User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/13

[[Category:Wikipedia administrators|Aaron Brenneman]] [[Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall|Aaron Brenneman]] {{User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items}}

cranky bastard

Stop defending that troll emporer. Don't you realise how bad it makes wikipedia to looks to have crap like that inside here? Pure evil, aka Cranky Bastard who's been around long enough to know this too shall pass 06:01, 28 January 2009

PS - No self-promotions to troll emporer! You must do hard yard on ANI and ARbCom pages before you get that crown. ^_^ - brenneman 06:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blp, flagged revisions, brain clouds, and a chit chat

I saw your post at Lar's page, and your 'oppose' comments at the feeler survey (isn't the polarity a bit silly and unhelpful though! - not your fault, jus' sayin') - wondered if you were interested in chit chatting about it?

I'm currently a supporter of both flagged revisions for BLPs, and a 'non public figure optout' (WP:OPTOUT if you're interested) - and it intrigues me that someone as sensible as you seems to be on the other side of the fence a bit? Fancy a cup of tea, nice biscuit, and maybe a bit of Q & A / chit chat? Privatemusings (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps, my cheesy attempt at illustrative dialog isn't a bad place to start, if you've got any time, energy and inclination :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pps (and in an evil attempt to catch you in an edit conflict!) - one of my mini techniques for taking a look at the issue is to hit random, and check out the first BLP that comes up - today it's Reinhold Aman, who came up 7th.... it raises some problems too, I reckon... Privatemusings (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my way out into the sunlight for a while, but will do. Cheers big ears,
brenneman 06:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's quite enough sun now ;-) - so, you'll admit that you're totally wrong about the BLP thing, right? Privatemusings (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)'course I'm only joking - but I'm rarely as serious as I am when I'm being silly..... ;-) - I really do hope you're up for a chat[reply]

It was 35 degrees at ten pm. You cannot know how accurate you are on the "quite enough sun" thing. To be frank, I'm in the process of re-examining my assumptions/belief set on the issue. (Always a good idea.) When I'm much more clear on what I actually think, perhaps? - brenneman 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, but it reached 43.6 C in Mount Gambier...and in Sydney the humidity was much higher. Now all we need is a waterproof laptop and a swimming pool :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no skool like the old skool

Ah, memories of "Mr. Treason." :) With all the spam we get, it's not always easy to avoid being bitey, but I stand by your decision. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Bash

Good call. The film may yet reach notability. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Amos

Judging by your last edit summary you have agreed to stop, so a warning would be inappropriate here. But I am going to ask that next time you move right to the talk page. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 01:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a non-warning-warning? ^_^

"Agreed to stop" suggests I was over-reverting, although I made only the one where I explicity stated I wouldn't revert again. Thank you for doing your bit to maintain clam, though.

brenneman 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Look, that claim is really out of line, and your subsequent clarification is... difficult at best to swallow, given that the phrase "peer review" was only previously used to refer to the academic process.

Certainly, on the face of it, the comment looks like you're accusing me of, in my position as editor of that issue of ImageTexT, ignoring the standards of peer review and publishing an issue of unreviewed articles that I passed off as being peer-reviewed. Which is a really serious accusation of misconduct of the sort that I should be kicked out of my degree program for, if it's true.

It would go a long way if you were to refactor your comments to remove that line of argument. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you find my clarification unsatisfactory.

Wikipedia:Peer review says it is a "review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors"
Wikipedia:Requests for comment says its a "process for requesting outside input [...] with respect to article content"

To my reading, it's straightforward to refer to an article RfC as a "peer review" process. As my conflation of these caused you emotional distress, I apologise for using such sloppy and imprecise langauge.

To be frank, it took three or four posts by you to understand what it was that you were aso upset about. Perhaps if you'd approached that misunderstanding (and the whole discussion) in a less adversarial tone, this unpleasantness could have been avoided?

brenneman 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've asked, here's my take on this : Using AN/I was a bad idea, given it's more or less a free-for-all and drive-by commentary these days. Edit warring is generally considered by others as poor form, even if you know that the parties you are trying to discuss with would not yield anything useful. (it's good that things have stopped there, I have personally seen worse elsewhere) RfC would have yielded better results, because it does look that this dispute appear to be deep-rooted and it would be able to garner more third opinion on the content itself (though looking by things, behavior issues are likely to show up in the RfC as well). Hope that helps, Mailer Diablo 09:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

This is here to prevent any appearance that I'm secretly compiling diffs and counting them out at night in the cold and the dark. I know that there are mixed opinions "drafts" and on what the appropiate way to get prepared for an RfC is. I genuinely see request for comment as a collective solution-seeking excercise, and am currently at 50% sucess with asking for input on user conduct. There is no such thing as "my" subspace, of course anyone is free to edit this subpage.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner

Recall request

A de facto request for me to resign my adminship has been made. If five editors in good standing say they want that, it's no big deal.

Support recall - Aaron Brenneman initiated my first edit conflict three years ago. In this week's conflict, he made the accusation "you've consistantly re-insetered links to a website you own or moderate". A final (and only) warning was given, as well as reminders of my powerlessness. In the end, his accusation and the deletions of other's work turned out to be in error. Deleting and accusing, before checking the facts, are not suitable behaviors for an administrator. BitterGrey (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. (Really.) That was concise and to the point, and included diffs even. Would but that the majoirty of the cries of "ZOMG! ADmin abuse!!" were as maturely stated.
Strongly oppose recall (IE you keep the tools.) This kind of garbage is why Admin Recall is stupid.Hipocrite (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it this way: It gives the person who feels aggrieved a chance to see how closely their feelings are alligned with those of the community. It lances the boil, to take an expression from Tony. And in the event that I have been a jerk, I'd hope that it would provide an opportunity for people to tell me.
Oppose recall. He didn't touch the mop, nor even mentioned it. (Posting to AN can be done by any editor) If Bittergrey is indeed right, then AN would have pointed out the error quickly when he posts about it. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose recall. no abuse of tools here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To both of the above: I'd be happy to stand down if I thought that I'd lost the faith of the community. You don't have to use the shiny buttons to do that. People fail RfA for rudeness, for example. And (to be frank) I occosionally cause unintended chaos, right?
Oppose recall: Aaron Brenneman is a very good admin, and I think we're better off with him keeping the tools. Recall should not be used to settle disagreements or to win disputes. Acalamari 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the note on my talk page. I do appreciate it. I posted a request for reconsideration at PhilKnight's talkpage on the grounds that I was not notified and do not feel my behavior justifies the ban as described in Wikipedia discretionary sanctions. Discretionary sanction are allowed to be imposed on any "editor [who] repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Of course I am biased, but that definitely ain't my shoe! :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to engage in some actual discussion

NB - Orginally from User talk:Phil Sandifer

Phil;

Per filling out this I'm attempting to enage in some dialog. I'm finding it terribly difficult, as I have very little evidence from the past that it will be fruitful, but hope springs eternal.

