User talk:Friday

Note: If you want to email me, the link does work, but it's generally going to be better to contact me here. I'll probably see it faster, and even if I don't (or if I'm away for a few days), perhaps someone else can deal with the issue.

Older stuff: /archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4 /archive5 /archive6 /archive7

Put new stuff at the bottom. Use this link if you wish.

Not Editing again

That was the admin who blocked me, and is why I left. So I only made that one comment. I have no intention of discussing with other users or ever editing again. Please delete it back. I am gone for real, and it's my right to vanish. Wwefan980 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I left one more comment on the page, but that is indeed the last edit. Now please let me exercise my right to edit, for I am gone forever once you delete the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwefan980 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, user talk pages should not be deleted. You can "vanish" any time you want, but hitting the "log out" button. Friday (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No I read if I want to leave and be forgotten about I may have my user talk page deleted, which is why they did it before. I honestly have no intention of editing or anything. Please delete it. There is no need for it now. Wwefan980 00:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hot Shit

hey,i'm sorry about the comment,i just got really annoyed tht i couldnt find any refs and that no one was trying to keep the article.once again i'm sorry --Brooklyn Soldier 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a huge deal. It's entirely human to get annoyed. I just wanted to make sure you don't get into the habit of calling people names, otherwise other editors may get tired of it. Friday (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, l'll try to make sure i dont do anythin like it again--Brooklyn Soldier 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

and dont worry,i'll start the page again when they're huge,lol --Brooklyn Soldier 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen

Friday, you do not understand. He has ruined everything! He is a bieng a so-called "kook" over me. He has ruined by joy in bieng a Wikipedian.--Angel David 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If I don not own my on user page, who does!?

Email

Dear Friday, I've emailed you off-wiki. I'm happy to discuss further on or off wiki. All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Bacn(meme)

hi! just wondering what the criteria were for deletion of this new article. i saw mention of the term in numerous blogs of late so i figured at least a stub (for now) was in order. i'm quite the novice at new articles so forgive my naivte :) thanks for the clarification! Spongebobsqpants

We're not trying to be a dictionary of slang terms, so that's one concern. It also said it was just invented a few days ago. Didn't seem to me like there was enough there for an article. But maybe it should be merged into the article on spam or something? Friday (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion of death cricket

im sorry that you feel our game is only "small", but if you got off your high horse you might realise that this game is actually a great way of passing the time... so i apologise for just trying to spread the fun i have had playing it with hundreds of other people... some people enjoy cricket and if you just opened your mind slightly you might see that there are many people who maybe want to learn a new sport or make new friends while playing a good and fun game of death cricket... i am highly displeased by the way you have conducted yourself in deleting our page and i am hoping for a reply to my comment a.s.a.p. thank you

It doesn't matter how fun it is. Wikipedia is not the place to promote some new game you invented. Friday (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

look you cock. it has become a very well known game and there are leagues being created. i bet youre american arent you. you just like shitty baseball —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shinfield (talk • contribs) 23:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Namecalling doesn't help your case. The article you created claimed it was known to 10 people. The bottom line is, unless this topic gets coverage in proper sources (think major sports magazines), there's no way we can have an article on it. Friday (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2007

oh my god. you must be so sad and obbsessed with this damn website, that you actually delete all this stuff becuase of all this technical crap. you really musnt have a life. would it really hurt to let it stay on, or would you be spanked by the wikipedia people. ooooo scary

Technical stuff? No.. my guiding principle is very basic and simple: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

you dont have a life do you? i bet you spend your life on this website dont you? i thought so

look you deleted ours because it has no sources... i have found an article about CRICKET IN THE USA... what a loadof bollocks... that is even more obsquer than death cricket... that is played by only a handful of people and that too has never appeared in any 'major sports magazines'

You're behaving like a sulking child. I have no further interest in explaining Wikipedia to you. Feel free to promote your game on your own website. Friday (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

no no no. firstly you have avoided the questions, which makesd you childish, and second, the last comment i made had a very good point, care to explain? or will you avoid it again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shinfield (talk • contribs). i think you will in fact find i am 15 and therefore i am legally a child... you have disgraced yourslef tonight... and come on who really does this... who really stays up to gone midnight answering queries... im sorry mate but you need to get a life... how old are you ... you need to find a woman and move on... and frankly sir i think you are a cock... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shinfield (talk • contribs) 23:30, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Matrixism

When I saw the edit summary, I thought you had removed the thread. A.Z. 04:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha. No.. I don't see that it's hurting a thing. Someone asked a question, other people were answering it. Friday (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

S495

I read your message!!I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO COMMENT ME AND I DELETED THE MESSAGE. I DON'T PUT RULES FOR SILLY REASONS!!AND I DON'T PUT NONSENSE!!! THANK YOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by S495 (talk • contribs) 19:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You don't own your talk page, and you'll find that it's necessary to be reasonable toward other editors in order to do any productive work here. If you're here for any reason other than building an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is probably not the right place for you. Friday (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How come I don't owe my talk? And in other words,you are readded to comment me --S495 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)S495

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not free web hosting. Talk pages are so other editors can communicate with you. If you're not willing to get feedback from other editors, Wikipedia may not be for you. Take a look at the links in the welcome message on your page to learn more about Wikipedia. I understand that you're new, and mistakes happen, so don't worry if you make a mistake. However with Austin Thompson it appears that you intentionally created a nonsense page. If you're making an honest effort to improve the encyclopedia, you'll find that other editors are very tolerant of honest mistakes. However, if you give any further impression of making intentionally unconstructive edits, may you get blocked from editing. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Dark Blood Anime Series.

Hi Friday.

Lets just cut straight to the point shall we?

Look i know i dont got any solid sources or info regarding my article. Thats because not anything has been put on the net etc. I dont know if i have anything that could even confirm the truth. You see the story has already been written. Its just that its not finished yet. But 18 chapters already exist. I just wanted to let you know that. BTW im not offended or anything that you deleted my article. Just to let you know.

Darkrosechild.

16-year-olds

Sub-section one

I've seen you referring to 12-year-olds and children in general as immature people many times, but I was surprised that you're against giving sysop tools even to 16-year-olds. That 12-year-olds and children should not be administrators is perhaps a "common" philosophy shared by many people, but the 16 years number seems absolutely high. In Brazil, 16-year-olds can vote. In the U.S., they can drive a car. (Strangely, they can't vote in the U.S. nor drive a car in Brazil.) May I ask what is the minimum age for someone to be an editor, an administrator, a bureaucrat, a steward, a Board member? To what positions may I, a 19-year-old, apply? Do you really not think you have an irrational bias against young people? A.Z. 15:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, different individuals mature at different rates. So I don't like hard rules about age. One 16 year old might be responsible enough to drive, another might not be. In terms of mental maturity, they say people typically have an "adult brain" around 25 years of age. So, I won't tend to have age concerns of anyone over 25. Those years between around 20 and 25 are a hazy- some of them are adults, some are not. Once you're below about 20, I find it very hard to believe a person would have reasonably good judgment, but I'm always willing to be swayed by actual evidence. Lacking solid evidence of unusual maturity, I'm unlikely to support anyone below 20 or so. 16 is just way too young- there's a huge difference between a 16 year old and even a 20 year old.

I've become more concerned lately about the quality of our admins. We need more, yes, but we need the right ones. Age isn't a silver bullet- a couple of our astoundingly childish ex-sysops have claimed to be of adult age. Being able to act based on reason rather than emotion is a requirement for a good admin. Some of our child admins see adminship as some kind of club, complete with a treehouse, so naturally they want their buddies in the club too. This is unhelpful in the extreme. (And yes, I understand that adults exhibit cronyism too, and this is just as bad.) Another concern is that too many of our admins tend to support each other because they're admins rather than because they think someone did the right thing. This is the wrong attitude- all editors need to act as a check on each other. If someone does something wrong, we need to be able to tell each other "Hey, I disagree with what you did here". Anyone who cannot handle constructive criticism is simply too immature to be a good editor, much less an admin. When people support each other automatically, rather than looking at the merits of the situation, this multiplies rather than reduces, the impact of a bad administrative decision. As long as this is the case, we need to be careful who we promote. Since arbcom is our alleged only way to desysop, and they only do it in extreme cases, yes, I'm in favor of being cautious at this time about who we promote. Give me a way to desysop that's as easy as RFA, and I'll be way more willing to hand out the tools liberally, knowing they can easily be taken away from those who lack the good judgment to use them properly. Friday (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you after your first paragraph.

A new way to desysop people is urgently needed, so we can hand out the tools to everyone that's been around for some time and see what people do with them. I have proposed a simple way to achieve this: a system exactly like Requests for Adminship, but to take out the tools instead of giving them. I believe that, in this case, WP:SNOW should apply, so requests that don't stand a chance should not be considered.

I personally believe the only good reasons to take sysop tools from someone should be violating your own block or by request. If people don't violate their blocks, bad admin actions can be controlled with long blocks. If people get tired of being blocked because of their admin actions, they can request that their tools be taken from them or voluntarily stop using them (or start using them well).

As things are, the small group of administrators tends to become separate. If it were easy to become one, then there would be less tension between administrators and non-administrators and there wouldn't be so much power in the hands of a few. A.Z. 18:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your approach seems way too "wild west" for my taste. If someone is getting blocked legitimate, this is a pretty clear demonstration that they're not responsible enough to have the admin tools. Not sure why you'd want an easy way to revoke them if you think this ability should almost never be used. If someone has to routinely be blocked to prevent them from abusing the admin tools, the solution is to permanently remove those admin tools, not block them all the time. Friday (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, that's a minor issue. We could continue discussing this, if you wish, but the important thing is that we agree about the main issue.

There's an easy way to stop any bot, but this ability should almost never be used... The blocking tool and the reverting tool should (and do) make people not vandalize Wikipedia, despite it being relatively "almost never" used: vandalism is just a small part of all edits. If there weren't those tools, it would be a great part. The easy way to revoke the tools would theoretically make people not apply to adminship in the first place if they intend to be admin vandals that unblock themselves, and would make them not unblock themselves if they become administrators. If someone has to routinely be blocked to prevent them from using admin tools, I guess we could block them for one year and allow them to be unblocked if they voluntarily resign the tools. Again, I feel this is a minor issue. A.Z. 19:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sub-section two

I commend you for having the courage to speak your mind on this issue, Friday. It has almost become a taboo topic, which it shouldn't have. El_C 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't become a taboo, and Friday shouldn't be censored for speaking his mind about it. A.Z. 19:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an advantage to making no attempt to have "friends" on-wiki. It's very easy to have courage when I'm not worried about offending my friends. We should not have taboos, and we should not cling to tradition for no good reason. That said, there are exceptional kids who are plenty responsible. As I recall, there's one crat who is quite young- the fact that I can't remember who it is probably means he's done a very fine job of acting in a reasonable, adult manner. If he were acting like a child, he'd stand out. Friday (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it means he's inactive (Ilyanep), which is why you haven't seen much of him. Majorly (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also he was made an admin in 2003, and a bureaucrat in 2004, in the days when people would look at the candidate's edits instead of their age. Majorly (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Age is just one factor- obviously edits are the primary thing to look at. This dismissing of age as completely irrelevant is not something I understand or agree with, though. Despite what our society may pretend, an 18 year old is not an adult. However, if someone wants to claim that a kid can act like an adult well.. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Friday (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit immature to think one thing about everyone in a group because of your previous experience with that group? I know there's a race group out there I have nothing but bad experiences with, and I won't say which, but like hell if you'd ever see me discriminate against someone on Wikipedia based on anything but their edits --lucid 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I told him this here, but he responded that I was playing word games. A.Z. 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

