorsed the views mentioned, so I don't know why East718 has felt it necessary to bring it up, other than to stir drama and make people he doesn't agree with look worse. And additionally, several users endorsing the other views are from the "chat rooms", including east himself. In fact I'd say they were about equal. So much for your "interesting" fact. Quit shit-stirring. Majorlytalk05:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback
Greetings. I randomly picked your name off Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests. Though I'm fairly new here (I did spend a few tumultuous months on Wikipedia last summer, but I've taken to considering my July '08 return as my join date - I didn't really learn much back then anyway), I believe I understand the rollback feature fairly well and I would be grateful to obtain it. I plan to at least try to spend as much time here in the coming months as I did in August, when I made over 800 edits (the Olympics kinda helped, heh). Please let me know if there's any hoops I need to jump through to make this happen. Thanks. Don't fall asleepzzzzzz07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No hoops- we have a pretty lightweight process on that. If someone wants it, we generally hand it out. If they abuse it, we can remove it just as easily. So, I made the change. Go ahead and rollback away- just be sure to use it only for obviously bad edits. Friday(talk)13:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on vacation next week—far, far away from any internet access. It'd probably be a good time to sneak through any policy changes you've got saved up. :D Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response, and thanks
Thanks for being courteous. "It seems apparent there's been some media coverage here, but the question is how much" ...CLEARLY beyond enough to meet notability requirements. That was the whole point that all the administrators seemed to ignore! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peenapplay (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you!
I like you. You do a good service for all WIKI users (not just editors). THANK YOU. and GOD bless you. I want to be friends.
Friday, a long term wikipedian i would appreciate if an editor like yourself in terms of experience would be able to participate or just add a comment in regard to the low number of admin promotions and candidates last month which is here I know you have been on and off active recently but you have contributed at a large number of RfAs and i have found your views well thought out and appreciate them very much. You even state on your userpage that the project needs more admins so just alerting you to the discussion. I feel it would be a waste of your talent if you did not try and help the project and offer your views. Thank You 211.30.127.142 (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i am novice wikipedia user. I created a wikipedia article today called "Sunlays". I am in Canada. It is a management company based in Bangladesh. As soon as I add the article, it says its spam. But i have no idea why it says it spam. Please email me at onik143@yahoo.com. I will more than happy to provide my phone number too. I am not too sure what should I do now. I only wrote one line "sunlays group ltd. is a management consulting firm based in Bangladesh". Please advise me what should i do to stop wiki automatically deleting my link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibria.mozumder (talk • contribs) 05:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've deleted the HXR Clan Page, Which you had to right to, becuase it hasn't broken any rules. Also, Its not a "group" its more then that, If you want to argue and say it is a group, then get ready for 79 members sending you messages that you're completley wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxrwheaties (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very relevant to argue about whether it's a "group". What matters is, does this subject belong in an encyclopedia? We only cover topics that have already gotten significant coverage in other sources. Your article had no sources. Friday(talk)15:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback feature
Hey there, i am on wikipedia since 2006. Now a days i find many times vandalism across it so can you please grant me the ability of rollback feature so that i can fight the vandalism here, i would be very thankful for your any other advice. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 10:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has a bad history of tagging articles for speedy deletion that are inapropriate and has been warned by myself and other editors regarding this. So maybe the rollback feature is not a good idea until they show an understanding of policy. BigDuncTalk15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Friday, I'm very concerned about the fact that this user has been granted rollback rights. He has not exhibited good judgement as can bee seen from his history of bad speedy deletion tagging [2]. Also, the claim for being an editor since 2006 is completely at odds with his actual edit history showing an earliest edit of May 31, 2008. Note that lying is something this editor has done in the past with him claiming to have taken pictures with his own camera when they were taken frome the web. [3]. I urge you to keep a very close eye on his rollbacks. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I just took a quick glance and saw a clean block log. I don't want to be anyone's babysitter, and I don't want to put that job on anyone else either. I've undone rollback. Friday(talk)15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Since I agree with you quite often - more often than I agree with myself, actually - I was curious about your take on this year's ArbCom elections. Feel free to email me, respond here, or ignore this as you see fit. :) MastCellTalk19:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't thought about it much.. I haven't been very active lately. There's a few candidates to whom my reaction is "hell no" but other than that I don't have much opinion yet. Friday(talk)02:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last time we interacted with each other was over the last RFDesysop proposal, where I snapped at you — entirely unjustifiably. (I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion about what you meant in one of your comments, and shot first instead of asking questions.) I owe you an apology, and offer it unreservedly.