Is there any chance at all that we can have respectful dialog on this?

brenneman 00:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chance

I'd have to say that's up to you.

In any case, if you look, I've agreed to several compromises on the Tori Amos stuff. The issue is that, while the academic criticism section as it stands is poor, the issue is under-representation, not over-representation. There's more to add. On the other hand, lengthy papers in the humanities don't condense to a sentence - if we want to summarize academic views of a subject, it takes some space. So I put in two articles that I was aware of and called it a day. The section will, I assume, expand some day. Until then, it is verifiable, reliably sourced, and a start. WP:IMPERFECT and all.

I'm happy to see the section expanded and, if need be, spun off to Academic criticism of Tori Amos. I'm happy to see the summaries rewritten to be less jargony. I'm happy to, if spin-offs are created for Neil Gaiman and Tori Amos, 97 Bonnie and Clyde, and Strange Fruit, see the content spun out to those. I've agreed happily to all three of those proposals. But the people who were so eager to remove it seem less eager to improve the content.

But it seems to me very strange to remove verifiable, reliably sourced content without a strong consensus to do so. And that's not there.

In any case, feel free to fix the content as above. I'll not revert such an improvement, and we can go our merry ways. When next we happen to cross paths (which I assume will be about 2012, as we seem to be about once every three years), please take some more care in your initial entering into the discussion. A lot of this was, at least for me, caused by the seeming venom with which you arrived upon the scene. If you avoid reactivating edit wars, making personal attacks, even inadvertant ones, and having your first response when someone is upset about the former be to run to AN/I and start work on an RFC against them, you'll probably get calmer and more harmonious results.

Hopefully this settles the issue. Pencil me in for January of 2012. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I paraphrase: I read the above as you saying "This material must stay in the article in the form that I prefer unless someone else moves it somewhere else."

Also, I feel that you are unaware of the high level of toxicity in your general replies. Yes, I "ran to ANI" because you've blocked me over content disputes before. You've began arbitration against me over content disputes before, blissfully skipping the step of creating an RfC.
Here's the edit that you felt venom[ous]. I've apologised for the misunderstanding, and asked if you have considered your respones at all?
Finally, I'm not sure how I'm "reactivating" an edit war when you committed three sterile reverts, leaving the page in exactly the state that it was in before we began? Are you comfortable with the editting you've done on the article, as per the table here? Can I ask that you look at Wikipedia:Own#Events, in particular where it discusses "Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version." Are you still going to do everything [you] can to stop other people editing against your personal wishes?
(I'll not discuss the actual article content here, that what the talk page there is for. I note that your last edit there was to respond to request to move away from your version was a flat "No.")

Please do consider discussing this in a more productive way, Phil. I'm not a huge fine of reuqest for comment, or arbitration, but I've been uncomfortable with your approach for some time.

brenneman 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I'm a bit puzzled by this response. You asked if we could have a respectful dialogue. I sent you what I think was a respectful response, and got, as a response, a list of complaints and grievances, some dating back over three years, and a declaration that you won't discuss some of the points.

I apologize for my obvious misunderstanding of your request for a respectful dialogue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes two of us puzzled. You've edit warred with me on my own talk page, over the placement of this dialog for one.

And (although I'm guessing that I'm well into "beating dead horse" territory) the fact that you'd consider your response "respectful" is either disingenuous or disturbing. "If you avoid reactivating edit wars, making personal attacks, even inadvertant ones, and having your first response when someone is upset about the former be to run to AN/I and start work on an RFC against them, you'll probably get calmer and more harmonious results." That's respectful? "Pencil me in for January of 2012?"

I attempted to address each of these calumnities. That's what I thought dialog was: We take turns saying something, with each response reflecting what the statements of the other person. Forgive me if I pull apart your statement yet again: I explained why I "ran to ANI," suggested that my two reverts was hardly "reactivating [an] edit war" in which you were the primary participant... Every single item in my response was just that, a response. To something you initiated. To call this "a list of complaints and grievances" is, well odd.

And the way that you're claiming I won't discuss it anymore it, well, baffling. Do I need to link your "no" again? How about the time before that where your response was "I don't want to have anything to do with you?"

Anyway, this is only serving to frustrate me. If you change your mind sometime before 2012, and in the event that you decide that "respectful dialog" is one where both people get to talk, this page will as always be open.

brenneman 10:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looking for later...

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_elections/February_2009 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Thatcher/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:EVula/opining/RfA_overhaul http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_appointments http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Decentralizing_ArbCom

Naaah, sod all that, now this is much more important to work up to a DYK...g'won, you know you can. Maybe we can find some academic criticism to put in. ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had intended to work on that tonight, and actually sat down at the keyboard with "utterly me" in my lap. But then I ended up reading it and got nothing done, and now I have to go to bed. *shakes fist* damn you Child, damn you! - brenneman 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ditto...just one more edit....(clunk of head hitting keyboard) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

User:Roejoe1/Online Dating Service

I see you proposed this for deletion instead of a speedy. Interesting note on the deletion template:

"Please use PROD only on articles or file description pages."

Does this process still apply to articles after they've been moved to a user subpage? – The Parting Glass 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too noticed that huge lettering. ^_^ Prod appears to be a very clever little template. At one stage I regularly turned speedy requests into userspace prods if I considered that the article was unlikely to be improved, but wanted to give the author the chance regardless. As here, I wanted to avoid having it hang around in article space if the editor never returns. Really, it's still an "article" in the common usage, despite Wikipedia's terms of art regarding what lives in what space.

Of course, a proposed deletion may be painlessly removed by any but the primary authors, so if you think it's a bad idea feel free.

brenneman 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groupie, Fuck, etc.

Your talk page archiving method makes it difficult to tell whether you've removed sections, in addition to archiving, as you've made significant edits after moving. I suppose I have to assume you know what you're doing. I don't know if your edits on those page constitute massive blanking or reasoned editing. On the other hand, your edit on million is a clear violation of consensus on WP:WikiProject Numbers, and I've reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As nicely as possible, what's the point of this message? I'm having difficulty reading the tone: Are you having a kvetch, asking for further input, something else?

My method of archiving is the bog-standard move. I thought everything there was pretty transparent, but I'm welcome to input if it wasn't. The only edits I made after archiving were housekeeping, and clearly labelled as such:

Are these the edits you were referring to?

With respect to not you not being "sure" about these edits, again I thought I was being totally transparent:

The new section I added to talk:fuck (I've removed some guff, but there's heaps more that should go.)
The new section I added to talk:groupie (For something to merit inclusion it should provide aid in the broad understanding of the subject to a lay-reader.)