...wow. Race and age are completely different subjects. The brain of a young person is not as mature or developed as the brain of an older person - that is simple science. Race has nothing to do with maturity or development. Whether the lack of maturity (in a developmental sense) has an effect of the ability to administrate Wikipedia is a matter of opinion. But your analogy offer no sensible argument to counter Friday's argument. --Iamunknown 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think it's apt to compare this to racism. I require mature behavior from an admin candidate, and a child is by definition immature. I don't think blind people should be given drivers licenses either, and it's not because I dislike them. I'm not saying all kids lack the good judgment I expect in an admin, I'm just saying that the further you go below adult age, the less likely it becomes that the editor will behave like an adult. I'm willing to be convinced in individual cases, if there is ample evidence of unusually mature thinking from an adolescent. Friday (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is one child who is not immature, you should stop saying that children need to "behave like an adult" and start saying "behave maturely." If there are children who are not immature, then a child is not by definition immature. If you in your mind define children=immature, then please tell us that, so the confusion vanishes. I'm assuming that being a child is being of a certain age. If you think a mature 12-year-old is an adult, then it was merely a matter of semantics we were discussing. Now, if not all people under a certain age immature, then it's age discrimination to assume anything about maturity only from someone's age. Anyway, you should judge someone's maturity only by their edits. Their age should be entirely irrelevant. A.Z. 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that only a couple hundred years ago, children had much more responsibility (and maturity) than the average 20 year old today, right? That does not mean that all 20 year olds are immature, it means that children can be more mature than stereotypes would have you believe. Exactly as AZ says, whether someone is mature or not can be seen by their edits, not their age, in the same way that you judge a chef by their food, not the color of their clothing --lucid 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conf)Race is an accurate comparison. Think of any racial stereotype-- how is that any less accurate than "people under x age are not fit to do x"? How is denying someone adminship based on their age any less biased than denying someone adminship because of the country they were raised in, and making a comment on poor schooling? How does Friday's opinion differ from the notion that people of <insert race here> aren't fully human? There are a lot of people out there that do think that race has large effects on how people act, what things like do, enjoy, dislike, and so on, how is this any different from Friday's explanation of age? I've met plenty of people that are older than myself that I am more mature than, and on the same hand I've met people more mature that are younger than myself. I have some friends I have trouble believing aren't twice their age, and I have others I'm amazed made it out of the sixth grade. Now yes, I will agree that the body is constantly changing, that is obvious. The brain is always developing and maturing, people would be incredibly dull if they weren't. A lack of maturity should be measured by the person's actions, in this case edits, not some biological function that differs widely from person to person, in the same way that you wouldn't assume that one person of one age is as intelligent as another without reviewing their test scores. In the same way that many children skip grades because they have the intelligence to, many children are also mature enough to be thought much older, or in some cases much younger. And I will also agree that most 16 year olds are probably not suitable for Wikipedia admins. That said, most 16 year olds are vandals, not editors that make an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Most people who are running for adminship that don't get snowball closed deserve to actually have responses given based on their actions, not some arbitrary thing they have no control over.

Nobody is going to make an argument for someone who is immature being suitable for the mop. They pretty much never are. However assuming someone is immature because of their age is the same as assuming intelligence based on age, or race, or location, or any other number of factors that have nothing to do with the person's contributions and actions on Wikipedia. --lucid 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I will disagree that most 16 year olds are probably not suitable for Wikipedia admins. A.Z. 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As a small aside, User:Andrevan was an admin at 15 and is now a bureaucrat at 18, according to his user page. Whose argument this supports depends upon your view of his history. Bielle 02:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

More examples like that here, although I think that having or not having those kinds of examples shouldn't matter. A.Z. 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How does Friday's opinion differ from the notion that people of <insert race here> aren't fully human? - Um, because she never said that young people aren't fully human? I kind of lost your post after that point, so if I missed something more important, I ask you to state it a bit more succinctly. --Iamunknown 03:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

He's saying that they aren't full editors, and thus cannot become admins. It's the same principle. Majorly (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) Exactly, when you judge a person by the actions of a group that person didn't even choose to be in, you're being biased, especially if you're denying them rights based on that. People expecting kids to be immature is a big reason why they are immature, which is one of the mistakes of modern society, but that's another subject for another place --lucid 03:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't and shouldn't have a census, but if I had to estimate, I'd say that at least 10-15% of the administrator corps is in the 12-17 y/o age range, and the vast majority of them are doing satisfactory, and in many cases outstanding jobs. Newyorkbrad 02:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with NYB's (as usual) wise and sensible comments. Majorly (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we are discussing three different issues here:

• 1.What is age discrimination. This is what I think is most important. Friday said, for instance, that children are, by definition, immature. If this means that:

• A.People of a certain age are all immature, then:

• a. If all people that age are really immature, it's not discrimination.
• b. If not all people that age are immature, it's discrimination.

• B.He calls those who he defines as a "child" immature, but he doesn't define "child" as someone of a specific age, then that may or may not be age discrimination, depending on other things.

• 2.How mature administrators need to be. This is an issue that Lucid approached, when he said that no-one would argue that people who are immature should be administrators.
• 3.What level of maturity people of different ages exhibit in the real world. Bielle, Majorly, Newyorkbrad, and Lucid seem to be discussing this and the second issue. The first three said that 16 year-olds can do a great job at being administrators. Lucid said that most 16-year-olds don't have maturity enough to be administrators. A.Z. 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A.Z., I'm going to disagree with your above comment that most 16 year olds have enough maturity to be admins because most people in general probably don't have the maturity to be admins. You have to follow strict rules, keep a cool head even though half the site is bitching at you, be responsible with your tools, and on and on. Most people would probably fail at at least one of the above. What I meant with that comment was that most 16 year olds [The General Population] don't have the maturity, not most 16 year olds [Wikipedia Editors], and this really applies to all age groups.

As to NYB's comments, this is probably true, Wikipedia has a lot to thank teenagers for, and even tweens. To play devil's advocate, Conservapedia's articles are mostly well written from what I've seen (which I'll admit isn't much), even though it was originally worked on almost entirely by children in the course of their homeschooling. Ignoring the WP:NPOV over there, that's a pretty impressive task. You can also bet that a lot of our articles on entertainment/pop culture subjects are written mostly by teenagers, although that might not be a good thing to some people. When you look at the number of teenagers in fairly prominent positions on Wikipedia, it's a clear sign that at least some of them have the maturity for the job. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to find out we have more admins under 20 than over 40, or even over 30. --lucid 03:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There may just be a difference in philosophy here that's not easily resolved. If I had to guess, I'd guess that most kids find it objectionable to say "Kids should not be admins", and most adults would view this as a reasonable opinion to have. I don't have a way to confirm the numbers, but FWIW I don't dispute Brad's guess that some 10-15% of admins are in the 12-17 year old group. I do wonder how many of these young kids are acting on their own accords, versus being coached by their friends on what to do. (And, one could debate whether it's good or bad to have admins who aren't really using their own judgment.) I would also guess that a good chunk (perhaps majority) of our problem editors are also in that same 12-17 age group, so the involvement of kids is probably a two-edged sword. Being an adult is such an easy, basic standard for a position of responsibility that I don't really get why there would be such opposition. Saying it's wrong to expect adulthood from candidates strikes me as being very close to saying we should not have any standards at all. Friday (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to A.Z.: If you are going to group people according to the positions you believe they have taken, I suggest you either ask permission or be very careful to be accurate. I carefully drew no conclusion in my comment above about Andrevan's competence; I merely pointed out what he had achieved at what stated age. Even if you argue that you have chosen to see his election to bureaucrat as supporting your view, which was an option I gave you, but did not take myself, the only conclusion would have to be that this one teenager has demonstrated sufficient maturity, and not necessarily that teenagers in general can do so. Grouping me as one who, in general, supports your position, is to misread my words.

As for my own view about admin standards in general, a body of evidence in the form of x number of successful (define) interactions and substantive (define) edits over Y(days, weeks, months, years) would be better than any arbitrary age limit. However, we would all be too old too care by the time all the variables were agreed. Absent such agreement, age is not the worst test we could use. Bielle 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It was a mistake. I've crossed the post now. A.Z. 17:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

20:10, 27 January 2006 Friday deleted "Speedypin" ‎ (copyvio)

Hi Friday,

I'm the Marketing Manager for SpeedyPin.com Phone Cards. Apparently, somebody other than myself attempted to create a bio page for the company, which you deleted for copyright violations (noted in the Subject/Headline). No Problem! I want to create a bio page in a fashion that conforms to your neutrality guidelines.

I'm not sure how to go about specifying the reasons why SpeedyPin should be allowed to have a bio page on Wikipedia, so I wanted to do the right thing and ask first. Should I just create one and let editors be the judge, or do I need overwhelming permission to do so?

Thanks for any advice you can offer. I can provide specific reasons why SpeedyPin should have a bio page, but I will defer until I see your reply.

Thanks,

Eric

Howdy. It's generally frowned upon for people to create articles relating to their own organization or company- see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. That said, you can go ahead and create the page, but I can't help it if someone comes along and deletes it. You can look at some guidelines for articles on companies, in case that helps. What's going to be needed to help prevent deletion is that the article demonstrates that the company has gotten significant media coverage, so that it can be properly sourced. At a glance, I found this, but it's not really independent media coverage, it's just a press release. So I can't immediately find proper sources for an article. But, this doesn't mean they don't exist. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I will be sure to provide as many sources as possible, including articles written about the company from Kiplinger, the NY Post, the WSJ, and others. I appreciate your feedback! Speedypin 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Fair-use images.

I just don't understand. What is the issue with having images in articles? They're not "free"? Isn't that the purpose of fair-use images, so that they can be used freely? Those images have been there for years now, and how has Wikipedia been damaged because of it? How has it declined in any sort of fashion? What's wrong with A LITTLE visual representation in character articles that call for it? Six images. SIX. In an article that represents 18 important characters from a highly notable fiction series? The "not notable enough for articles so why do they need images" argument doesn't work, all those characters were notable enough at one time to have their own articles. I don't get it, I just don't. - The Norse 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Friday, I responded to The Norse on his talk page at User_talk:The_Norse#Re:_.5B1.5D. --Durin 12:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good answer, thanks. Friday (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your response, Friday. Everything you said to me has completely cleared my mind unlike a response I would've gotten from Durin. It looks like I made a good choice asking for the comments of a different Wikipedian who didn't sound like he has an unflexible, raging God Complex. You've been a big help, thank you again. - The Norse 01:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Banner

Friday, thanks for explaining. If only we all did that. Anyway, thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no problem. Sorry if I came off sounding harsh at first. Like I said, I don't see this as any kind of big deal. Friday (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Daaaaaang

		A Barnstar Slice
		You get this slice of a Barnstar of Good Humor, as part of the group in the RD/M Daaaaaang thread. This is only a symbolic part of the barnstar, the rest of it lies with the other members. lucid 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodell_logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rhodell_logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No explanation? When I look, I see the comment "from http://rhodellbrewery.com/ this corporate logo is to be used in an article on the company and thus qualifies as fair use." I have no clue whether this is valid or not- I have done almost nothing with images on Wikipedia and know very little about them, and I have no interest in copyright law- but that's the only explanation I have for this. Do whatever you need to do with the image, of course. Friday (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. See you on the Ref Desk! Edison 15:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Blushes

Oh dear - this is by far the most embarassing edit history I've been responsible for. I think I'll go hide in a corner now... WjBscribe 20:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, turns out I fixed it unnecesssarily too- I'm surprised it didn't produce an edit conflict. Oh well, all's good now.. provided no one ever mentions this again :) Friday (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You stop it

I am not trolling, how about you stop trolling on my talk page by lying? Its not my fault that you are jealous of my logo. Diroectaable 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User Donreid and article Don Reid

Unfortunately, if you look at the user's record, it becomes impossible to view his latest edit as done in good faith. I'm willing to grant that he may have begun in good faith, but this one was just plain vandalism. --Orange Mike 22:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Age, maturity, neuroscience, policy-making

Hi. This made me think of you. A.Z. 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting read, thanks for the link. Friday (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome, although I was actually expecting some reaction, such as you either changing your mind or saying that you disagree with him. A.Z. 19:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I might have a reaction at some point. I dunno about it changing my mind- this is an opinion piece from the NY Time, written by a guy with an obvious axe to grind. As is pretty typical when the media tries to play science, he's jumping to conclusions that aren't at all backed up by anything. Yes, there's a ton to learn about the brain, but he's doing a lot of hand-waving here. They mention a recent study done at Temple- they don't cite sources, of course, but if this is a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal, I trust that the study is "good science" far more than I trust that some op-ed piece is "good science". The opinion piece isn't even trying to be science, so forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt. Friday (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Order of Death's Head

I hereby bestow upon you the Order of Death’s Head for your tireless deletion of content and censorship.

