User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/9

Apologies

I was unaware of the rules for making a band page at the time. TheButcher 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your only warning

Stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 07:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me? - brenneman ^{L} 07:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me expand on that: I not only consider your use of the word "trolling" in that context to be terribly incivil, I find the heading to this section to be preposterous, vergin on slapstick. - brenneman ^{L} 08:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Slapstick? No, it is only this week's episode of the 'Tony and Aaron Show'. --Doc 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've only asked him to stop. Let's hope he gets the message. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop what? And if you're going to "only ask" things in such a rude manner, please do save yourself the time. - brenneman ^{L}

Stop what, exactly? I feel that this warning is unjustified. --Nearly Headless Nick 08:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See User_talk:Samuel_Blanning#Removal. Tony and Sam were arguing over statements on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2. Aaron edited Sam's words, trying to calm the situation with a bit of humor. Sam appreciated the humor, but preferred to keep his own words. Tony was not amused at all. Or, I suppose he could be taking dry humor to a new height ... but I suspect he is serious.AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen those edits. They were fairly justifiable in the situation. --Nearly Headless Nick 16:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If he told the guy about it, how can it possible be seen as disruptive? And leaving two-word trolling warnings that vague is unproductive. I swear, it seems like some people would rather just shut people up than work towards productivity. Karwynn (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images, your opinion?

• Wikipedia:Fair use

I recall you being at least some what interested in fair use violations and as such I would like your opinion on the images on New anti-Semitism. Going down the article we have...

• Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg Photograph of a placard at an antiwar rally, under a creative commons license. However, it is obviously a commons:Derivative work, zombietime does not claim to be the artist, ergo no permission from the original author and thus we can only use it as fair use. (This image alone generated quite a bit of vitriol on the talk page, so I loathe getting into this.)
• Image:FrenchCemetery103004-01.jpg Photo of nazi symbols graffitied on some french cemetary. Fails 1 (anyone could take a photo of such, or make one as this /specific/ incident is not important), 8 (who can't figure out what a swastica on a tombstone looks like?) and the litmus test of the fair use policy.
• Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 2005 Syria al-Awael.jpg Book cover of an anti-Semitic book (well, I'm assuming, I cannot read it). If the book was discussed it might be fair use, but it is just thrown in there haphazardly without "critical commentary". Does not contribute much to the article (8).
• Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg A Nazi propoganda image. It has a spurious PD-because tag (see WP:PD#World_War_II_images). Anyone can draw a representation of this, the specific one does not matter, etc so fair use is a no go (imo).
• Image:2001 ed The International Jew by Henry Ford.jpg another book cover, mostly the same issues as the other one, but at least this theme of the octopus is discussed briefly.
• Image:DavidDukeonSyrianTV.jpg TV screenshot that really doesn't add anything to the article. There is no real reason to illustrate this particular segment, or is it illustrating David Duke? Is the http://www.memritv.org/View.asp?P1=941 link not linking to copyright infringment?
• Image:Manchestergraffiti.jpg More graffiti. Same as the other one.
• Image:Tariq Ali.jpg From commons, looks fine
• Image:NewASMagenDavidswastika.jpg 1, 8 -- simple design, anyone can create a free alternative. The specific image is not that important, just about any would do.
• Image:LeedsUniversityNAS.jpg same as the graffiti
• Image:Msa sfsu poster.jpg Kind of specifically discussed by the text

Most of these also fail point 10 on specififying the copyright holders per 10 and the barest of fair use rationales when needed. FWIW, I think somone needs to go through all of SlimVirgin's uploads in particular. Many copy/paste fair use rationales and some things that are just plain wrong. Image:Hitlerwithdeer.GIF, Image:Hitlerdog.GIF (dubious PDs, no information given); Image:Judeasamaria.jpg, Image:Wieseldeathmarch.gif maps are 99% of the time not fair use, it is even listed as a counterexample!; Image:PAMegrahihostage.jpg doesn't seem to be valid PD; Image:Weisbaden-Duggan.gif a map, labeled PD... that even has "© 2001 Microsoft Corportaion Alle Rechte vorbehalten" (all rights reserved) on it, huh?; many without any source data Image:PrimoLevi.gif, Image:DavidIckeprotest.gif, Image:Greer4.jpg; etc, but there are a decent number to go through. Kotepho 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I was intending to do a flying visit here, so I haven't given this full attention yet. However, on the bulleted points I cannot find any fault with your logic. Only a few of these could ever be fair use. (I haven't looked at the article yet.) On Slim, I love her like a brother from another mother, so the thought of getting into a copyright stoush with her? Feh. But I am nothing if not dogged, so I'll look it over in the near future. If my heart breaks and my children become orphans, on your head be it. - brenneman ^{L}

Plz answer

[1] Please answer this before doing something rash, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea and would like a little discussion first. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I try never to do anything "rash." ^_^ As you had not responded last time I looked, I was going to ping you before I did anything anyway, but thanks for the note. - brenneman ^{L} 00:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

will you block this guy?