I'm not seeing any attempt by you to discuss these edits on the respective talk pages of those articles, and I'm not totally convinved that you're really trying to discuss them here. Which is a nice segue to what this appears to actually be about...

I'll take the remainder of this to the relevant talk page, but in a nutshell: Projects don't own articles.

If I've misread this, I'm happy to be corrected.

brenneman 23:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your comments are definately not transparent, and your edits are so complex that I can't tell if what you're doing is what you say you're doing. I can name at least two admins who do not tell the whole truth about their edits, but I don't know if you're in that category.

As for Million, I suppose an alternative proposal is to split the number-ish articles on large round numbers (each) into an article about that number and an article about the number-range, but deleting the information from million without putting it elsewhere is revertable blanking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm aware that sometimes I'm unintentionally opaque, but please accept my assurances that I attempt to always be transparent about my edits. I'm still not understanding which edits are complex: Do you mean the talk page archive ones, or the edits to the articles? I'm happy to try harder, but right now I just don't have enough information to work with.

As I said, I'd prefer not to discuss million here, but I will respond to your comment on "revertable blanking." If you're saying "I am physically able to push revert" than that's pretty hard to argue against. If you're saying "any removal of information (BROADLY DEFINED) can by policy be rolled back without thought or discussion" that there I'd beg to differ. Culling of content that is not appropiate to an article is a normal and vital part of writing the encyclopedia. If you'd like to point me to some discussions/guidelines/policy that support your assertion on "revertable blanking" than I'd be happy to have a browse.

brenneman 00:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

I'd just like to welcome you on board. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - brenneman 07:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?

Hi there. I would like to request clarification on your decision to delete the article Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?. Firstly, per my scanning of the debate there was more support to retain the material than there was to delete it, so I don’t understand your interpretation of “rough consensus”. Secondly, while the article was technically imperfect the idea all along was to merge the material with Ancient Egyptian race controversy, and a strong percentage of the comments supported that merger. However forces hostile to the airing of this material blocked that article and made that merger impossible – has this been taken into account? Thirdly, I don’t understand your reference to the Great Sphinx section – it seemed to me to be factually correct and balanced – please could you clarify what concerned you and how it should preferably have been worded? In addition, may I ask for your continued involvement with the parent Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, where certain editors have for years been censoring an important aspect of the discussion on a range of technicalities. If this can be corrected then the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? issue would be redundant. Thanking you in anticipation for your speedy response. Wdford (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to discuss this. There was consensus that the material was good, but the article was not. It was stated explicitly by several editors that this article was created due to problems editors in the other article had in working together. It's a textbook deletion reason. The Sphinx example showed that these were to some degree even competing articles.

The creation of this article was, in short, a really bad idea. But one that I can totally sympathise with.

The only question was should it be userfied or deleted outright, really. In a less contentious article I'd have moved it into someone's userspace and kept an eye on it, hoping for improvement. But that would actually decrease the need for editors on the AErc page to work and play well with others.

brenneman 11:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes perfect sense. I have the full article in my sandbox, so the material is not lost. However the initial problem was that some editors were refusing to allow this material into the AErc article, citing some ancient consensus (currently much disputed) that the AErc article is intended only to report the history of the debate, not the detail of the debate. Those of us who worked on the deleted article were happy to merge, but the so-called scope restriction was making that impossible. Unless the scope at AErc is broadened, the problem remains.

What are the rules for setting the scope of an article, and what authority do those editors have to squeeze the scope down - surely we can allocate a section of a broader article to meet their needs while adding the other material around it? If they continue to delete the extra material every time its added in, then we have no choice but to create a supplementary article, and then we are back where we started.

Your guidance would be very much appreciated. Wdford (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you just copy/pasted it? <facepalm> I wish you hadn't said that about having the whole article in your sandbox. You're not supposed to do that. It raises all sorts of problems with the GFDL license. The material isn't lost when deleted, just hidden. I can see it just fine, and the list of contributors (which we have to keep, legally) is preserved.

The scope as you say is set by WP:CONSENSUS. The best place to discuss this, however, is on the AErc section. And the best way to do that is not to talk about other editors at all. Pretend they don't exist, only talk about thier edits. As if they just appeared by magic.

Have some faith and some patience, and I'm confident we can reach a situation where we're all equally unhappy.

brenneman 12:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I'll strip the material out of the sandbox ASAP. Wdford (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy 2

~~Thanks, if you're still willing to take it up I'll leave it to you. Cheers, Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)~~ Nevermind, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you're an admin, huh? And you're taking the hand-off -- from Moreschi to Zara to Harrison to you. I get the feeling I may have left someone out.... Oh, yeah! How could I forget that bundle of collegial, warm and fuzzy love, dBachmann?!!! lol (I don't know about you, but, hey, I'm at least crackin' myself up over here....)

Oh, yeah. The reason for my visit. You left me a note about your involvement at the above article, so I wanted you to visit here[1] and weigh in on the proposed lead. I assume/hope you've had a chance to follow the discussion about the language that is currently in place. A lot of us think it sux. Your questions, comments/critique and vote would be welcome. Trying to get the article unlocked and moving along constructively. deeceevoice (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Aaron, if you're looking for a reason for Harrison's banning of me, then I've got a pretty plausible one.[[2]] It's not justification, but it sure as hell is a plausible motive. He's been pretty snarky at my criticism of him for shutting down the article without any real need. The fact is, if he were seriously concerned about article disruption, then he would have banned Zara. But, hey, she's an admin and, from what I can determine, of a similar ideological bent as he, dBachmann and Moreschi. So, we all know that wasn't gonna happen -- even though the fact of the matter is that it was Zara who closed the article, putting an "in use" (or something) tag on it, making massive reverts and changes without consulting the other editors (all I did was try to break a logjam and, based on talk page discussion, take a stab at redoing the lead), and trying to push the other editors around a la Moreschi and, later, a la Bachmann. Now, that was disruptive.

All I did was revert her sweeping changes and then start to work on cleaning up/fixing a terribly wrong-headed and POV two- or three-sentence lead paragraph (about which there had been considerable grumbling on the talk page) and then moving around the text that had been in place in accordance with my revision. There was no attempt on my part to advance, in the article main space, one POV on another on my part. And I did this with an explanation on the talk page (something Zara didn't even see fit to bother with).

Everyone involved at the article at the time knows this ban is a load of crap. What you've got is an admin gaming the system to do whatever the hell he wants. Too many admins aren't accustomed to criticism from the lowly lumpen, or to editors who don't grovel in their presence once threatened. And I simply don't/won't shuffle for anyone. If someone steps to me with snippiness, they often will get responded to in kind. And the only way these folks can deal with an opposing viewpoint is to try to get the editor content-banned -- by any means necessary. (Zara earlier in the talk page discussion brands me a "troll" -- another favorite tactic -- and calls for someone -- anyone -- to ban me.) This nonsense really needs to stop if the project is to have any credibility whatsoever.