The true idea behind wikipedia is to bring to life an all encompassing knowledge base not unlike the fictional Hitchhikers Guild to the Galaxy, or rather, an unrealistic ideal one strives to accomplish for the sake of humanity.

You and you order of “gnomes” – you self-proclaimed gatekeepers, who are you to decide what belongs and what does not? By what right do you have to judge or police what others have created? What is the purpose of knowledge if not to inform? How can one be informed without all knowledge, regardless of how small? Wouldn’t your time be better served improving the factual correctness of existing articles then deleting new one??? So I ask you, who is the bigger Vandal, the one who vandalizes, or the one who destroys?

You have a user page! How does that work out? What makes you worthy of note? Or award? You yourself are in violation of your own code! You’re a hypocrite, a tyrant, “a deletionist” and fully deserving of this honor – The Order of Death’s Head.

IGNORE ALL RULES - but please STOP BEING A DICK

ALL POWER TO THE WIKIPEOPLE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirOrangePekoe (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! I should find a spot for that on my user page somewhere. Friday (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

alanjohns

thanks so much for blocking this person. he/she's been a real pain on the robbie williams page. keep up the great work. Bouncehoper 21:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One more advise.

Thank you for help on aglo-scottish border topic.

One more thing, in situation where noone is replying to talkpage message, and they still revert my edit - what can i do ? YESYESandmanygoals 14:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, ideally we want people to work things out on the talk page. However, understand that you're trying to rename a page that's been around a long time. People are OK with it under the current name. If nobody supports your idea to rename, or even if no one even bothers to comment, you shouldn't just move it anyway. You already know people disagree- otherwise they wouldn't have reverted you. Friday (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you again for advise, hopefully we can get racist words removed always. YESYESandmanygoals 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Anglo" in this context is part of the centuries-old custom in English, whereby adjectives of this sort use Latin-derived terms for countries. Thus, we speak of Sino-Russian tensions, not Chinese-Russian tensions; Franco-Scottish alliances, rather than French-Scottish alliances; Hispano-Swiss automobiles, not Spanish-Swiss ones. It's not racism, it's scholarly custom. --Orange Mike 22:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it was not Franco-Scotch relations? this was bcoming offensive to Scotsmen, so they change it. Age old things, does not matter - negro was age old, now not valid word. YESYESandmanygoals 08:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

querie

Our town near Bronkhorstspruit recently got new computers and internet, and our tutor mentioned Wikipedia as a good website, so at this time, there are about 60 children that speak Draafstein on Wikipedia. --FredricksStaad 19:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I got all rouge-y and blocked this account for trolling. It's clearly bogus. -- Merope 20:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Viran

I am suspecting it will be all for naught though. He appears pretty darn stubborn. I hope he reads what I have wrote. He improved greatly after the first round of this. Spryde 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if it ends up not helping, we can at least say we tried. Friday (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people just don't listen/read. I suspect an indef to be coming (sooner if he goes the sock route). Spryde 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, rather than say "we tried", shouldn't we just block him indef? All of his contribs are bogus, he's threatened to use sockpuppets to acheive his goals, and he seems hellbent on disruption. Call me a rouge[sic], but I think a longer block is in order. I think the threat of disruption via sockpuppets warrants an indef. -- Merope 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to a longer block- I didn't even look much into his history. I blocked him for a short period based only on today's edit warring. Friday (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No

My college teacher sent us the pic and told us to figure out who it is. He's a british person --Doorp 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case you can sod off you gimp. --Doorp 18:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: holy wars

Oh I know Windows is far from the ideal. The debate is about PC vs Mac, not Windows vs Mac OS X. "IBM-compatible" PCs also run linux, solaris, BeOS, OS/2 Warp, and any little scratch of code you want to write up and call an operating system. I don't know about the actual technical limitations, but the point of a mac is to buy hardware specially for a piece of software, namely OS X, since it refuses to run on anything but their overpriced hardware. It's not a case of "just working" as they claim; it's a case of "not working at all" except on specific, presumably cryptographically-signed hardware only available from a single vendor. So yeah, not sure where I was going with that but it's not a Windows vs OS X issue it's Open-system vs Closed-system.. equivalently PC vs Mac --froth^t 21:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they purposely maintain a hardware monopoly. I don't see why it matters much- hardware is hardware, but your mileage may very. It's funny you'd mention open versus closed- OS X is far more open than Windows in just about any way I can think of. I've never had a problem compiling any piece of open source software on OS X. But, for many people, as said elsewhere, it's a religious issue- the actual facts won't usually change anyone's mind. Friday (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough

Will you stop scavanging and criticizing my work!--Angel David 01:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It only works because all editors act as a check on each other. This means editors have to be responsive to feedback about their editing. If people have suggestions or concerns about your editing, "leave me alone" is hardly a useful way to respond. Friday (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Friday, I have been here and my edit was agreeded by a lot of people. Stop trying to act like an admin. It's not cute. I don't want to fight or edit war. I want to be a changed man! I apologized to Durin 20 days before he left and he forgave me. I don't want to fight.--Angel David 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about your edits on Template:Vacation3. You have made no edits to Template talk:Vacation3 that I can see, so I'm not sure what you're trying to claim here. Again, please do not edit war. Friday (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. I'm trying to be a better Wikipedian. I'll try not to edit war.--Angel David 02:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

monkey dog

You are a truly mean person for deleting my article about monkey dogs. I was in the process of editing and appealing when you deleted it. THANKS.Bowchicawowwow 19:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC) pffffffffffffft, you think monkey dog is nonsense?Your name is Friday.thats nonsense, its after a day of the week. ITS CALLED CREATIVITY, something that monkey dog is full of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowchicawowwow (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsence?

It is not nonsence, IM ON A DATE!!!!!! :) Lauren is the most prettietest girl ever! Woohoo!!!!!!!!!!! --Paaswoerd Verwaandereichen 16:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Kelly

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria: amateur athletes who compete at the highest level of their sport are considered notable, especially if they win a medal in said sport. Olympians are therefore always notable, having acheived in their sport at an amateur level to reach an international comeptition. - CobaltBlueTony 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to that article. The one I deleted was about someone else, apparently. Friday (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My user page

Dear Friday, while I am tempted to issue you a warning for vandalizing my user page I will hold off until you can explain to me why you edited it without my permission or approval. Please respond as conveniently as you can. Bstone 19:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I left you an explanation on your talk page. Which I know you saw, since you replied to it. Also you may want to read Wikipedia:Vandalism - this term has a specific meaning as we use it here, and you're misusing it. Friday (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I reply on other people's talk pages. It says so on the top of my talk page in big bold letters. I view your unauthorized editing of my user page to be vandalism and I shall be reporting it as such. As an editor you may edit articles, but other people's user pages are off-limits unless you have an extremely good reason. Please do not vandalize my user page again. If you feel something needs to be changed then please discuss it with me. Thank you Bstone 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to edit at Wikipedia, you need to change your approach. Friday (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Leuko

I have continually been begging Leuko to stick to the issues and interact in a civil manner. However, he continues to act in a uncivil and bully-like manner. At least one other user is complaining about Leuko on an unrelated article. Hopefully you can try to influence Leuko in maintaining a civil discourse. Thank you. Bstone 20:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I had only made one change on a page, and Leuko issued a stern threat of banning me. I don't care whether it's a "template" or not; a threat is a threat. Now, you tell me, how am I supposed to keep cool when I have a fellow editor bullying me? I left a message on a Talk page, and he never bothered ro reply. You see, mutual understanding comes from both sides - it's bilateral. DrGladwin 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll get all kinds of stuff on your talk page- that's Wikipedia. If someone is getting all upset for no reason, it's usually nothing to worry about. Feel free to ignore it, or explain why you think the complaint is groundless. I honestly don't know enough about the situation to know whether Leuko is issuing baseless threats or not. I see some complaints, but I also see questionable behavior all around. My interest is in diffusing the dispute, not handing out punishments for past wrongdoings. If you want me or anyone else to look into what you see as bad behavior, providing relevant links and diffs is essential. A good rule of operation for Wikipedia is "Don't be too annoying, but don't be too easily annoyed either." If there are disagreements over content, work them out on the relevant article talk pages. Friday (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, this will be my last message to you. Your involvement in the Leuko harassment matter is not welcome by myself. You have vandalized my user page and I view you as a a biased party. I did not invite you to participate in any sort of mediation with Leuko- you simply asserted yourself, uninvited and unwelcome. You have posted derogatory things about me on Leuko's talk page and it is clear you are not objective in this matter. I reserve the right to report you for vandalism, harassment and intimidation. Please respect this and do not post on my talk page again. I thank you ahead of time for your respect. Bstone 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been reporting him on AN/I- obviously you wanted some attention. Well, now you've got attention and you're complaining about it. I can't guess what you're hoping to accomplish here. I told you both to leave each other alone- he's doing it, and you're not. So, yes, I see you as a significant part of the problem in this issue. Please, just let it drop. Friday (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my talk page

I made a few mistakes, and I clarified the reason why I believe you, Tony and others are wrong in removing that notice. User talk:Jeeny 05:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

DirkvdM

Well, it was a good try, but it looks like he's more interested in trolling than in any sort of productive discussion. You're welcome to try to reason with him, but if he starts playing silly buggers any place where it inconveniences bystanders (like the Desks) then I'm going to escalate to blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Undelete that garbage band

Not to make you out to be a complete dink but what is a garbage band. Vacuity has their albums in major retail outlets like hmv and is distributed by maple music. They aren't just some kids in a garage. I'm sorry the band hasn't sold 10 million copies but they do have an impact on the local music scene. So please don't be a complete asshole and fix your err. Or at least tell me what you think a garbage band is so I can apologize...

Thanks.

In the deletion log, I said garage band, not garbage. I have no opinion on how good the band is. I have to be frank- your message here does not at all convince me that this deletion was wrong. The article was completely unsourced and contained content like "Breakthrough Success - Coming Soon!" Wikipedia is not a place to write about bands you hope will get major media attention, we're only looking for bands that already have gotten significant coverage. Come back when you have, you know, records and stuff. Friday (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Dear Friday, I have noticed you have blocked me a few days ago. I learned a lot from my past mistakes. You have opened my eyes and see what horrible mess I have created. I will try to never attack another Wikipedian again. And on top of all that I am sorry for bieng a royal prick. Pardon the bad word. Even though people might erase my edits. I will try never to attack anyone anymore.--Angel David (talk · contribs) 01:09, 12 October,2007 (User Talker Contributor)

Well said

This is well said. While it does not sway my opinion, it is certainly the most compelling thing on the subject I have read from you to date. While we disagree fundamentally on a controversial topic, I certainly see your point of view. 1 != 2 05:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now if everyone would just drink the kool-aid... Friday (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not post messages on my talk page

Sir, I previously asked you to not post messages on my talk page. I informed you that I would consider it harassment. This is still the case and you have just posted on my talk page. Thus, you have continued to harass me and I shall be reporting you. Again do not post anything on my talk page.Bstone 21:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not actually post anything on your talk page. Also, you only make yourself look foolish by telling people not to post on your talk page. Friday (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ideaGasms

Why the hell did you delete the ideaGasms page ? How on earth can it be marked as SPAM ? Tuplad 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's promotional. It's completely unsourced reads like it was cut n pasted from someone's marketing literature. Perhaps it's possible that an encyclopedia article could be written on this topic, but that page wasn't it. Friday (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, and now you delete the page Stephane Hemon ? Why be such a bitch about it? The Stephane Hemon article was written by member of ideaGasms. What is not encyclopedic about it ? Tuplad 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling me names will not make me more likely to go out of my way to help you. Either be civil, or go away. Friday (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephane Hemon

Hey,

Why did you delete the page I created on Stephane Hemon? You said it was nicked from http://www.molinu.org/stephane_hemon

I created the entry from scratch, using David DeAngelo's entry as a model. That site copied the Wikipedia entry.