• User:58.106.215.32

i left a message on the admin intervention noticeboard but nobody is doing anything and he will not stop. Thanks. Wikipediarules2221 06:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking now. - brenneman ^{L} 06:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty four hours. - brenneman ^{L} 06:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Wikipediarules2221 07:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What the...

Regarding this block: Isn't 24 hours way too harsh? His edits weren't outright vandalism, going by his user talk. If you just want to get his notice, a 6- or 12-hour block would have done the trick, considering he just started editing without long pauses 2 hours ago. Kimchi.sg 09:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user and hope he'll take your warning into consideration when he next edits. Kimchi.sg 12:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

An edit

As requested. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note.In fact if you had noticed,you would have discovered that I had to change my user ID primarily as I had been blocked innocently for vandalism on Rajput page which I had never visited.Once dab was able to sort it out,I reverted back to my original page.Could I have all the messages back please.(Vr 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

WP:GUS, the vengeance!

Wikipedia:German de-adminship solution. ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Och aye, love the "Snakes On A Plane" style section title! I've replied on the talk page there, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
brenneman ^{L} 03:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is done. Oi vey, so much for my career as a quasi-pseudo-informal mediator. Note to self: Next time don't choose people whose time-zone means they can fight while you sleep. ^_^ While I'm closing this sectino, I'm still happy to re-open if anyone wants to talk about it more. - brenneman ^{L} 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing AfD's

Initial discussion

I'm here. SynergeticMaggot 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think a good place to start is to list (as I've done below) all the recent closes. Then we can have a look at all of them, and discuss any that appear to be problems to anyone. Sound ok? - brenneman ^{L} 02:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have little room to disagree here :) You've already made a recent list. Are you proposing that I add to the list by listing all my closes? That could get pretty long and I already have a slow browser. Anyway you could archive your talk page? SynergeticMaggot 02:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How recent? I just noticed you meant recent. SynergeticMaggot

I'm happy to work just from this shorter list as a "sample", and if there are any that are believed to be problematic than those can be added. And yes, I'll archive, but I always hate to do so with active items... it's like admitting defeat. - brenneman ^{L} 02:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you could sort the below into "early closed" and "not so much" and perhaps note how early the early ones were, that would be a good start. - brenneman ^{L} 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I placed a list on his talk page. He's done some fine, he's got 9 over the last 3 days that were blatantly early (I have some minor tolerance for ones done on the 5th day, mostly because there can be timestamp issues). I've made it clear which ones I have an issue with, and the response was hostility. I have three options: 1) try to correct his behavior, 2) bring every early close to DRV, or 3) Escalate it to the point where he'll be involuntarily forced to curb his actions. I don't want 3, and the community doesn't want 2. Sadly, 1 has been met with hostility. I'm not going to ignore it, so either the behavior must change or you'll have to be the one to be willing to mentor him on how to consistently do it right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Think of this as option 1.5. I don't have any reason to consider either one or the other of you as anything but reasonable, I'd like to think that I'm impartial to a fault. I do understand that you've made the same points on SM's talk, and that it wasn't going well. Here we can have a second go at talking, even if it means saying some of the same things again. But to begin with at least, it would be best if we:

• Left all the previous discussion behind,
• Limited ourselves to factual statements, and
• All agreed that some good will come of this.