At any rate, I'm working on a deadline all day, so I won't have any time for this. And I certainly don't have any patience with it. I appreciate everyone's efforts, inquiries in my behalf, but it doesn't seem as though reason is any match for this cabal of determined, POV-pushing, autocratic admins, who've been allowed to pretty much do as they will at the project for a very, very, very long time.

And shame on the project for allowing it. deeceevoice (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptians race controversy 3

Araon the page protect for this article has been lifted because Tom is no longer looking after the article ,i will ask that is be put back as per there is no clear consensus on the talk page as per the scope of the article or lead for the article has been established and the article has the history of edit wars thanks--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take is different: there is no consensus, but no obvious edit-warring and no disruption either. If an article had to be locked down every time there is a content dispute for the duration of the dispute, most Wikipedia articles would be locked down a significant amount of the time. I suggest to wait and see. The protection can always be put back if disruption resumes.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may like to add disruption might have already started because the lead is up before the scope has been defined--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read WP:DISRUPT. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you see the history of the article(i.e the article has a viotile history and should be given a short leash) also jumping the gun and making changes when established editors to the article raised serious questions that could be construed as disruptions that !!!!"MIGHT"!!!! have already started--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rephrase, I can't make sense of what you're trying to say, quite honestly.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron started a thread on the lead, here and we participated and a rough consensus emerged. We will continue to look at the scope before making further changes. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow ramdrake, wapondaponda additions to the article without there being some sort of consensus have just be reverted by another editor see that is why i asked back for the the protection, but i was way off base right--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know Zara's MO, she was basically responsible for getting the article protected last time. I wouldn't be surprised if that's her intention now. I won't edit war, but all I can say is there was a straw poll and based on it the, the majority were for modifying lead. I made changes in accordance with the straw poll, which Zara has reverted. Currently Zara and Wikiscribe don't have any coherent direct arguments. I don't exactly know why, but my opinion is simply a delaying tactic. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiscribe, reverting is fine, edit-warring isn't. I certainly have no intention of reverting again as I sort of agree the lead needs some more polishing. However I do feel the lede Zara reverted from was the "least bad" of the two, but I can certainly live with the current situation if it means preventing the article from being protected.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Protection

'Tis removed for now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - brenneman 12:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

OK thanks for clarifying that. It was a case of a simple misunderstanding. I'm sorry if I was being overly sensitive. Cheers. Alun (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roejoe1/Online Dating Service (deprod (not an article) - tagging for speedy (spam))

Copied from B. Wind's talk

Hello. The above is the text from a deleted contribution that you de-WP:PRODed.

As nicely as possible, this appears to have been an ill-thought out edit.

There was clear commentary (by me) on the relevent user's talk page regarding this article's lifespan. You did not make any comment there. Or on my talk page, for that matter.
This article had already had a speedy tag applied and removed, by me again. Finally,
The "this is not an article" argument is, well, wonky. It's an article, it just happens to be in user space, resting.

Please either use more caution in the future, or take more time to communicate. It's terribly shocking for a new user to have one person be nice to them and give them five days to get aclimatised and to then have their article seemingly pulled from under them.

brenneman 07:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That probably wasn't actually "as nicely as possible." Sometimes I sound like I've got a cork stuck up me. Sorry. - brenneman 11:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End section copied from B. Wind's talk.

Please observe a little civility when you protest someone's following the policies of Wikipedia as I came very close to "returning to sender" your post to my talk page. What triggered the sequence of events was your improper use of the prod tag in userspace - which bites the editor much more so than anything I did afterward (check the diff). Please note that what I did was also assuming good faith on your part, and only after I noticed that there wasn't any work on the page in the previous two days. In retrospect, had you done nothing in the first place (or posted a {{underconstruction}} tag instead), it would not have resulted in the page popping up for someone on prod patrol to see it and act on it. Best wishes and good luck. B.Wind (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. There's nothing less-than-civil about my first post. Brittle and officious, but perfectly civil. And, gosh, "proper" in this case I'd have thought was to demonstrate a little flexibility. A prod tag in user-space, with a nice note on the user's talk explaining that they'd have five days to get the article into shape... It's zero risk. It's sensisble. It welcomes a noob with open arms, instead of a rulebook.

If I'd have "done nothing" than the article would have been speedy deleted. No "underconstruction" would have stopped that. A very new user who was making a good-faith attempt to communicate would have had his first experiance with Wikipedia a negative one, where instead of being greeted by people who were willing to be patient and explain, he's issued a fine and a slap.

You replaced a speedy deletion tag removed by an adminstrator, you made no attempt to communicate with the individual who wrote the article you were tagging for deletion, and now you're coming here to reprimand me?

brenneman 02:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative revert

I do not think that protecting an active proposal over an edit war that had seen no action in six hours is a useful or appropriate thing to do, and have undone your protection. Please be more careful with administrative tools in the future. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the unprotection[3] Phil Sandifer is deeply involved in this edit war, and has the most contributions on this page. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes states that:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators."

Is the same policy in effect with page protections? Ikip (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil's concern about protecting a page where the action has "cooled off" is one that I am willing to accept as a reasonable one, if not one that I agree with. And page unprotection is the smallest admin action in terms of harm. And I'm not normally precious about my admin actions anyway. So it's a fairly trivial issue.

But you're correct, Ikip: this policy also applies to page protections. It's especially egregious in that Phil's edit's started the back-and-forth and that he failed to use the article talk page section I created to discuss the protection.