Ariel 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a possibility. I've restored it for now. Still, the article is completely unsourced. This needs fixed. Friday (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I simply hadn't gotten there yet. ;) Thank you for restoring it, Friday. Ariel 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. But, don't get too excited yet. I did put the page up for deletion. But, this way there'll be a few days to discuss it rather than it just being quickly deleted. Friday (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Someone else speedy deleted it for being advertizing. Friday (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm

Friday, that's my favorite namespace. Not to be a snob but I will really apreciate if you let me keep that. And...I don't have a website, I'm only 11--Angel David 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are any number of websites that will give you free hosting for whatever content you want. Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider. Friday (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, you might want to look at this. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on the Angel David RfC

Hello Friday, I must respectfully disagree with your RfC comment. I'm 13 and consider myself a productive contributor. Heck, Anonymous Dissident is 12 (I think) and is a great admin. Age is not indicative of productivity. Thank you for your consideration. Love, Neranei (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good move

I tried to cajole them out of the nastiness but it didn't take. I left a warning[1] but concur in the block. Raymond Arritt 00:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, Friday. Perhaps on Angel David's RFC, you could put that you certify the basis of the dispute, because you have been involved with him before. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Telling people to leave

Hi, Friday. I don't think anymore that it's not OK to tell people that they should stop editing Wikipedia, as long as you make it clear that this is just your personal opinion. A.Z. 18:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. If you do it repeatedly you can be blocked for persistent incivility and/or harassment. Raymond Arritt 19:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the reason why something is wrong is that I can be blocked? Couldn't it be that the person who blocked me is actually the one who's wrong? A.Z. 19:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not according to wikipedia policies, no. I see you have been blocked once and foir harrassment so you should take particular care, A.Z, SqueakBox 19:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you worried that I may be blocked, SqueakBox? Would you be sad if that happened? A.Z. 19:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on the length of the block and the reason. I wouldn't use the word sad but I have a track record of not liking to see productive non SPAs indef blocked (eg Vintagekits) and that would apply to you so please don't act in a way where an admin would indef block you, SqueakBox 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and sadness aside, it's narrow and unwise asking editors to leave the project (we're not talking trolls and vandals). Advice from the uninvolved in conflict situations, to go outside and breathe some fresh air, or to take a wikibreak - that's one thing. Telling editors they are not welcome, is quite another. We're all here to build the encyclopedia, no? There are plenty of possible paths for conflict resolution, and if collaborating with another editor has reached an impasse, move on to something else for a while. When someone's behavior is problematic, address this, by all means. But it makes me cringe every time I see a good faith editor being asked to leave, and it limits further co-operation considerably. Conflict and content dispute can be productive and lead to improvement of articles; the prerequisites are that we're working toward a shared goal, and that we are colleagues. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox doesn't want to be my colleague. He wants me to be blocked. I have removed the comment saying that he should leave Wikipedia, by the way, because I don't think he should. I only came to this talk page to tell Friday that I could imagine situations in which this would be OK to do, but now I'm not so sure. A.Z. 19:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, see the above comment and please do not jump to conclusions. I want you to remain civil and productive on this project and have never implied otherwise, SqueakBox 19:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(to A.Z.) Well, I think those situations are extremely rare when it comes to good faith editors, and I can only imagine such a situation when you're concerned about the other editor's well-being, or if it's a really misguided and disruptive editor who shows no grasp of Wikipedia's basics inspite of numerous efforts to explain them. Clearly, neither applies to SqueakBox. Thank you for removing the comment. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A.Z is referring to this post which IMO is unacceptable, especially as he wants me to stop editing because he disagrees with me re pedophilia, SqueakBox 18:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was a bit confused as to what this was about. Certainly in general we shouldn't be telling other editors to leave. If someone is persistently disruptive it may sometimes be appropriate to tell them that they need to change their tune or they won't be welcome here. But hopefully our focus is on getting people to stop the bad behavior but continue whatever they're doing that's constructive. If we try to demand perfection from editors, nobody would qualify. Friday (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Get bent"

Hi, perhaps you could provide a diff of where I used the phrase "Get bent"? I can't seem to find it myself.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I provided a diff, but I miquoted your "get stuffed" as "get bent". Any reasonable editor would have realized what I meant, so I find your response to be unhelpful. Friday (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I find you to be unhelpful. I also found Mr Stuffed unhelpful, since he deliberately and knowningly and intentionally double-posted an ANI notice. There was no reason for him to do that.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Rlevse double posted anything. And now you're referring to him as "Mr Stuffed"? Please be advised that calling other editors names won't be tolerated much here. Friday (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Stage-gate deleted?!?

Hi there you deleted Stage-Gate because I was the only contributor. I am initially creating teh article for research purposes for people that search for our process. What do I need to do in order to do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkrempa (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was spam. The best place to document your processes is on your own website. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Friday (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this considered spam? Our company was born form a process. What we are listing here is a process which would be considered acedemic research over a 30 year period. P&G and other companie sare doing this and the have links going to brands and products which we don't even mention in our article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkrempa (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's spam because it reads like it was cut and pasted from your own website. There is a difference between encyclopedia writing and promotional material. It's possible that a sourced, neutral, encyclopedia article could be written on this topic, but that page wasn't it. You should read the link about conflict of interest above- if this company/process is really significant, someone unrelated to the company will come along and write about it. Friday (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin Recall

Friday, per your willingness to stand the test of admin recall if a sufficient number of editors ask for it (see here [2] ) I officially add myself and open the discussion for your recall as an admin. Bstone 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday somehow sides with "experienced" editors and ignores the requests of new editors. Not a good idea. DrGladwin 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Open an RFC, if you want. If there is reasonable consensus, I'll abide by it, same as always. Note that you'll need some evidence of misuse of the admin tools on my part. Also, recall is not intended to be the first step in dispute resolution. What specifically have I done that you disagree with? Friday (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this what it's about? That's not really anything actionable. What have I done that you disagree with? Friday (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may comment here, I believe Friday is one of the users that stands up against admins that abuse their power more than any other person on the project. Recall should be enforced when an administrator has been mis-using their tools. I have seen no evidence that Friday has misused the administrator bit since I have been on the project. Further to that, I strongly believe that Friday is one of the least likely to misuse the tools. I believe this request is completely without warrent. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I would add, to be fair, that I certainly do make mistakes, including with the admin tools. If anyone is looking for a perfect admin, it's certainly not me. Friday (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe Bstone has also ordered you not to post on his talk page. --Orange Mike 19:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did. And, I'll admit I did disobey his order one time after he issued it. Friday (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On wikipedia, no editor owns any page here, even their own talk page. It is no abuse of power for someone to post once after being asked not to by another user. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Friday should remain an admin, he is one of those editors who really should be an admin (not all editors need that admin power but the role he plays on wikipedia indicates he does in order to play his part effectively), SqueakBox 19:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bstone, if you're serious about this, the place to start is WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. If the RFC shows significant consensus that I've been misusing the admin tools, I'll step down. Since I've put myself into the recall category, in the spirit of cooperation I'll waive the normal requirement for two certifiers. However I advise you to think it through before you dive in. RFC is not meant to be the first step; if you file one without first attempting to resolve the dispute by other means, you may find that it doesn't go the way you'd hoped. To anyone else who may notice this, in the interest of not stirring up needless drama, it's probably best to wait and see if this goes any further before worrying too much about it. Friday (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I believe you are unfit to be an admin as your interactions with me have clearly demonstrated your willingness to vandalize my user page[3], personally insult me on Leuko's user page User_talk:Leuko/Archive_7#Bstone, and post on my talk page once I have informed you that you were not welcome to as you had demonstrated a lack of civility [4]. I have noticed almost a dozen complaints about your lack of civility on your RfA page [5] and many of them stated that their support was contingent on your abilities to be more civil- something which I personally have experienced as not being the case. As such, I maintain that your current status as an administrator on this project is no longer possible. Bstone 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not vandalism, and that's not a personal insult. I'll admit I speak bluntly from time to time, but I do try not to actually be rude. Still, if you honestly feel there's a civility problem here, the link for the user conduct RFC is above. But before you go that route I urge you to really consider the question or whether your notion or my notion of "vandalism" more closely matches what's written over at Wikipedia:Vandalism. It seems like your disagreement with me all stems from the edit I made to your user page. I say it's not vandalism, you say it is. If we could resolve that issue, the rest of the disagreements here might magically vanish. Friday (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my observations. My issues with you include your unauthorized edit of my user page but your general lack of civility is the driving force. It is my impression you have not lived up to those who placed their faith in you that your civility would increase after becoming an admin. Thus, I believe you should step down. Bstone 05:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your user page is part of the project. It is not your personal property, and no one needs to be "authorized" by you to edit it. Raymond Arritt 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Unauthorized as in vandalism of my user page. Removing information from my user page without asking permission is allowed but is incredibly rude and entirely uncivil, bordering on vandalism. Bstone 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you try not to BE rude. You are percieved as rude by others, and that's what matters. 64.236.121.129 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday is too blunt and comes off as rude. This isn't a trait that an admin should have, and isn't very helpful at all. An admin should be helpful. His comments on the reference desk aren't very helpful at all, they appear to mock the question asker. 64.236.121.129 —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Friday. It's a long time since we have spoken directly, but I just thought I would let you know that I continue to regard you as one of the best of the admins., and to assure you that you can always rely on my support, no matter what the circumstances. Love. Clio the Muse 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I second Clio's thoughts. I've experienced Friday's actions as fair to a fault. Friday's comments can be direct, and aren't always cloyingly sweet, but hardly ever cross the line of incivility. In my opinion, Friday's only somewhat questionable edit in this story was to remove Bstone's "vandal counter". I think user pages should basically be left alone, even if they use the term vandalism inappropriately. But even this is seen differently by parts of the community, and besides, it has nothing to do with being an administrator, as everyone can edit a user page. I hope Bstone finds another way to resolve any perceived dispute, because a recall process will expend lots of time and energy, and likely won't resolve anything. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging from what I've seen so far, a recall would likely boomerang against Bstone for engaging in frivolous prosecution. Raymond Arritt 23:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Prosecution would be me bringing this to ArbCom. Notice I have not done that in any way. I maintain that Friday has a long history of incivility, his RfA had supporting votes which were contingent on increased civility, he has perhaps become *less* civil since that time (especially while interacting with me) and thus I am asking him to step down as an admin. This is voluntary on his part. There is no prosecution being done at all. Thank you for your concern. Bstone 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the complaints. I'm not pleased with the way Friday treats new users or users in general. Name calling is unacceptable. Malamockq 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Name calling isn't good. Have I done this? If I've been rude, show me diffs; maybe I owe someone an apology. Friday (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I viewed over his list of contributions. I also looked at his current list of discussions here. I don't think the accusations are justified or fair. Instead of making blame, why not link out to where/if he did wrong. Wikipedia keeps a full list of archives on EVERYTHING that happens, even deleted pages. IF you believe he did something wrong point out some links. I read this entire page (talk pages) and all I see is a LOT of people being assholes, and he was doing nothing but being nice throughout the whole page. Even when other people get rude he remains calm, and patient, and above all nice. I think that this is unnecesseary and you should show some proof beside's blind, rude allegations. businessman332211 14:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof is above. Two of us feel that Friday is much too uncivil to remain an admin. Friday indicated he would be willing to step down if enough editors felt this the case. Clearly there is no majority or consensus, but there is rumbling. Bstone 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof is above? Wikipedia's belly is big, and big bellies often rumble. Last time Friday posted on your talk page was October 8. Has he had any dealings with you since? Any recent evidence of "much too uncivil" (apart from your feelings, I mean). Or why did you post this here, 16 days after Friday posted on your talk page last? You were only blocked for 12 hours during this period (not by Friday, by the way), so that can't be the reason. Are you holding a grudge? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So it would seem. Clio the Muse 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You make it seem that I have some personal issue with Friday. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. Friday simply is much too uncivil to remain an administrator on this project. Period. Why did I wait to bring this up? Simple. I had no clue Friday had submitted his name as the mods willing to accept recall. Once I found that out I placed a note here asking Friday to step down based on this. I am not going to bring it up to ArbCom as I am not prosecuting Friday for anything other than being much too uncivil to remain an administrator. Again- some of Friday's positive voted in his RfA were contingent on him being more civil. I am not the first and clearly not the last to feel Friday is not civil. Since Friday still has complaints about his lack of civility, I have indicated to Friday that his mandate as an administrator may be no loner valid. Thus, he must resign as an admin. Bstone 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's true, you're not the first one to complain, and you won't be the last. I already realize this, but I don't think it indicates a problem. I'm sure I will get complaints as long as I'm active. That's how Wikipedia goes. If you take a look at the instructions at WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users it will tell you how to proceed with an RFC. That's your next step here if you think there's an ongoing problem here that hasn't yet been resolved. Friday (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For someone who is being categorized as so rude, so incivil, that you are expected to step down, voluntarily, as an admin, likely weeping in shame as you trudge back to your lowly editor's desk, you are remarkably well disguised in this section as a man of near saintly patience and quiet good sense. I have read the diffs. I suspect Bstone would look remarkably foolish were he to take this to an RFC. -Bielle 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone foolish isn't a good way to prove your point, especially when we are talking about civility. Malamockq 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The construct "would look foolish if" calls no one foolish. It does suggest that, if certain behaviours arise, the person might "look foolish". This is not the same thing at all as "calling someone foolish". There is no incivility here. -Bielle 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You neglected you include the complete quote. You wrote "would look remarkably foolish". It's interesting that you had to bring this to a personal level. The only remarkable thing is in a discussion about the incivility of one wikipedia editor you have continued the uncivil trend. Bstone 01:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(De-indent) It would be foolish of me, even remarkably foolish, if I were to continue this exchange. I am not foolish. You have my sympathy, Friday, and my support. - Bielle 02:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be foolish, but it would certainly look foolish. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone foolish isn't a good way to prove your point, Ten.... Rockpocket 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fear not—Bielle took my comment in precisely the lighthearted spirit in which it was intended: [6]. However, I won't take it amiss if you leave me the appropriate templated message. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Ryan and Clio, Friday is a great admin, and it seems someone has a grudge against her. Dureo 02:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Good point--Angel David 21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please