Now, you may be wondering why I'm posting an apology an ArbCom-related section of your talk page, so here it is. I don't know if MastCell meant to suggest it or not, but I want you to know that you'd have my support if you were to stand for ArbCom. There are seven open seats, and some of the candidates I'm seeing frankly scare me. I don't always agree with you, but I do respect your judgement, and I know that you keep an open mind. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't sweat it. I value honest exchange of opinions more than I value always being sugary nice. As for a candidacy from me.. I'm not sure I'm willing to put in the kind of time arbcom would probably take. Then again, maybe a good, functional arbcom doesn't need to take lots of time. Anyway, it's not something I'd been seriously considering, but I appreciate the vote of confidence. Friday(talk)17:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You found the right page. The problem is, while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's not a place where anyone can write whatever they want. It doesn't matter whether fans want it or not- if it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, it doesn't belong here. We only cover topics that have already been covered in other reliable sources. Friday(talk)21:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You come here talking to me about decency? Are you out of your mind? This crap is demeaning to women in general, to specific individually named women in particular, and to Wikipedia as a whole. We're not a free webspace provider, here. Friday(talk)19:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not out of mind. I don't like the tone of that particular section either, but I, in my most humble personal opinion, believe that it is not up to you remove content from another Wikipedian's user page without any discussion, let alone a warning. That's it. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now?22:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." Taken directly from WP:USER. And it's a case of "I'm right and everyone is wrong" in regards to his accusations of admin power abuse. (To Friday: sorry for butting in) Dengero (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised this is unclear. The AFD is for both, and I said "delete". I meant delete both. But I suppose there's no harm making this explicitly clear. Friday(talk)18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it. I've been keeping an eye on him for a bit since an incident on IRC and he's been getting steadily worse and worse for a while.I think it's because of that guy who's been annoying him. Still, that's no reason to behave like this, he should grow up IMO.--Patton12320:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you should stop opining on things when you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. The 'I fail' thing was a joke--looking at edit summaries is a good idea, y'know. There was nothing incivil about what I said to the guy who was bitching about Gwen Gale. So.. you don't know what you're talking about, and the next time you harass me on my talk page it will be dealt with accordingly. I trust that is crystal clear. //roux20:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roux, what are you doing in user talk when you refuse messages on your own page? Either act like a reasonable editor, or go away. This whiny child routine is wearing thin. Friday(talk)18:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons for refusing comments on my own page are simple: I'm sick of harassment, and sick of the community refusing to do anything about it. Please also consider this your final warning to cease your personal attacks; calling someone a 'whiny child' and telling them to conform to your notions or go away is hardly WP:CIVIL. //roux17:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the difference from the Watchmen page to the Amy Angel Series?
Instead of publication then article, we at Envera Comics have the article done before the publication... In any event, the graphic novel will be published.
Our form of advertisments do not include Wikipedia. They range from online forums to banners on webpage.