I grow increasingly concerned about Phil's overall editting, and think that a request for comment is probably inevitable.

brenneman 11:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Moved to User_talk:Wapondaponda#Moving_forward

Zeitgeist: Addendum

Since you've chosen to redirect this to Zeitgeist: The Movie, and since that article has a section for the sequel, I'm assuming that a merge wouldn't be inappropriate. Would you please post the deleted article to my userspace so that I can integrate its contents? Or if the deleted content already exists somewhere, could you point me to it? Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:03, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd intended for that to happen as well. Just give me a few minutes. - brenneman 13:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:09, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Now at User:Equazcion/Zeitgeist: Addendum but that was more complex than I remember it being... They've updated the software considerably in the last few years. If something doesn't look right about how I've done it, I'll take it to deletion review to have them check my work. - brenneman 13:17, 8 February 2009

I'm not sure what you mean is more complex than you remember. The article looks ok in my userspace at first glance. Could you please clarify? Equazcion •✗/C • 13:19, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the process was much more complex than last time (years ago) that I did that kind of restoration. Lots more buttons to push and options to tick. As long as everything worked out fine in the end. - brenneman 13:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Looks good to me so far. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:39, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians, again

Just to let you know: I'm not trying to do your job, and I think you're doing a very good DR job, especially given the circumstances. I thought that just maybe I'd give a shot at trying to make both DCV and Zara realize that the way both are going at this dispute isn't the most production given from the viewpoint of another editor involved in the dispute. Cheers!--Ramdrake (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi vey, if only someone else would do the job! ^_^ Thank you though, I'm not at all precious about my edits. (Ok, that's a lie, sometimes I am but I usually get over it right after I hit "save" on the snarky message.) I agree though, that we need to get people talking about edits. Any smoothing is good smoothing. - brenneman 14:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin and I'm already involved; otherwise, I'd definitely offer to help. I already have a couple dozen cats at home, so I'm familiar with appeasing catfights... ;) --Ramdrake (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Rrr-rrrra-AAA-aaaawrrrr!" Ramdrake, you little, sexist piggy, you! lol (What on earth are you doing with so many cats?!!! Are you one of those crazy cat (man-)ladies? ;) )

Actually, I just dropped by to make sure there are no hard feelings about my, ... uh ... assessment of how you (Aaron) handled the latest dust-up. It's not meant to be mean-spirited. deeceevoice (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that Zara has asked for full page protection? [Not! (an update)]

This is precisely what happened last time. Let's not. I have no problem with her reverting the article to where it was before Wapondaponda's edits. (I would have done it instead of simply reverting her edits had I realized what Wapondaponda had done beforehand.) But a full page protection is unwarranted at the moment. What is this? She doesn't get her way, so the article gets locked down? Not good! deeceevoice (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I jumped the gun after reading her edit note here.[4] While she went back to AN/I, she didn't ask for immediate protection. She merely threatened that she would do it if she doesn't get her way with regard to the article scope. deeceevoice (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was so predictable. Zara has been angling for a total lock-down for a while now, and finally she's coming out in the open. There has been lots of discussion on the scope, as you can clearly see from the talk-page, and there has been input which suggests the scope must honour the title and any restricted focus as suggested by Zara would be POV. There has been an emerging consensus, namely to have an unlimited scope, that Zara doesn't agree with. Therefore, like before, she goes back to her tried and trusted tactics of mass-reverting and calling for lock-downs. When she says she thinks we need more discussion, what she means is that she wants everyone to do it her way, and any consensus that does not go her way will obviously "need more discussion". She has a long history of such petulance - check her record please. "More discussion" is not going to solve anything, as a lot of people want a broad scope and Zara wants to push her "Afrocentrism Rules" POV. Neither side is going to yield, so if admin is not prepared to honour the majority then this article should be deleted completely, and the debate housed somewhere else. To grant her a lock-down would be to reward disruptive behaviour - how can admin allow an article to be held hostage? Wdford (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read her latest comments at AN/I, if you haven't. They're very telling -- all about what she "cannot allow." As soon as she sees the conversation developing in a direction with which she disagrees, she's off to try: 1) to bring in yet another admin, then comes back threatening to get the article protected or locked down for three months -- if she doesn't get her way. She's spending more time at AN/I trying to justify a total lockdown of the article than explaining her edits/intentions/actions in the article talk space. This is not constructive behavior. deeceevoice (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the editors on the page have exercised a lot of patience and have been very respectful of the article's probation status. I think it is inappropriate to try to exploit this probation status by calling for protection of the article, in this case a certain preferred version. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how long this[5] will last, but at least we have the opportunity to write an article without the constant obstruction and disruption. If we don't make a decent article, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. It shows promise, but it still needs a lot of work -- and lots of clean-up. But we'll see how this all shakes out -- and how much time we have to actually work in relative peace.

Aaron, I haven't seen you around the article lately. Are you still with us? deeceevoice (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Still here. Things have just bit a bit intense in my neighborhood. - brenneman 09:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist: Addendum

Please userfy the article to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Zeitgeist: Addendum. I think the entire conspiracy theory stuff is crap, but do feel the article can be made worthy of wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I just realized you did so to another editor's workspace. I'll "borrow" it from there. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remaking Zeitgeist Addendum

Hello, my name's Brandon.

I see that recently the wikipage for Addendum was deleted, allegedly on the premise that it didn't have enough factual resources of credibility.

I'm new with using Wiki and do not know the policies, but I was told I should probably ask you on the case.

I am wanting to recreate the addendum page for the wiki, though I will redo it, and will be careful to cite sources and such. I hope to hear back from you soon :)

For the record, I will not concentrate on the "conspiracy theory crap" side of things from the documentary.

Thanks,

brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pending" is not retracted.

That two-week-old unsupported accusation is still listed as "pending." If the search for evidence is ongoing, how much more time will you need? Was restoring one link, three years ago, on my second day on Wikipedia all you were able to find? If the search is over, would you care to retract that accusation? Generally, good practice requires finding support for an accusation before making it. To do otherwise would demonstrate a lack of good faith. If one was wrong, one should be man enough to admit it. BitterGrey (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be brief: You're wasting my time. Rather than linking to an old diff for dramatic effect, just actualy read the responses I made at the section on your talk. Since your last edit to that conversation I had seen included the edit summary "please go" I was actually trying to be respectful of your wishes.

You're chronically unwilling (or incapable, but the difference is moot) to abide by our core content guidelines. You're quick to attack, unwilling to compromise, and appear to have the ability to hold a grudge for even the slightest of percieved insults literally for years. To be frank, I'd have thought that having me ignore you and the woefully biased and unsourced articles you frequent would have been a blessing.

I am now fully reminded of their existance, and of yours.

brenneman 06:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Rplan

Hello I am in the process of trying to get Actano Rplan restored (http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=ACTANO_RPlan_%28deleted_23_Jun_2008_at_06:29%29). I am new registered user to wikipedia, but I have used it as a reference.

I have been researching why it was deleted and I still wasn't real clear I know it had something to do with notability. I would appreciate if you could restore the page. Additionally, I would appreciate any guidance you can give to have the page better conform to the guidelines. Thanks Jasonfilmfan (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brenneman

Dear Brenneman, I am an Italian Wikipedia writer. I have choosed your name from the administrator list (maybe I'm doing some error in english) because your name seems me nice. I only wanted ask you if I can translate an english article into an Italian Article. I don't know if I can so I have decided to ask to an american/british user. If you will want contact me, you have to go to the Italian Wikipedia and you have to search the discussion page of Domyinik. Then you push the "+" botton to insert a new comment. Thank you for the attention and for the kindness (I don't know absolutely if this word exist). Goodbye and forgive me for my english errors: I'm doing the grade 4 of Trinity Spoken English so I cannot still speak english very well. Now, really goodbye. --Domyinik (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Only one last thing: remember, if you can, go to visit Italian Wikipedia: it is very nice and there are many wonderful articles.[reply]

Meat Loaf discography

In the last few weeks anonymus users made several attempts to write new data without source. Plese help (for example: you could partial block this article so only users with account could change this article).