Friday, I'm not trying to make a web host. That's the point. Did you read the top. It says I'm not trying to make a my space. If you believe I'm wrong. Advice me to rewrite it. It's actually open for corrections. I don't want to loose my Yahweh page like I did with my God page. When Maxim, you, or the other users look at it I designed it so you all can nodd and say "This is much better."--Angel David 00:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you wrote at the top. The point I was trying to make is that this page appears to be your personal opinions, completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. So, it's really more appropriate on your own web page, than here on Wikipedia. Personal opinions about Wikipedia are very relevant to your user space. Personal opinions about the world in general, not so much. Friday (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Density

I just said you made a personal attack on me and others. I felt attacked at the time. A.Z. 00:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that people shouldn't be dense. Given the choice between interpreting something in a reasonable way and an unreasonable way, choose the reasonable way. It's kind of a corollary to Wikipedia:Use common sense. I can't see how this could possibly be a personal attack. If anyone feels it applies to them, the solution is to be less dense. We shouldn't get bent out of shape about people telling us we're being dense- it might help cut cown on density. Friday (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RD Headers, Links, and C, oh my!

Regarding this - the problem has come back since we are once again serving up header templates from user space. I know that Gursh (sp?) tried to fix it before, but was less than diligent in determining the appropriate code to replace Froth's. Now that Froth put his code back in, users are unknowingly adding sections to the article C. I'm really hesitant to try to edit anything near the headers, but it looks like we need to fall back to something from 20 October or so, and most definitely NOT serve up "production" code from user space. --LarryMac | Talk 20:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gah, what a mess! It looks like it's been fixed again, here. I really think this whole mess of templates need simplified down to something more accessible. Friday (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes that's been fixed, but again, serving up user space code onto live pages is just wrong. I'd be fired in a New York minute if I tried something analogous at my job. --LarryMac | Talk 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree we should be very cautious here. It was just a mistake, but it was a mistake with fairly bad consequences. I tried to unravel the header templates once many months ago and they appeared to be needless convoluted to me. So, some fixing is still in order I'd say. Friday (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Angel David

Hello, Friday. On David's RFC, can you certify the basis for the dispute? If so, please sign your name where it says, thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it need more? I'm usually more of an "outside view" kind of guy. And, now that I read it again.. I'm not sure I really agree with the statement of the dispute and the desired outcome as written there. Friday (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For using the unblock template even when you could have technically unblocked yourself.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 16:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Friday! A.Z. 17:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

About Deleted Article

I have been going through the "requests" page. Under the video game category for wikipedia article requests I ran across an interesting one called http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=GameBanshee&action=edit which is about "GameBanshee". I was going to do some research and create the article, but when I went to the edit page it mentioned it had been deleted, and I saw you were the one. Is it safe for me to recreate it, and what do I need to watch out for to prevent it from being deleted. Or is there a specific reason I should avoid creating this article (which was previously deleted). By the way you can leave the response here,it's added to my watch page until I get a response, so I will see it. businessman332211 03:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy. The content I deleted was very short, completely unsourced, and made no attempt to explain why this website, out of the millions, should have an encyclopedia article about it. It may be possible that a sourced encyclopedia article could be written on this topic; I have no idea. I don't see any reason it couldn't be recreated, altho if it ends up like the deleted version, I strongly suspect someone will come along and delete it again. The best way to prevent this is to use good sources. If this topic gets significant coverage in reliable sources, then having a proper article on it becomes a real possibility. Friday (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I think I will try to rewrite it, I found a lot of site's on it. I wanted to see what the reason was. I will make sure I make it thourough and heavily referenced, thanks for the response. businessman332211 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, good luck. Friday (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Rvv

Heheh, thanks for unvandalising my userpage. :) Vashti 14:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay

I'll try to refrain from that--Angel David 18:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Coming in as the kindergarten teacher telling both the little kiddies off from a great height isn't helpful.[7] Please stop. Bishonen | talk 22:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Well, it obviously didn't help, but it's generally worth a shot. I'm stopped; once is enough for me. Friday (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I just saw--thank you. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just don't see why some people think you're a troll. You're a guy with an unpopular opinion or two, but I've only known you to give your opinions in a reasonable manner. If you were running around closing RFAs of self-noms, that's disruptive. But to simply oppose them? I don't see the disruption. Friday (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciated the note you left on my talk page letting me know what action you had taken in the above case. Nick 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My block

I know this may seem like a strange request, but could you change the reason for my now expired block to civility violation (or words to that effect) instead of what it currently reads? I just think it gives people looking at my block log a better idea of what I did, especially since civility between editors is paramount for the interactions on WP. It would be similar to people who get blocked for 3rr get that put into their block. If not, no problem. Cheers!!! Baegis 06:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no technical way for me to do this. Other than the rather embarrassing typo in there the reason is pretty close to civility. Friday (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmph...

... ah well. At least it's good to know that if I'm having a bad day, I can go completely rogue, delete a bunch of useful content, call other editors "arseholes" in the deletion summaries, promise to come back to do more damage, and then go totally incommunicado... and people will line up to say that desysopping me would be premature. Because there hasn't been an RfC or anything. Thanks for your 2 cents; I was starting to feel like I was taking crazy pills. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Need Assistance

I needed some help with something. I am familair with administrative nominations, I nominated myself before. This time was the first time I ever nominated someone else, and it's messing up. Can you please help me/us figure out what I did wrong with the nomination. It was my first time nominating someone else, and I seemed to have somehow messed up the initial process. See my talk page, for a discussions about the nomination, it'll also show you (in the response) who the user was I was trying to nominate and on his talk page was the actual nomination. I decided to ask an admin to help me look at it, and I was asking. Thanks. --businessman332211 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed a thing or two. But, you never know- I'm sorta technically incompetent on wiki stuff. Friday (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the assistance. -- businessman332211 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy of a deleted article

Hello,

Could you please provide me with the copy of a deleted article? I forgot to back up the latest version of it, and I'd really like to get it back. Its title was "Sarcastic Gamer".

Thanks in advance.

Regua 19:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Friday, thanks for the support on the RfA. I think you'll find the curiously low number of supports is due to the fact i hang out in the wrong places. But that's fine by me as I'm not into the social side, more the building the encyclopedia side. A few, but thoughtful, supports based on my contributions is more meaningful to me than a sea of feel good votes from my buddies. Thanks again. David D. (Talk) 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess- you don't hang out in the chat rooms? Friday (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Man, you're so perceptive :) Unless you call ref desk a chat room, but that seems to have calmed down a bit recently. David D. (Talk) 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I see no problem at all with some friendly banter here and there. But I'll admit I'm very concerned that RFA is way too influenced by who has made friends in some chat room. It's not supposed to be about who is your buddy, it's supposed to be about who is competent. Meh. Oh well, you'll pretty obviously pass unless you've done some horrible things nobody has noticed yet. Maybe one day it'll be a mark of distinction to have a low number of supports rather than a high one. :) Friday (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there ar a few skeletons out there. I think I supported Kelly Martin against the flow recently. That might be worth reviewing. David D. (Talk) 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Over the years I have noticed that those that most want to be admins hang out in RfA and support admin candidates. If done properly, along with editing articles, this is well and good since they probably do learn the ropes. But one wonders how many are just figuring out standard answers and activities that will get them through the process. At times I have seen mini gangs in RfA and then they all nominate each other with glowing support. And probably hope that those indebted to their support will return the favor. Nevertheless, this should not really matter as being an admin really should be no big deal. Likewise, if being an admin is not a big deal then not being an admin should be no big deal too. Of course, we know that's not really true because if that was the case more would spend time writing and improving articles rather than resume building and networking. OK enough speculation and ranting, time to put this cynical face away. :) David D. (Talk) 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Um

Okay I will try not to do that. The past few days, Wikipedia gets stranger and stranger. A lot of things are strange. I don't know who it's just very strange you know strange. Everything is changing.--Angel David 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam

Thank you...

...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me.

Thank you again and, best regards,
Neranei
This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Blunt yes, rude no.