What that really means is that SM has agreed to PIQM (pseudo-informal-quasi-mediation,) I'm here, we're just waiting to see if you'll come to the party. It hinges on this: Do you trust me?

brenneman ^{L} 03:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You know I trust you more than probably anyone else here, so I'm up for a shot at it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm finished with the reorganizing task you've left me. I'd just like a ruling as to which ones I've done wrong, if any, so I can correct this mistake for further closes. SynergeticMaggot 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Second phase discussion

Redacted from here in this edit. All information should be folded into section above. - brenneman ^{L} 07:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok so on most of these I assume I'm going to have to wait until he objects before I make a comment. I dont want to needlessly clutter anything. I might as well start with his section, which were his original objection diffs. SynergeticMaggot 07:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm working my way through these, giving as much my opinion on the quality of the debate as anything. I'm leaving aside for now the question of how valid an early close is. That being said, am I reading these date stamps wrong or were several of these closed early and not noted as such in the closing edit summaries? I'm feeling a bit thick right at this second. - brenneman ^{L} 07:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check the log for August 16th, for some reason, all of those are in there. And those are the ones I closed today. Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 16. SynergeticMaggot 07:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So something happened, not sure what. All I can say is that I closed them from the last log on the main AfD page. Right after a fresh log is added (a new AfD day), I go to the last log and close all that I see can be. If someone got the timestamps wrong, or placed them there by accident is beyond my scope. That would require some digging I suppose. SynergeticMaggot 07:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron. I didnt realize we were going to be anal about the timestamps. If this is the case, then every single AfD I've closed has been early. I dont go by the 120 minute rule for closing obvious keeps per consensus, let alone speedy's. So can we leave jokes about smoking crack behind, and become productive? I'm willing to overlook your sarcasm to put this to bed. SynergeticMaggot 07:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't even easily find the ones I as protesting anymore, but this is the kind of flippancy about the timing that I worry about. "I don't go by the 120 minute rule" is not something I entirely understand, but there's a reason we run AfDs for 5 days, period. This one just popped up on my watchlist, and I'm surprised Zoe wasn't peeved about it, honestly. AfD closing shouldn't be about "going to the last log and closing all that [one] can see," and there really should be some more care taken. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Again... steady on boys. I wanted to establish the facts first, and try not to pass judgement on them until we'd gotten everything that there was no debate over on the table. This doesn't appear to be working, so I'll try to think of something else. - brenneman ^{L} 11:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Also, I apologise for my apparent flippancy, with regard to the "smoking crack" comment. I had noticed that SynergeticMaggot had said that notes were made in the edit summaries when he closed ealrly, and thought it possible I was misunderstanding. However, now is hardly the time for anything other than careful language, and that was an error on my part. - brenneman ^{L} 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm misunderstanding what you're looking for here. I was unaware that the facts needed further clarification. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Some aren't: How often, how early, pattern of behavior vs. one-off etc. - brenneman ^{L} 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so let's get down to the bottom of it, then. How do you suggest we move forward? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd really just like a little time to look over the contended closes, and to get a better picture of SynergeticMaggot's closing practices. Both of you seem ready to go at it hammer-and-tongs, however. There are a couple of things that bear mentioning for everyone involved:

• Having someone put the microscope to your actions is never fun, but being defensive about them never helps. We're all human, we're all doing the best we can, and we all are dedicated to improving the encyclopedia.
• It's easy to read the wrong thing into someone's bare text when you're on the defensive. That means both only reading what the person actually types and being careful what you type. I've put my foot into it with the second already.
• This should be just a couple of mates having a chat. It's not the Spanish Inquisition, and nothing binding is going to come of this. And it's probably going to take a while.
• I should have said this at the start: I'm slow. If that's a problem for anyone, no harm no foul if they want ot try and find someone else.

So, I'll keep doing my thing here, but maybe both of you should think about other stuff for a little while. Avoid each other, avoid closing AfDs, take this page off your watch list. I'll get back to you pretty soon.