Sunset2007b (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm Surprised You've Been Able To Continue To Stand This Place

Just like the old days. You outlasted me, old friend. Keep up the good fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.174.153 (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expedited motions and decisions (draft arbitration policy)

I see you haven't edited in a while, but leaving you this note anyway. Not sure if you were aware, but there is currently a community discussion of a draft of the arbitration policy. Back in January, I promised I'd make sure the issue of expedited motions was discussed, so I've started a discussion section here and invited those who asked about this at the time, including you. I hope you will have time to comment there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: socionics

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla welcome template welcome little Aaron:

Hello, Aaron Brenneman/Archives, welcome Wikipedia! Hope little Aaron Brenneman/Archives like. Here helpful pages:

Hope little user enjoy and edit smart like Bishzilla! Please sign talk pages using, er ... many tildes (~~~~) ('zilla can only count to three, regret!). If helpless, check out questions wikipedia, ask on 'zilla talk, or put {{helpme}} on own talk, get help soon. Again, welcome! bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

12+ dec

Welcome back Secret ^account 05:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your name's a blast from the past.... hope you're good, and popping in for all the right reasons :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oooh, it's brenneman! (-: — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back! Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a familiar name scrolling through my watchlist… welcome back! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks hatnote thread

I just noticed your question to me here when I saw JzG's comment quoted in the Signpost. It probably should have been a post to the Village Pump rather than AN, but other than that, I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said in the thread.--Chaser (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - brenneman 07:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Hey, I just noticed that you're back. Welcome back. Corvus cornix_talk 08:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I had to rub my eyes to believe it. It's good to see your name again. Will Beback talk 11:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see your name back on my watchlist, Aaron. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving comments without permission

On Wikipedia, it is best practice to ask permission to move the comments of other editors from user to main space. Please do not do it again without asking. This is just a notice, so no reply is needed. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I will disregard this notice. There was clear consensus for the move. - brenneman 03:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are wrong, and you violated best practices (behaviorial guidelines) in two instances, particularly WP:TPO ("you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page...normally stop if there is any objection..examples of appropriately editing others' comments...If you have their permission") and WP:OWNTALK ("the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user"). Continuing to ignore best practice is exactly why the user warnings were made on the talk page. My comments are about a continuing pattern of user behavior and should not have been moved to the article talk page without my express permission per best practices. So, please remove my comments from the article talk page, comments that I did not myself put there. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness.

It clearly says in the guideline you quote that moving to change the meaning is unnacceptable. The meaning isn't changed.
There was rough consensus that your statement on the user talk page was misplaced. If you had concerns about the sourcing on the article, the place to start would have been to clearly articluate those concerns on the aricle talk page. As I have done.
In refactoring I have clearly marked that the edits were on another page, I have clearly marked where the moved edits ended, I have used meaningful edit summaries, and I have explicitly noted in the talk that I moved the thread.
I will not be removing your comments, although you are of course free to do so. Please remember that "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions..." etc.

brenneman 04:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You moved my comment to an article talk page, which changes its meaning, as my comments were in regards to user behavior not content, and properly made on the user talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments that should have gone on the article talk page

You may want to file a RS noticeboard report, as your recent comments on Talk:Thyrosafe show that you are unfamiliar with how we evaluate reliable sources. PrescriptionDrug-info.com, ShopWiki.com, and Vitaminproshop.com are not reliable sources. The fact that you claim these are a "normal use of secondary sources" is very troubling. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not respond to these comments further. Please use article talk. - brenneman 04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not respond on the talk page at all, because I am only interested in user conduct, not content disputes. So, you will find me on the proper user talk pages and noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me understand this: You're concerned enough about sources in an article enough to warn the user, but not concerned enought to discuss the actual sources? - brenneman 04:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to understand. My specific concern here is with the continual creation of poorly sourced articles by Wnt.[6] I have brought this up with him several times. My broader concern is with groups of editors like Wnt, relying on WikiLeaks documents as primary sources for Wikipedia articles. These concerns are one and the same and are being discussed over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents, with a list of older discussions about this subject in the header for you to review. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see from your recent contributions that you're concerned about his approach. That's very clear. The problem is, you're not doing enough homework to support your position. Just because you don't like what someone is doing at Foo doesn't mean that you can cut corners in complaining about what they do at Bar.

You have concerns about an article's sources, you simply must use the article talk page as the first point of call. If for no other reason than to alert other editors of the article to your concerns.
Your comment/warning to W was vauge and hand-wavy. We can use primary sourcing in an article, and there are secondary sources there. He's done enough to make it a tenable article. You have to actually take the time to demonstrate where he's wrong. And simple saying "you're wrong" several times is not enough.

brenneman 04:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken and misinformed. This is the second article that Wnt has added unsourced and/or poorly sourced content into based on primary WikiLeaks cables. My concern is solely with this pattern of behavior, and I've expressed my concerns about user behavior on the noticeboards.[7] This is specific, particular, and focused on the topic. There is not a single thing "vague and hand-wavy" about it. I realize that you haven't had time to review the discussions or the reliable source guidelines, but arguing from ignorance isn't much of an argument. Feel free to correct yourself, especially in regards to your claim that "there are secondary sources there". Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being rude on purpose? Because it appears to me that you are. You've been snarky, deleted my request on your talk for you to be nicer with another rude message and now this meesage?

I am sorry for having to say this, but I'm afraid I'm going to ignore any further comments from you on my talk page. You appear incapable at this time to discuss the matter in a civil manner.

brenneman 04:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. It was not my intent to upset you. Please accept my apologies. However, you must admit, there is nothing ruder or more uncivil that deleting comments by another editor without their permission. Have a great night. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Hi Aaron, just a heads-up that user talk pages aren't meant to be deleted; individual posts can be deleted if problematic, but not the whole thing. User pages are a different matter though; they can be deleted on user request. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure if Slim is referring to the same talk page that concerns me, but I notice that your talk page was deleted by you under WP:CSD#U1. I'm afraid this is not a valid use of that criterion: "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user." Please restore your talk page. If you want it deleted, you should take it to WP:MfD. However, they usually are not deleted without good reason, as their contents are regarded as a useful record of prior transactions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, but this seems like a somewhat of a non-issue to me: Wikipedia:User_page#Deleting_your_user_talk_pages says "usually," and the page is a guideline. If anyone with the bit feels the page should be restored they can do so.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. WP:CSD#U1 is, of course, policy, and it says, (formatting omitted) "In exceptional cases user talk pages may be deleted via Miscellany for Deletion (see right to vanish); they are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion." Since they can't be deleted under U1, and since you indicate you don't mind, I've restored yours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While reviewing ANI today, the section concerning the Political prisoner page caught my eye. I noticed there that you had deleted an IP talk page under the same policy. In accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy ("If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately."), I have restored it now as well. An MfD may be appropriate if the talk page needs to be deleted for some special reason. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the use of rollback feature on user talk pages (I have raised your block threat within that thread/topic). The thread is Ryulong's inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you. —Bidgee (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. - brenneman 10:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Ditto. Courcelles 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation vaporizer picture removal