I am blunt, but I intend no rudness. I appreciate your efforts, but please remain on topic. I believe others have interpreted your comments as rude as well. Please take the advice you give to them, and apply them to yourself. I think this might help. Thanks for your contributions. 64.236.121.129 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You ask questions and then ridicule the people trying to answer them. You frequently assert that you alone know what is or isn't on topic. Are you looking for answers, or a chat? Try the chat room instead if that's what you're after. Friday (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments like "try the chat room instead if that's what you're after" are part of what causes some people to get "irked" so to speak. You are being facetious, which causes these situations that you are currently upset over. Ridicule the people? Can you point out an example? I would never intend to ridicule anyone. Well I made the topic, so I can judge what is on topic. You can still make your points, but I can choose to ignore them. 64.236.121.129 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone already pointed out where and how you were being rude. And you removed their comments, so I know you saw them. I'm not upset, I just want you to behave like a reasonable adult, that's all. People are trying to make sense of your questions and provide useful information, and you respond with rudeness, which isn't productive. Friday (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed them because they belong on talk pages. I think that's more appropriate than bogging down a scientific discussion. It was also from an anon ip who made very few contributions, it could have been you for all I know. I understand what you are saying, and I will always treat you and other contributers with respect. But also keep in mind that discussions can get kinda heated when someone is being pretentious (which I believe you may be guilty of). It is frustrating to talk about certain things which I believe you may be wrong on. I think it's also fair to admit when you may be wrong about certain facts. 64.236.121.129 16:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. People should admit when they're wrong. And people shouldn't be so sure they're right. But, the thing is, we're having to do some guessing to figure out what you're asking about. So, we may guess wrong. Don't get upset when this happens. Clarify your question instead. Friday (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is probably off topic for your original question, but it's not very meaningful to say "100% steel" as though this implies a specific ingredient list. Some steel is made with tungsten, but it's still called "steel". Friday (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

As you well know, personal attacks are not acceptable. You made repeated personal attacks in this section. You know better than that. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What? A personal attack is telling someone that they're ugly or that they smell, or calling them schoolyard names. When someone edits disruptively, it's not helpful to pretend otherwise. So yes, sometimes we use the word "disruptive". It's not nice, but it's certainly not a personal attack. Friday (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a difference between "disruptive" and calling someone a "troll" or "racist," as you did. El_C 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, "racist" is the bad word? Well, she could do a lot to fix that. Cut down on the ranting about "white folks" and people won't assume she's a racist. I can't know her mind, so maybe I shouldn't assert that she "is a racist". Is it OK to complain about the racist remarks she makes? Friday (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much innuendo for me to respond to, sorry. El_C 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sky Eats Airplane. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

I have noticed you seem to be trying to assume negative faith. Please do not do this. If you found the comment made on the reference desk to be funny, or intended to be funny, please keep in mind that the reference desk is not overly formal, and humor is allowed. 64.236.121.129 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not ask questions just to try to be funny. Humor is fine, of course. Wasting the time of volunteers is less fine. Friday (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat myself a second time. Please assume good faith. You seem to be following me around, trying to harrass me constantly. You are singleing me out. You seem to be having a lot of complaints levied against you right now. I will take this harrassment up with an administrator if you continue to harrass me, and assuming negative faith just to make a cut at me. 64.236.121.129 14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all unreasonable or out of line to ask that editors follow the guidelines for the reference desk. If I've asked you to change your behavior more than once, it's because I've seen bad behavior more than once. Please see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines for the guidelines- I'm not just making things up randomly; the guidelines are reasonable and are supported by consensus. Friday (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference desk is not a chatroom. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any rules broken in the ip's post, nor was the reference desk being used as a chatroom. Malamockq (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Did my response break any rules? Friday (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that asking "funny" questions is using the reference desk as a chatroom. It's abusive, wastes the time of folks genuinely trying to help and folks genuinely needing help. Friday was right on with this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Drop it Orangemike. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good faith comments by any editor are welcome on my talk page. Friday (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I expect you to assume good faith on the reference desk as well. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly. As a general rule, I do assume good faith of contributors as a default assumption. And, sometimes, I see evidence to the contrary. Sometimes that evidence causes me to re-evaluate my assumptions. Have you noticed that a few other editors who replied also assumed it was a joke question? Does this tell you anything? If you read the response in question, you'll see that I asked you not to ask joke questions, and I also linked to a page with explaining the origins of the word, in case that's what you really were asking about. I believed my response was reasonable and helpful at that time, and you've given me no reason to think otherwise since then. Are you seriously claiming this was not a joke question? What kind of answer were you looking for? Friday (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this with you. I'm just asking you to assume good faith please. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what assuming good faith is about. When I see a joke question, it's alright to figure it's probably a joke question. Friday (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be rude

"Do you have a search box on the left side of your screen? It's often useful for such things."

Don't write things like that on the reference desk. It's considered rude. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

By whom? This seems like a polite way to suggest that people do at least a cursory search themselves. Some might consider it rude to ask questions on the ref desk that can obviously be answered by reading the relevant article in the encylopedia. Why waste the time of volunteers this way? David D. (Talk) 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry if I was rude, but I'm not seeing it. I think it's useful to guide users to make effective use of Wikipedia. Do you agree with this? Are you saying I should have phrased it differently? Friday (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I've learned is that people like wordy responses to their questions. (As an introvert I like things to be short and to the point, but we're a minority in the population.) If you had said exactly the same thing in a more verbose manner it would have been better received: "There are a number of features in Wikipedia that are useful for finding answers to inquiries such as yours. Your user page has a search box that can be used to find information on specific topics. Type a keyword or phrase related to your question into the search box and click Search. The feature will then respond with a range of articles that should be helpful for answering your question. You can then look over the responses to see which ones are most helpful." The information content is identical to your original response, but it wouldn't have been considered as "rude" as your original response (which obviously wasn't rude at all, but that's not the point here). Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. People have different communication styles. Things not meant as rude can come off sounding rude to someone else. In real life I do programming and analyst work, so I tend to try to be as concise as possible. I'll try being more wordy and see if that helps. Friday (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no... (Raymond's point may be valid, in general, but, frankly, I don't think brevity is the problem at all, in this case. Provided there even is a problem.) ---Sluzzelin talk 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people just want to take offense regardless of how many words you use (Remember Loomis?). But feel free to try the wordy experiment and see if it reduces the number of complaints. David D. (Talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out to Ref Desk folks that 64.236.121.129 has made it clear that he isn't interested in actually learning anything. He just wants us to think for him. If you want to continue answering his incessant questions, do so with the understanding that he has no plans to "learn to fish", so to speak. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Psud: Malt liquor = barley wine

I plead "late at night - brain not working". Can't say I've heard the term "malt liquor" before, we use the term "barley wine". In my mind, liquor=distilled therefore =whiskey ;). Oh well. Can't win 'em all. --Psud (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, alright then, no problem. The word "liquor" in there is misleading. In this area, generally "barleywine" would be used by drinkers (or makers) of good beer, whereas the cheap stuff calls itself "malt liquor". Also, a lot of malt liquor is really only a bit more alcoholic than typical beer, whereas I think of barleywine typically being maybe 12-18%. Friday (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish

You placed a "retired" template on the Talk page of my User name. I invoked my right to vanish, and requested that all of my user pages be deleted. You are incorrect in edit comment that Talk pages (especially empty ones) not be deleted.

If you are an administrator, kindly delete these pages as requested. If you are not, then kindly leave it alone. Thanks! --69.120.118.244 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Friday, you are correct, per Wikipedia:User page. I have deleted the {{db-userreq}} that the IP placed on User talk:DashaKat, not only because user talk pages are not deleted, but also because he was not logged in when he made the request. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on WP:ANI

"The disruption is being done by the drama queens who get offended by Kmweber's opinions". Excuse me? Way-to-go for attacking all those that feel Kurt's behaviour is unnaceptable. It's one thing to argue your point that Kurt is not being disruptive; it's another thing entirely to label everyone who disagrees with you a 'drama queen'. Please refresh your memory with regards to WP:NPA, and avoid such sweeping remarks in the future. _TheIslander 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree with much of what you say. However, I see that my remark could have been worded differently.. I'll change it. Friday (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW as long as we're complaining at each other.. You've miscategorized my edits in an unhelpful way which I don't appreciate. I certainly do not label as "drama queen" anyone who disagrees with me. I was talking about people specifically getting all worked up and dramatic over a non-issue. One can easily disagree with me without being dramatic. Those are two different things. Do you really disagree that the people complaining about Kurt's participation in RFA are being overly dramatic? It seems pretty clear to me. Friday (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My appologies; I was only refering to this one case, in which you effectivley were labling everyone who disagrees with you (on this subject) a drama queen. And yes, I disagree with you entirely. It seems to me that there are three groups of users in this debate: those that are activley upset with Kurt's comments; those who aren't really upset, but find them uneccessary and disruptive (this is where I fall); and those who disregard the matter entirely, and brush aside the fact that people are being upset. Yes, if a user gets upset by these comments, they're more likely than not not suited to being an admin. However, that doesn't make it acceptable to have upset them in the first place, even in an RfA. An RfA is supposed to be a civil discussion about the suitability of a certain candidate as an admin. It should not, if conducted correctly, upset anyone, even those not suited to adminship (with of course the exception of the upset when an RfA fails, which is completely unavoidable). It's undeniable that Kurt's comments upset people - whether they're actually suited to be an admin is irrelevant in this respect. _TheIslander 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is more important to honestly evaluate candidates than it is to be a cuddly bunny. Some people take criticism personally- it's unfortunate, yes, but it should not be used as a reason to discourage criticism. Almost always when this issue comes up, I detect strong hints of "opposing is bad because it's mean" among the people who are offended by Kmweber's opposes. That's a very, very wrong way to look at it. He's allowed to oppose for silly reasons, just as people are allowed to support for silly reasons. Friday (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Friday has a rather long history of personal attacks. It was a major issue in his RfA and several votes in favor of his adminship were contingent on him becoming more civil. Friday has clearly failed that and this is the latest example. Yet another reason why I believe he should step down from being an admin. Bstone (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said the last several times you brought this up, the next step is a user conduct RFC if you feel there's a real problem here. You're allowed to criticize, certainly, but it's way more useful if you bring evidence with you, and engage in productive discussion about the dispute. Otherwise, this kind of drive-by complaining isn't really helpful. Friday (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Friday, you misunderstand. I am not insisting nor attempting to create an admin recall. I am asking you to voluntarily step down. I think you know it's the right thing to do. Many of the recent messages here are about your simple lack of civility. Resign, Friday. It's the right thing to do. Bstone (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Drive-by complaining" is a wonderful expression, Friday. I shall adapt it and thus leave you this "drive-by" compliment and an equally "drive-by" message of support: "Don't resign, Friday. It isn't the right thing to do."

The commentary above makes for puzzling reading. Your remark about disruption was specifically addressed to those who were both (a) offended and (b) over-reacting in their reponses to the offense. It clearly excludes those who were offended, and have noted that they were offended, but are not over-reacting, not being "drama queens". While what constitutes being a "drama queen" may be a matter of opinion, I read nothing that says you are declaring all those who are offended to be drama queens, which seems to be the mistaken (in my opinion) basis for Islander's complaint. Have I missed something here? Bielle (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't resign. David D. (Talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I feel an attack of levity coming on! Make sure you always do the 'wrong thing'. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Friday

I want you to give me more credit, I've been on the project for a while. I was serious about the MFD request. Regards, Mercury 19:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That concerns me more than if it was a joke. I see that there's been a content dispute in your section of the page.. but surely the answer cannot be to delete the whole thing?!? It makes no sense to me. Friday (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

leaping ahead

Is this really true? You're not yet even 10 years old? That means you were 7 when you made this edit saying you've been driving buses since before you were born? Leap year? Joke? What's the deal?? Friday (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep Leap Year so I had had 9 actual birth days when I made that. Gnangarra 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I figured it must be something like that. I was reading your comments thinking "There's no way a child wrote that." Thanks for the info. Friday (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Friday, do you ever get the feeling that WP:AN/I is 24/7 high-speed dispute resolution? I do. It is very frustrating. Dispute resolution rarely needs to be done as quickly as things are done on WP:ANI, and not everyone has enough time to spend on WP:ANI. I know that you don't use it as I describe, I'm just asking for your opinion. --Iamunknown 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to function as a catch-all place for discussing, well, pretty much anything. This isn't really on purpose, but I don't see much practical way to do anything about it either. Friday (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My concern isn't necessarily that it is a catch-all, but that it is used for discussing things that would be more appropriately discussed with in one of the methods of dispute resolution. People seem to bring disputes there regularly, and it is implicitly known that they want the disputant blocked, but they don't even mention that fact. But, yes, I too don't know what to do about it. --Iamunknown 22:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Read my post to the Rock band talk page. JazzlineB (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Censorship and talk pages

Please don't cry "censorship" when people try to keep talk page discussions on track. It's every editor's job to make sure talk pages are for useful discussion of how to improve the article. Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech, it's an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments, "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission." This is exactly what was done; repeatedly. To censor is defined as removal of objectionable content. I believe the verb correctly matches the action performed. In future, please respect the talk page guidelines.—RJH (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look further down, you'll see that removing material not related to improving the article is specifically mentioned as a case where it's OK to edit someone else's comments. Friday (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, and to me the discussion as relevant to the article content. It was not off topic, and concerned the content of the lead paragraph. So that case doesn't apply. Frankly this is the first time since I've joined Wikipedia that I've seen somebody out and out yank an entire on-topic discussion out of an article talk page. It was unnecessary and, to me, antagonistic. My preference would be to archive the discussion and let those who want to read it do so. But we clearly disagree completely on this topic, so lets leave it at that.—RJH (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that this "discussion" was a blatant case of trolling, as if somebody were to ask on the Ronald Reagan talk page, "Wait a minute, wasn't Reagan elected as a Democrat?" --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Middletons

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Middletons. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I know this isn't your talk page. I've forgotten how to get there.