Sorry I know they are stubby and seemingly monotonous but I think you are not understanding the significance of these national highways and are not looking at wikipedia in the long term. US Route 66 began in the same way as did 95% of our other articles and look at them now. If you think that they will remain untouched forever you're wrong. Its not my fault there is a huge bias towards the United States and a few hundreds miles south people have chosen to ignore similar size national highways. Is it completely unimaginable that actually there might be an equal amount of information to write on highways in Mexico as well as the United States. I think I have made the first step towards covering them. They will be expanded eventually but seriously they are notable to constitute seperate articles in the way that the main American highways are. The Bald OneWhite cat20:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what country it's in- this shouldn't matter at all. All the info is already in the far more convenient List of Mexican Federal Highways. It's not inconceivable at all that there will eventually be useful content there, but you've made the stubs without useful content. I just think it's better for these articles to get made once there's content to go in them rather than all at once now, hoping for future content. It's possible that eventually we'll need Felipe Calderón's shoelaces but until that day, why make a stub? Friday(talk)20:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of critising why not actually do something to help expand wikipedia yourself rather than sitting around making pointers? The likelihood that they will be expanded is far greater if the article exists than not as research has shown on here that often people are unwilling to start an article but will happily expand an article that exists. How are people going to expand something if it is just a list? It will make it completely untidy and uneven. As a so called "admin" you should know more about how wikipedia grows than you seem to. Perhaps back in 2002 we should have contacted the creator of the US Route 66 article and told him , "sorry its a stub much better to have a list of roads" rather than encouraging growth. The Bald OneWhite cat21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see that I've apparently done something to injure you in a past life. Sorry about that. I was actually looking for how to help this content grow better, not worse. I figured it'd be better with this stuff all together on one page, where I hope more people would work on it. Fragmenting it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't think Route 66 is a good comparison- even the very first version of that stub made it clear that this was a historical highway. Not every bit of asphalt with a number is historical- some of them are just bits of asphalt with numbers. If the info we have is just numbers and what cities they connect, we already have this nicely covered in List of Mexican Federal Highways. Anyway, I thought I was helping with the suggestion of keeping it on one page, but apparently you don't consider this to be helpful. Friday(talk)22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the reason for deletion that you gave in the "why was my page deleted" page. You gave the reason some "company, no sources, no assertion of anything". I want to understand so I can improve and resubmit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.161.254 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are the user Chiz200379? (Right now you are logged out, so all I see is your IP address.) See User talk:Chiz200379. Unless this company has gotten significant coverage in reliable independent sources, we can't have an article on it. Friday(talk)18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for rollback
Hello, Friday. I do a fair amount of vandalism reverting, though mostly watchlist-driven; at "recent changes" I stand no chance against the twigglers and hunklers, and that stuff is beyond my capacities, but I think I might be able to handle the rollback thingy. Could you equip me accordingly? Thank you for your consideration. ---Sluzzelintalk15:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've been around for years, and I've never caught you doing anything that I would describe as 'damn foolish', so — it is done. Enjoy your new link. Always rollback responsibly. Do not attempt to rollback while under the influence of alcohol or medications which may induce drowsiness. Rollback may cause efficiency, usefulness, productivity, and vandal-whacking. If your rollback sessions exceed five hours in length, or you experience discomfort or irritation, discontinue use of rollback, shut down your computer, and go outside!