Section moved to Talk:Vaporizer_(cannabis)#Radiation_vaporizer_picture_removal

Sorry to have missed responding to this. As it related directly to the article in question, I have moved discussion there. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

{{talkback|Bidgee|Away from ANI}} Bidgee (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Bidgee's talk page

Hi Aaron, this is to inform you that I have left you a message on Bidgee's talk page. Please feel free to delete this comment when read. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative actions, and concerns thereof

Archiving of Talk:Public relations

Hi Aaron, article talk pages shouldn't be archived by moving the history, as it makes things harder to find. Would you mind undoing the move to Talk:Public relations/Archive01? Article talk should be archived by cutting and pasting, and it's best to leave it to the bot. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I went ahead and did it so you don't have to use the tools, and I've added the bot. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Points for being forward, I like a "can-do" editor. I've always done move archives, and believed that this was the best approach, as cut/paste breaks the link between the person's contributios and where they finally end up? Regardless, thanks.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement at Political prisoner

Re this, you can't act as an admin at Political prisoner, Aaron, because you're involved. In general I'd advise you to hold back a bit for a few weeks until you're up to speed with the current culture. Things have changed a lot since you were an active admin, most of them for the better. People have different expectations of admins; things that were done before are now not considered good practice. It can take a while to catch up. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, mam, I always like hearing from you. Since (on this rare occasion) we're not in complete accord, I've placed a request for public input here, as well as linking that discussion on the article's talk page. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General complaints of "not up to speed"

Hi, I saw your reply to my comment, or as you say fact-free slag-off you've just committed. - If you really don't see that people are feeling you should take your tme and comments have been made like that will dig for the diffs but, dude, you are at ANI again disputing and resisting current policy and current consensus. You badly blocked a user and you mistakenly moved some archives that when SV noticed she repaired them herself and then said .. Actually I went ahead and did it so you don't have to use the tools, and..someone has added a big smiley to your userpage as there was some issue with you not having a userpage, it is just not instilling any confidence in me Aaron, carry on if you like but I think you need to take your time, thats not a fact free slag off either its decent advice, listen to it or not, thats your prerogative. Also your asking this type of question, By the "not to perform any admin actions in any situation where you have expressed any opinions" standard, how in the world are we meant to perform our duties as administrators? - also says to me that you are unsure of what is general administrative practice presently, and until you are able to answer your questions or someone has pointed you in the right direction, it would imo be better imo if you take it easy with the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that Wikipedia is susceptible to is Groupthink behaviour. And you're doing it now... I'm at ANI trying to have calm reasoned discussion supported by actual facts and evidence. That's not happening, instead lazy commentary (like yours, forgive me for saying) is taking the place of thinking. Please let me take a moment to unpack your comment here...

You're opinion that I "badly blocked" a user in not one I share. You may notice that there is reasoned commentary in support of the on ANI, although there is clearly no consensus on it.
You're also wrong about the archive as well. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page where it says that cut and paste is "generally preferred." It doesn't say "don't use page move." Slim has a different opinion on how to archive a page, she's welcome to that opinion.
You're wrong about the smiley as well. Did you look at the page history before you commented, or did you just make a best guess based on a few comments you'd seen here and there?

You're comment, in total, is almost exactly the same as every other comment regarding me being "up to speed." It's ill-informed, is not supported in either practice or black-letter, and has very little basis in fact at all.

I'm sure it's very convenient to have an excuse to denigrate someone's actions, but "You're very new" is not the same as "I have a different opinion than you."

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, lets agree to differ then, perhaps I am as you suggest, wrong about everything, and you are doing fantastic, best of luck to you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E

I did not agree with your ideas about BLP1E at Phillip Greaves. But if these are policy, then perhaps it is time to implement that policy evenly, without the heavy pro-Western bias typical here. Now I don't want to be accused of nominating an article for deletion solely to make a point, so I'll ask you first: does Gedhun Choekyi Nyima meet your criterion for a BLP1E deletion? This is a person who was absolutely unknown prior to being selected as Panchen Lama, and who was disappeared quite thoroughly from public view afterward - a person who quite strictly is known for "one event and attendant consequences". His case seems even more clear-cut than that of Greaves, if one accepts your expansive definition. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that was fast!

I like explicit, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Greaves, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event are what we're discussing here.
One of the most infuriating things here is how inconsistantly we apply decisions.
Going to look at the article now...

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article is an interesting one, that's for sure. But, and this was one of the main problems with the PGreaves debate, is that the difference between "the event" and "the person" can be subtle. Not that subtle here, actually, as the article could just as easily be titled "Selection of the 11th Panchen Lama" with "Gedhun Choekyi Nyima" a re-direct with almost no editing required.

In the PGreaves case, the decision had already been made that the majority of the content with respect to the written work did not merit an article. This takes the knees out of a redirect from PG to an article about the book itself. Some^[who?] have already stated that that decision should be revisited, and at this stage that would be approach I'd recommend to an editor who felt that this material was "encyclopedic."

Always happy to chat more, of course. Either about the specific articles, or about the general principle.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, articles about political prisoners never cover only one event. They cover the initial activity that makes someone stand out from the crowd (the "political" part), and then the governmental action taken against them (the "prisoner" part). And people always want to know what happened to that person afterward, and sometimes will protest or file constitutional lawsuits on his behalf, which is really a third event. This is crudely acknowledged in the policies you cite, which say that a "high profile individual" subject to ongoing news coverage should have an article.

In the Greaves case, the first AfD was held after an initial wave of publicity about Amazon.com's removal of the book. This initial news cycle died down, and then a second cycle emerged regarding his prosecution by Florida for obscenity for selling one copy of the book. In the AfD I did not seriously think anyone could claim that those were the same event, because aside from having the book in common, they are completely unrelated stories. And the prosecution really isn't all about the book - you don't see the Florida prosecutor dragging the executives of Amazon.com into court for selling it, because they're well defended and more sympathetic to an audience. Greaves, on the other hand, is easily viewed as a bad man, and thus offers a good opportunity to set a bad legal precedent.