Thank you. I was going to say, when I saw the note beside the article's second deletion, that the News and Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina ran it for many years and then dropped it. I have to read it online now. I was also going to say that I was careful to use only sources that Wikipedia would accept, and I included nothing in the article that wasn't in one of the sources. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this was just a case of me not doing my homework properly. We get a lot of articles on "comics" that turn out to be some 13 year old kid with a website. I thought this was one of them, but it clearly wasn't. Friday (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict (reply)

I've replied in my talk page. --Taraborn (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Input requested

Hello Friday, I'd like to ask your opinion on this issue I brought up to AN, I noticed your edits to Wikipedia:User page on the issue, and I'd really appreciate your thoughts, either on the thread itself, or feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you'd rather. Thanks so much, Ariel♥Gold 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk page deletion

Thanks for the tip! I had not thought it would be controversial (given csd and meta:right to vanish). Is this part of a customary practice, or is it documented somewhere? --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't care much for the essays on meta or meatball (yet, some people think that stuff written on meatball somehow translates to policy on Wikipedia..) I was about to point you to Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F but apparently this is disputed- some people think we should delete user talk pages on request. So, I guess take my statement as merely my own personal opinion- the guidelines are unclear on this issue. Friday (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s, "B"s and "C" having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "D"s, "E"s and "F"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Mazda Atenza

I noticed you redirected this to Talk:Mazda 6. I was under the impression that redirects generally have their own talk pages. Also, you should know that now the discussion that was going on there is only accessible via the history, which is undesirable. Could you please fix this, or suggest a solution? --Thinboy00 @960, i.e. 22:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. Well, ok, I undid the redirect. The reason I thought it was better as a redirect is that there's now discussion of the article on both places, which I did not think was desirable. Friday (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I know... I'm not sure if a copy/paste move/merge would be approrpiate here either (the history doesn't come with it), but I can't think of anything else. --Thinboy00 @843, i.e. 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User category

I was not aware of that. Thank you for bringing the problem to my attention, regards. The Noosphere (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: On assuming good faith

I may have cited the wrong essay in my haste, but I stand by my general comments. "I feel that you screwed up now, therefore you must have screwed up in the past" is not a very productive message to be sending. If not a lack of good faith, it certainly is assuming something. As I just stated in the AN thread, a better message is "please follow this process in the future." The dispute was resolved. Continuing to pester another editor over an assumption that some other mystery mistakes were made is not very productive, imo. Resolute 16:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone is making the same mistake repeatedly, they should be "pestered" until they stop. Nothing wrong with that. All editors are supposed to act as a check on each other. Friday (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, actually, and said the same in my latest comments. Look to change future behaviour rather than whine about assumed past behaviour. Resolute 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Diff

Do you object to me using this diff as RfC certification here? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd always assumed certifications were meant to be explicitly done by the editor in question.. I certainly agree that he's been a problem, but why not just leave him alone for now and see if he's able to behave himself? If it's been a couple weeks since he's done anything objectionable, maybe he's gotten the message by now. Friday (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason he's been a couple weeks without objectionable acts is because, according to him, he's been absent for those weeks. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, could be. I don't personally see that an RFC is a good use of time. Those are more for demonstrating consensus on a particular issue. When he's misbehaved, it's not been controversial, it's been obvious. I don't see that education is really what's needed here. That said, if you go ahead and make one, I'll certainly read it and perhaps comment. Friday (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm making one as we speak. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Here here.

Something I have to learn also. Keep up the good. Regards, M-ercury at 02:58, January 9, 2008

V-Dash RFC

There is a user conduct RFC on V-Dash (talk · contribs) that was opened by Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs). Just thought I'd inform you since you have participated in some discussion on V-Dash's talk page. -- Nn123645 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Block threats

It's pretty obvious that there's disagreement over TTN's trimming of material, right? Do you see people both agreeing and disagreeing with it on the talk page? You'd do better to engage in actual discussion of the issue instead of just leaving warning templates which threaten a block. Friday (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The block threats arn't about "triming of material", they have been removing entire articles without any warning!  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

LaGrotta

Hi, shouldn't the link to the AFD debate be kept on the talk page? Thanks --Jkp212 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're probably right.. I'll add it. Friday (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Yup, trying.  :) --Elonka 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not comment on my talk page

Friday, as I have kindly asked you many times before, please do not involve yourself in discussions on my talk page. I am asking you this kindly and voluntarily. It is clear that we do not agree on almost anything and there is a significant personal difference between us. Thank you for respecting this. Bstone (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to respect your wishes on this matter. You're continuing to misuse the word vandalism. This is undesirable. You should expect to continue to see people asking you to cut this out as long as you're making spurious accusations. Friday (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I know this [my] comment may be irrelevant now, but can I ask what a token oppose is? Any comments regarding how I can improve are always appreciated. Best, Rudget. 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant token as in, it won't make any actual difference. The results are overwhelmingly in support at this time.. It always surprises me when I see vastly different results on an RFA than the other one just a short while ago. Makes me wonder how things like this happen. Friday (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried my utmost best to try and serve this community, and I think I've done some good, but obviously still leaving people with a bad impression. I'm sorry if you don't think there was enough time between this and the last RFA, but I disagree, it's been 2 months and 2 weeks, quite close to the three month recognised threshold. I've tried to my best to improve not only my article contributions but also the Wiki-namespace ones too. And I agree with the penultimate line, I guess it's due to these contributions that I've been recognised as a good candidate. But if you wish to oppose, nothing I can say will change that, so I'll leave that it at that. With kindest regards, Rudget. 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In my view, it's fairly ridiculous to assert that someone has become a better candidate somehow in only a couple of months. But, apparently a large number of people think this is indeed the case. Oh well, we all have different opinions. By the way, you certainly get good marks in responding maturely to criticism. That's good- you'll need it once you start using those buttons. Friday (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall look forward to improving these relations, since I'll probably be working with other administrators. Rudget. 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well

If you want to me to improve, someone should had approved my request for vandal proof. Then my edits would be better--Angel David (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your POV edits have nothing to do with reverting vandalism. So, there's no way that vandal proof would stop you from making inappropriate content edits. In fact, it would only enable you to be able to revert to your POV with greater ease. Metros (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good lord. You claim you need a bigger hammer in order to edit effectively? You've got quite an uphill battle to convince me that's a good idea. Friday (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Yup, I was not aware of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Angel David. However, looking through it, I do not think the editor is much of a problem. He seems more "civil, but naïve". I have only actually dealt with him at {{Christianity}}, where he was not disruptive. Not only that, but after discussion on the talk page, Angel David (talk · contribs) himself reverted to the default image from his preferred image. While he has a narrower viewpoint, this is not a reason to prevent him from editing. By the way, I didn't realize the editor was a child. I don't know if there is a policy about restricting child editors. I do know that it has been debated before; especially at RfA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So you believe his edits have been more productive than harmful? I'm surprised to hear that- I wasn't aware of any constructive edits he's made. I was just looking through his talk page archive and I see problematic behavior going back a good 6 months, and I see no signs of improvement- he was getting complained at then for the same things he's doing now. To me it seems clear that he lacks the competence to be a constructive contributor. Maybe you should comment on the RFC- I'm thinking about suggesting an indefinite block. Friday (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm only 12. I'm a child. I'm small. I'm little. Why I are you trying to block me if I said I'll do better and I will. Watch.--Angel David (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires more than trying to do the right thing- it requires the ability to do the right thing, also. You don't yet have that ability. Friday (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would sure appreciate if there was someone to teach me it. And I recently made a good faith edit. See here

I don't think you know what good faith means. Your good faith has not, as far as I know, been seriously questioned. Friday (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I meant a constructive edit like here and I created this and this.--Angel David (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, those are good examples. In the first, you reverted an unconstructive edit- that's helpful. I can't quite tell what you're trying to say in your edit summary, but the editor before you had broken some links, and you fixed them. And, I see also that you got the ball rolling on a couple of articles that are now in reasonably good shape. So, it's not fair or accurate to say that you haven't managed to contribute constructively. Sometimes, you have. I'm still concerned that in the balance, you've been doing more harm than good. Can you think of ways to cut down on the unhelpful edits? Friday (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I have to just follow the guidelines. I find it possible that I can stop making bad edita. What I really need is to find vandalism to revert.--Angel David (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to memorize some list of rules to edit here. Reverting vandalism may be a good thing to try- about the only way to make an error there is to revert something that's NOT vandalism. If you stick to obvious cases, this may not be a concern. Out of curiosity.. was the edit you just made to God reverting of vandalism, in your opinion? Friday (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't think that was vandalism.--Angel David (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK.. what did you think it was? Why did you revert it? (I'm not saying you did the wrong thing, I just want to understand your reasoning here.) Friday (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Because one of its categories was "Creator gods" which has a whole bunch of topics. And this person put "Creator Gods" which had nothing in it.--Angel David (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one problem. However if that's the only problem you were fixing, you shouldn't revert the whole edit, you should just fix that one thing. This may be a bad example- it sounds like maybe you accidentally fixed some things. Did you notice that the editor you reverted had changed some of the external links also? Some of them ended up not working anymore- URLs are case sensitive; we can't just go changing them for cosmetic reasons. Friday (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Uh Oh. Does that mean I'm in trouble?--Angel David (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It means, I'm not yet convinced that your continued involvement here will tend to do more good than harm. However, I'm only one editor with one editor's opinion- others may see it differently. You can help by being careful what you do. If you see something you're not sure about, maybe ask someone, or comment on the talk page, if you're unsure how to fix it yourself. Friday (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good point--Angel David (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So I'll be alright if my editing of articles is kept at a minumum?--Angel David (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in charge of who is allowed to do what. I was expressing my opinion, one editor to another, that your edits have frequently done more harm than good. Even if I ask you to do or not do a certain thing, and you do as I ask, this cannot guarantee that you'll never get "in trouble" for anything. I can't control whether or not other editors complain to you about things. If your edits are improving the articles, there's no reason for someone to think that fewer is better. Friday (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• What I mean is if I keep my editing to a minumum you'll probably change your mind about the indefinately blocked thing.--Angel David (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, at any rate, I'm unlikely to do something like that without other people agreeing that it's for the best. Friday (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm just saying, if it was in your power--Angel David (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Friday, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

poor judgement

You mentioned a case of a former admin who had bad judgement and is no longer an admin. What are some examples of bad judgement involved in this case. The name isn't important. I'm more interested in the events. Archtransit (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad blocks and poor communication are the major things that stick in my memory about that case. Bad blocks are the single biggest drama-causing action we tend to get around here. Relating this back to your current situation.. the thing I find most concerning about your case is that you apparently continue to not see what the problem is here. Do you honestly believe that your mistake was not giving special treatment to an admin?!? I'm completely behind you when it comes to not extending special privileges to admins moreso than "mere editors", but this does not remotely explain your actions here. Also of huge concern to me is your apparent belief that we need to interpret a large rulebook like robots, rather than applying human judgment to individual situations. If you think you followed "the rules" in blocking Jehochman, and you think we need more rule-following of that nature, I'm gravely concerned that you'll continue to make similar errors. Mistakes are certainly allowed, but we should expect that people learn from them. I don't see that happening here. Friday (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite as you see them. I regret making the block also because it was too strict an enforcement of the rules. An admin breaking official policy, not just a guideline? There can be none of that, I thought. And it was a series of rule breaking, such as (according to that other editor), filing a report using a wrong category and not providing the block log as required. Won't do that again!