Hi there, Friday. I am Basket of Puppies. I've been here for a long time as just someone who reads articles and the discussion pages but decided to start editing on Jan 1. I am looking for someone to help me transition into a good editor and wonder if you can adopt me? Thank you. Basket of Puppies22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Who can resist a basket of puppies? It's perhaps second only to a large sack full of kittens. However, I don't do adoption- I think it's silly at best and downright harmful at worst. But, if you ever need a hand with something specific, drop me a note and I'll help out however I can. Friday(talk)22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. I'll write your name down as someone to turn to them I have questions, and there seem to be a lot of them! Can you tell me why you think adoption is silly and possibly harmful? Sorry...I'm new here so I have a lot of questions. Basket of Puppies23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd rather see people asking specific questions at the Wikipedia:Help desk where anyone can answer them, than pick one editor to "adopt" them. I think it's somewhat harmful when editors become "friends" with each other, because when conflicts occur, most people will tend to support their friends right or wrong, rather than judge each situation on its own merits. And, conflicts do regularly come up. It's the same reason I don't think these wikipedia-themed chat rooms are a good thing. Personal relationships between editors cloud everything. Friday(talk)16:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a more practical and less abstract reason.. a lot of the people who are into adoption are young kids looking to make friends. I've seen a great many "adopters" who were in no way competent to help out a new user. So, it could turn out that you get bad advice from an adopter, rather than them actually being helpful. Friday(talk)16:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. if it was radical, you'd already be doing it, right? Heh. I hope this idea can move forward.. I know it's been proposed many times, but maybe the time is right. Friday(talk)20:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. ;)
Yeah, I think it's and idea that should finally have its day. We're losing admins left and right, and the requirements for passing RfA are getting higher and higher. We're mile's away from Jimbo's oft-quoted "no big deal", and I think this will help us veer back towards that. EVula// talk // ☯ //20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The big challenge I see here is that a request for un-admining needs to be even less of a vote than the RFA. Unsuitable admins who made a bunch of friends in a chat room will have those hoards of friends showing up to oppose loss of the bit. Think it's controversial when crats fail to promote borderline cases? Wait til the first time someone loses the bit. Friday(talk)20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I don't want to seem like I'm egging drama on, but some growth pains wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I'd be fine with a little bit of drama to have a dramatically improved RfA system in place. With at least the prospect of easy de-admining in place, some of the ridiculous restrictions on RfA candidates can be lightened up, and perhaps we'll have a few less drama-happy admins too. Win-win. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since then you've annoyed more people, right? And many of them have asked you to stop? Wikipedia requires reasonable social skills. Having reasonable social skills generally involves not going out of your way to annoy people for no good reason. Do you really think being annoying helps make RFA better somehow? Friday(talk)17:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think non-standard questions make RfA better. I have the right to ask them, and it is not my responsibility to make sure you are not annoyed by a little question here and there. You could see a therapist about it or something. Keepscases (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I. If I were a troll, I would enjoy all this commotion. I don't. I just want to ask whatever questions I wish and be left alone about it. Keepscases (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Friday, I always drop by a talk page when I say something in a thread that someone might interpret as a put-down ... I never consciously put anyone down on Wikipedia, and I want to make sure we're clear. I talked about people talking with "moral authority" at WT:RFA#Arbitrary break about how arbitrarily everyone is dismissing keepscase's perspective. I agree with you that the question of trolling is a legitimate question at RFA, one that we ought to be more willing to talk about. I don't want to make a call whether that applies to Keepscases' questions or not; his questions have enough support that it's likely to just become a big brawl with people complaining about censorship, but I support the idea of looking at anything that would improve RFA, looking for consensus, and writing it down. My sense is that consensus is leaning in the direction of letting people ask whatever question they want to at RFA, but that whatever it is that's making people uncomfortable might be dealt with by letting candidates know in the RFA instructions that it's a minority position that "silly" questions are useful in RFAs. Whatever your position is, I'd appreciate your input in the thread. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted to Wehwalt's talk page, copied to Friday) If we say "Don't worry because no one has ever failed an RFA for failure to answer such-and-such a question", even if that turns out to be highly probable, that might be problematic because it gives the impression that we're saying the question has no chance of affecting the outcome, which would be going too far. So the best way to put this position is still up for grabs. Please feel free to weigh in at RFA. I was thinking earlier this morning that the best way to proceed was for people to chat on user talk pages and then bring the results to RFA, but now I'm thinking that's paying too much attention to the people who say "stop talking, we're tired of it". They can take a break if they don't want to listen; everyone should feel that they can argue their point in front of everyone and be treated respectfully. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
barnstar
The Original Barnstar
Just thought I'd give you this for general level headedness and beng sensible. Btw archive your talk page, it's rather long. Pattont/c21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