My desire to see this story covered in full as it unfolds is not purely theoretical. I was just involved in an endless, endless effort to work out some kind of consensus about sexual content issues at Commons:Commons:Sexual content, in which a major issue regarded whether people thought that Florida was likely to make unreasonable obscenity prosecutions against Wikipedia. I'm not qualified to give a legal opinion, but frankly I don't believe anyone can predict that sort of action. What's certain is that it would be useful for Wikipedia to allow itself to keep track of what is going on legally in that state, so that we know if the orcs are on the march before we're watching video of them loading up the servers in a flatbed truck and hauling them off for evidence. Now of course this doesn't carry special weight in choosing what articles to cover, but my point is, this isn't purely some flash of media publicity, but a serious and relevant ongoing political issue. Publishers of all sorts, not just Wikipedia, are going to have to watch and decide whether to be cowed into reevaluating each and every written work they carry, or to commit themselves to fighting to preserve the First Amendment. Wnt (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of comments

I am wondering why you have moved my comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did the large explanation I offered while doing so not answer this question? I mean that only in the most literal sense, not in any sort of sarcastic one. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, reverted. I see. But then, your comment is back where it was, so I'm still confused... - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say why you moved them? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, again: I said why in the edit. Did you not examine my edits before reverting them? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I do not understand what you meant when you wrote "change I've made to the template: Out out, damn admin-only discussion!" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, could you explain here why you moved other people's comments? No references to posts elsewhere, please, because had it been clear, people wouldn't be asking you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this really irritating.

In the edit where i move them is clearly says "I looked at the supporting debate for the "admin only discussion" section and there was no consensus for this type of split debate, and the stated reasons for having it are supported by the change I've made to the template."
The bottom section says (at the time of the edit) "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators who perform an enforcement action. Comments by others will be moved to the section above."

How is there any ambiguity there?

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essays

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Removed_link_to_essay_low_profile_individuals_in_reference

Thanks for the message, I moved it to the guideline talk page, as split discussions are to be avoided. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning on my talk page, your conduct

This edit [8] and your tone is not appreciated at all. Do not tell me how I have to edit when my edits are both in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and do not come to my talk page issuing warnings if I did nothing wrong. Stepopen (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this isn't the proper place to discuss you edits to the article and its talk, suffice it to say that you had, in my opinion as an administrator, done something wrong. (The proper place would be the aforementioned talk pages, of course.) I have re-examined your contribution to Talk:Political_prisoner again, and if anything it is your tone that I find lacking:

"In a nutshell, your request is very unreasonable. Cheers." This was totally uncalled for. A bit rude, and for no reason but for that you disagreed with me.
"The claims in the article were not supported by this source - period." Not only untrue, as one of the sources did explicitly use the words political prisoner, but also again a bit rude.

Further, your "tone" here is adversarial and uncalled for. I'd strongly suggest that you review the etiquette guidelines and consider how much more receptive I'd have been to your message if you had been nicer.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new couplets!

your edit at secret law abounds
with noble intentions, confounds. 
obfuscation of orig author's meaning rankles
my cankles.

omg thanks for suggesting couplets eventhough I can't really do them right. S*K*A*K *K 15:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was perfect. "Cankles" in particular was awfsome. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of All

You weren't Voice of All at one point, were you? NW (Talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but my stock answer is an evasive one: What makes you think that, and why would you care?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC) It's Voice of All (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) we're talking about, rought?[reply]

Was just curious :)

And apparently the link answers it for me—he renamed to Aaron Schulz. Not sure why I didn't think of checking the redirect. I think I should go to bed now. NW (Talk) 06:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You have read about me. Before the memory loss I was Wm5200, now I try to post as The Pluton. You may be interested in my P.O.V. section --you owe me-- (I was listening to a Chris Isaak song) and --"Out" of where?-- (if you sense anger, multiply by a million). Thank you for your open mind, but please be careful, I'm dangerous. You may want to disappear this. John D. Earhart64.107.148.131 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I do understand that frustration is a terrible thing, I'd suggest that a more useful approach would be using email, as by evading the block you're only making it less likely that you'll be heard. Like all adminstrators, my wikipedia email box is active...
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palin

Would you please come here to discuss an edit you made? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul R. Hill deletion

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Hill

I was in the process of modifying the article to address many of the objections raised in the deletion review when you deleted the article. This included numerous third-party references to support notability and objections that there were no third-party references. I respectfully request a deletion review, starting with temporary restoration of the article followed with my modifications. I think this will make it easier for editors to judge the notability issue and also presence of reliable, third-party sources. (The original objection raised for deletion was NOT notability, but alleged lack of such sources.) I apologize for the difficulty in following my remarks in the deletion debate. The lack of organization was due to trying to respond to each person's objections and pointing out the existence of numerous third-party sources, which I have now added to the article.Dr Fil (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This comment was moved from the top of this talk of page, see page history for attribution.

24 January 2011

- - Hi Aaron, the article on the Scientist Paul R. Hill has been entirely deleted within the last week. - Is there any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.159.75 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wheels of time grind slowly onwards. Would anyone like this article restored to userspace? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aaron, I didn't write this article, but am interested in the life and work of Paul R. Hill.

I may write a small artcile on the same subject, but would like to know the reason for the original being deleted, to aviod any similar problem. Was the original deleted because of it's content?

Have a look at the link I've put at the top of this section. I'll also leave a note on your user page. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this article, I think Dr.Fil has explained clearly that while he was not Einstein he was a notable academic/scientist in space science. There's no clear logic to your objections and blanket deletion of the article. Not only that, he was a notable figure in UFOlogy. If not accepting as academic/engineer (which doesn't make sense) re-assign him to UFOlogy. Paul Hill wrote his own book and stated his own views clearly, there is no controversy in quoting his book on his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.33.16.112 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that link to "Humanism (life stance)"

remove these after the refresh, since the inclusion was via template

Humanism (life stance)

Unfortunately I blinked and missed the deletion discussion. Rather than having it reopened, could you make the text available somewhere, so that I can see whether any of the content should be placed in Secular humanism? One of the problems, I think, is that the Secular humanism article is rather US-centric - Humanism (sometimes capitalised) is the term generally used in the UK and perhaps other countries, and "life stance" is the term commonly used in the movement to distinguish it from "religion", which of course is something it is not. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too easy. Please see User:Ghmyrtle/Humanism (life stance)! - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[[User talk:Alexis Rojas

Can I do a article that compares the population between Mexico and U.S. States? If not why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Rojas (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demand From Japan

I push for harsh punishment for <Vigorous action> who is an Administrator of Japanese Wikipedia. --JPWikiUser (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]