Any more examples of what caused that former admin to be a former, let me know. Archtransit (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see here.. There was an RFC, which showed that many people considered his actions to be frequently inappropriate. He failed to improve. There were countless attempts to engage him on his talk page.. he typically responded nonsensically, or not at all. There was eventually a request for arbitration, in which he was found to have a history of inappropriate blocks and a history of poor judgment, and the arbcom pulled his sysop bit. It should have been done much, much sooner- he ran amok causing damage for way too long. This case was, in my view, a poster child for some desysopping procedure short of arbcom. When we see that a promotion was a mistake, soon after the fact, I'm all in favor of correcting the error rather than waiting for it to become so bad that arbcom has to step in. Guessing how someone might use the admins tools is no substitute for observing how they actually use them. Friday (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [8]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re; Admin Advice

Ok, first of all, I haven't filled all my archives, but all up to number 7 are filled. If you click on 7 in the archives you will see your message. I did read and consider you message. I did not feel there was a need for a reply. And also, I usually flag my archives every Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand- I just thought it was odd to see something archived so soon. Why have more links than you have archives? It can't help make things easier to find. Friday (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the whole thing is an image so..., can' really take half of it off. BTW, I really appreciate the suggestions. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RE Conservapedia

I don't see why. I agree that it is in many ways quite a poor site; the number of articles is inadequate, and the amount of arbitrary censorship discourages people from editing. Some of their articles are also blatant propaganda. But I joined in order to make it better, just as I want to make Wikipedia better, and I abide by local rules on both sites. Walton^One 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see how well your version holds up, there. BTW I saw your latest- don't feel bad for trying to help out. It seems clear that the rules for that article are different from the project as a whole. I can understand how and why this happened, altho I'm not convinced it's a healthy thing. Friday (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, sadly, that the vehement pro-ID crowd on Conservapedia will rewrite the article over there to accord with their own biases. Just as the vehement anti-ID crowd over here has done to our article. Sadly, it seems to be inevitable that all articles about this will turn into battlegrounds, since the people who have the knowledge and motivation to edit them are also those with the strongest POVs. Walton^One 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's hope for ours, yet- but then again I didn't find the Expelled article very biased, either. What I don't like, though, is that "normal" editors apparently can't do much with our creationism-related articles. That's unfortunate. I don't think we should have to rethink all our standard expectations, simply because it's a controversial area. Then again, I haven't been battling creationists for years, either, so maybe I'm naive. Friday (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, since you say you're not very familiar with the subject matter- Intelligent Design isn't science because they don't accept certain fundamentals of the philosophy of science. They're not producing any testable scientific theories and the bits about God aren't going to be falsifiable. The National Academy of Sciences explains it better than I do. It's not really accurate to call this an opinion - the broad strokes of scientific method are well-established. Not as the way to discover The Truth, mind you- but as the way to do science. We shouldn't shy away from presenting things this way, here on Wikipedia- it's neutral. Many people don't like it, but this because they're not willing to learn what science does. Friday (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the ID/creationist crowd creates intentional confusion with their "evolution is a theory, not a fact" statements. It's vitally important to understand that a scientific theory is not just a wild-ass guess, as we sometimes use the word "theory" in common usage. Theories are big, well-tested frameworks, like the germ theory of disease, heliocentric theory, or the theory of gravity. In science, the distinction between the words "theory" and "law" is mainly historical- you hear also about the law of gravity but it means the same thing- see where the redirects point? Theories are supported by many observations in multiple lines of evidence- otherwise they don't get to the point of being theories. Anyway, the point I was trying to ramble towards is this: The importance of evolution to biology cannot be overstated - in modern biology, evolution is the central organizing framework. I'm no particular expert either- I happen to be married to a someone with a master's degree in chemistry (emphasizing biochemistry) who also teaches evolution and other aspects of science at the college level. So, I get educated about this stuff all the time. So basically, the bottom line is that the creation/evolution controversy is a political controversy, not a scientific one. And I dislike that people misrepresent the situation to advance their own agendas. Friday (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have heard this about the use of the word "theory" in a scientific concept before, and I'm vaguely familiar with the age-old conundrum of NPOV vs SPOV; should we prioritise the view held by most scientists to be consistent with the evidence and with scientific methods of reasoning, or should we give equal weight to the views of non-scientists and the public at large (provided they're published in independent sources)?

My problem is that my educational background is almost entirely in politics and the social sciences, not in natural science, so I'm used to approaching things from that standpoint. In political articles, NPOV requires that we set aside our own political perspectives and just write from the sources. Evidently, in articles which have both a political and a scientific dimension (such as creation vs evolution) the whole thing is more complex. I tend instinctively to treat it as a political question because that's the side of it of which I have the most awareness, but this may not be the right approach.

My main issue with the Expelled article is that so much of it isn't about the film at all. Large numbers of the sources cited aren't about the film at all; they're about the controversies of evolution vs. intelligent design, and whether intelligent design is a form of creationism. Thus most of the criticism of the claims made in the film isn't criticism about the film itself; rather, the various authors of the article have dug up other sources which happen to criticise the same claims as those in the film (e.g. the Darwin-Hitler link) and used those to criticise the film. At present, since the film hasn't been released, there's very little independent critical literature about the film - and until there is, there's no need for the article to be as long as it presently is or to contain as much criticism. Walton^One 10:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We should present scientific statements as such, as we should present non-scientific statements as such. Neither should be presented as "The Truth"- science isn't about Truth. Philosophy is down the hall. The entire interesting thing about this controversy is the disconnect between the science and the politics/public opinion. Yes, scientists still work out details, and they often disagree over these details (until such a time as there's sufficient evidence too produce a consensus), but the existence of evolution, in biology, is no more controversial than the existence of gravity, in physics. They're both very well established, widely-used theories. We're not likely to discard them anytime soon. I myself have a degree in political science, so I understand that fields like that are not generally as rigorous as things like physics or biology. Even in biology, if you're studying animal behavior in the wild for example, you rarely have the some degree of control over conditions as you might find studying proteins in a lab. So, you often have to accept a lower standard for your confidence intervals, for example.

Anyway, with evolution it certainly is a political issue as well as a scientific one. But it's extremely important to be able to separate the political parts of the issue from the science- otherwise, you cannot understand it. This is something the media is fairly bad at, so it's not surprising that people look at the political controversy and assume there's a scientific controversy there also.

Back to practical issues- I tend to agree with your take on Expelled- it doesn't focus as tightly on the film as I'd like to see. Sadly, though, these articles cannot be edited via the normal wiki process. Apparently we have to don asbestos suits and duke it out with bare knuckles, in order to contribute there. I'm not convinced we shouldn't try tho- I want to bring these articles back into the fold and treat them like the rest of the project. Yes, POV pushers should be shown the door, but we do not have to become problem editors ourselves, to deal with problem editors. The article on the film should focus on the film- we do not need to try to duplicate our (generally quite high-quality) articles about ID. I suspect, as we move forward, there won't be a shortage of proper sources discussing that film, specifically. We might only be in the situation we're in, because people tried to jump the gun and make a long article too soon. We may see the situation naturally improve with little conflict, as more sources specifically about the movie become available. Friday (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, count me in for wanting to bring a little sane balance to the Expelled article. However, I'm not jumping into the fray so far, because I recognize the names of several POV-pushers already on the warpath there, and I've seen how they chew up and spit out others. If you'd like any help on collaborating for an NPOV article that actually focuses on the movie, just let me know when the time comes. I appreciate your heart on the WP project. Goo2you (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Assertions like this need to come with diffs. Show me a POV pusher, and I'll try to fix the problem. Friday (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reginmund

Hey Friday, despite the 3RR talk and your warning that if he reverts again he'll be blocked, Reginmund has committed a 5th revert with the RFC talk page. Would you be willing to block here? Metros (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I'm a bit late. Thanks for the update though. Friday (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Trout categories at UCFD

Friday, you will probably see this at some point, but in the event that you don't, see WP:UCFD#Trout_categories (it is for renaming, not deletion :) ... I am notifying you as I recall you had expressed opinions at prior nominations. --Iamunknown 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

report

Hello friday,please try to help in here.Albanias page and my user rights have been vandalizem by Megistias (talk) by deleting my comments in discussion page of Albania and in Edwin E. Jacques discussion page.Albania s page its been attacked by Greek nationalists so they will claim lands or erase the history of the Albanian people.Wikipedia has lost her value only because of them.Since when he open his account in Wikipedia its been a hell of a edit-warring with him.I stoped in here because I know you can make him reason.I din't reported him on the other admin because I do have faith in you,since you had helped him before.He has not done anything to improve the article,deleting all that impressive amount of source materials put by other users.Edit-warring and revert-warring accomplishes nothing. If he continues to be uncooperative,he needs to be banned,I hope that you will help.Thank you again for your time.--Taulant23 (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Taulant is a hopeless fanatic and despite receiving advice from many people he does the same things.Taulant once the admins see the history of pages what do you think wull happen?.Megistias (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)<<<<<________Here another abuse from him,in my books a typical vandal..--Taulant23 (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for your reply to my query at the Science Reference Desk regarding the History of Quantum Mechanics. Your contribution to the discussion was insightful, and helped me find the answers I was looking for. Thanks! FusionKnight (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Slime eels

You're watching Dirty Jobs too I guess? Haha... IronGargoyle (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Seems to say that on the Meta page, and it just seems like common sense- talk pages can contain a lot of information that someone who wished to vanish would not want remaining on the project. Mine often includes details about where I live, sometimes contains my first name and so on. If someone wants to vanish, I would have thought the user talk page would be the second thing to go- certainly seems to be the case when editors I know have asked for it. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything on meta about this being standard practice. We might delete individual edits on pages that have personally identifying information, but this is completely unrelated to whether anyone claims to be leaving or not. I'm trying to discourage the deletion of user talk- we have no business helping people cover their tracks, and we only end up restoring it when they come back. I don't see how deleting our historical records helps in any way at all. Friday (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bourke engine

Hi, I've seen this editor before, his style is idiosyncratic enough to get him mentioned on WP:ANI. I've reverted some of his more questionable edits for now and will keep an eye on this page. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 07:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User page

Hi, I turned your user page into a redirect to your talk page. We generally discourage redirects from user pages to articles, or vice versa. Friday (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no harm in doing that, but if it's not allowed, I'll not redirect my userpage. Shrine Maiden (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash RFC

I've noticed that since V-Dash's departure from Wikipedia, there was a minor amount of trolling on his RFC. This appears to have now stopped, but earlier an editor added their support to the RFC. Since the issue is now moot, I was wondering if the page should be closed and preserved as an archive? MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He's back...

DeathMark (talk · contribs) seems to be the latest incarnation of our favorite incivil editor. I have requested a new CU case. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

re: the man keeping me down :D

Yar har fiddle dee dee! Don't take it seriously this is the internet D: --:D|-< (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a really lame response. If you're looking for lulz, get them somewhere else. When you edit Wikipedia, please observe the community's standards of acceptable behavior. Soapboxing on the ref desk isn't helpful. Our answers are supposed to be useful to the questioner, not just entertaining to you personally. Friday (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

my new article and the other stuff(*@#*) surrounding it

HI i didn't mean to delete the comment, I may have misunderstood it. I figured that by explaining myself and my article in the discussion page, I had satisfied the comments. I didn't mean to make it seem as though I am just dismissing the comment, warnings, and going on with my life. Please allow me to keep this article, and it WILL grow in the number of references and resources as time goes on by both me and other editors...my email address is thelabstudiosinc@yahoo.com please hit me up anytime to give me pointers on this wikipedia article....thanks alot