brenneman ^{L} 12:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly fine by me. Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all worried about the microscope. I've been through one RfA and it toughened me up very nicely. Since we are admitting mistakes, I should admit one of my own. I sometimes if not always, fail to give actual reasons for my closes, and sometimes close as speedy keep on accident. The former is going to be adjusted (no more unreasoned common sense keeps for me) and the latter fixed. I'm also looking into changing something on speedy keep soon so keep tabs I suppose. SynergeticMaggot 17:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to see this work. I really do. But what am I supposed to make of any good faith efforts to resolve it when this endorsement occurs. It tells me that I'm the only one actually interested. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Crazy. No-one wanted this deleted, not even bdj. The result is obvious and no-one is contesting it. A whole thread kept going by one man's wonk-fest. Not a good example. If you call Tony out on that closure, you will look extemely foolish. --Doc 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've about had it with Bdjeffs attack on the issues. If this persists, I will break ties to this conversation. I feel I'm being fair in taking the time to go over all of my closes, as I dont have to. I'm still willing to take advice from experienced admins, as I can learn from my mistakes...when pointed out. Hint, hint. SynergeticMaggot 18:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your record speaks otherwise. I'll see if Aaron thinks it's even worth it at this point, because I'm not convinced I should use any more good will on this one. This doesn't help either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Leave the bickering behind and focus on the reasons why you are disputing the AfD examples given. This is not the place for why Tony closed a DRV, or blah blah blah. Get on with it. SynergeticMaggot 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. The diff you provided was my comment..not his. That comment was for Cyde, he created a redirect to snow to screw with you. Still. Lets get back to progress. SynergeticMaggot 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you even want progress? I don't see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I put effort and work into the AfD examples below. For what? Either state your case with the examples in the proper format or get over it. SynergeticMaggot 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what for. Judging by your actions this afternoon, I'm not sure what for. This morning, I thought we were making progress. At the moment, I no longer buy it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Aaron: I'm taking your page off of my watchlist. This doesnt reflect upon you and I thank you for taking the time to help out. If you disagree with any of the closes, please address them to me on my talk page. As I've said before, I can benefit from the advice and trust your decisions and judgment. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well, but don't blame me for this. It's your conduct, not mine. Sorry, Aaron. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Early closes (from Administrator's Noticeboard)

21 Aug

• 01:13, 21 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Norris Facts 2 (→Chuck Norris Facts - Closed as keep)
  • Listed as contended by DBJ? Not listed as such
  • Opened 23:56, 17 August 2006
  • Entire closing comments were "The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"
  • brenneman ^{L} 07:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - This was a woeful debate, mostly filled with people either trying to be funny or whom have quite small contribution histories. Was closed quite early, but I'll save discussion of that for now.
• 01:11, 21 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Closed as keep)
  • Opened 18:12, 17 August 2006
  • Entire closing comments were "The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"
  • brenneman ^{L} 07:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Again, unless I'm swizzling the date-times, this was closed early. I'll call this kind of very brief closing comments a "Bare close" for brevity from now on.
• 01:07, 21 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medrash Shmuel yeshiva (→Medrash Shmuel yeshiva - Closed as keep)
  • Opened 19:50, 16 August 2006, bare close.
  • brenneman ^{L} 07:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - This debate was a total mess, including people who seem to beleive that it's policy to keep all schools. Should have been left to an adminstrator.
• 01:05, 21 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan Times Closed as keep)
  • Opend 19:33, 16 August 2006, bare close.
  • brenneman ^{L} 07:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Ok, am I smoking crack when I think that this had only had its five days at 19:33 on the 21st? That aside, unanimous debate on article with sources.
• 00:59, 21 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox affiliate switches of 1994 (→Fox affiliate switches of 1994 - Closed as keep)
  • Opened 19:19, 16 August 2006, bare close
  • brenneman ^{L} 07:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Concerns about verifiability were raised in the nomination and never adressed.
• 00:55, 21 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBM (band) (→PBM band) - Closed as keep)
  • Opened 18:36, 16 August 2006, bare close
• 00:52, 21 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Stop Doing What You Love Closed as keep)
  • Opened 15:04, 16 August 2006, bare close
• 00:43, 21 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jacob (→Michael Jacob - Closed as keep)
  • Opened 02:30, 16 August 2006, bare close

20 Aug

• 00:57, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Hogan (→Nick Hogan - Closing as keep)
  • Opened 03:30, 14 August 2006, bare close
• 00:54, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Holleyman (→Robert Holleyman - Closing as keep)
  • Opened 19:00, 15 August 2006, bare close
• 00:51, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Ruin (→Age of Ruin - Closed as keep)
  • Opened 01:05, 9 August 2006, bare close
  • brenneman ^{L} 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - I'm only going to note from here closes that were not smack on five days (not looking at hours) and that had something other than a bare close.
• 00:46, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Schilling (→Sue Schilling - Closed as keep)
  • brenneman ^{L} 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Even the nomination was contentious here.
• 00:44, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kaufman (→King Kaufman - Closed as keep)
• 00:39, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Tigre Clothing (→Le Tigre Clothing - Closed as keep)
  • brenneman ^{L} 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - I'd avoid striking out a whole comment and settle for striking out the "vote." But it's not a vote.
• 00:37, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James A Reed (→James A Reed - Closed as keep after 5 days, and nom withdrew) top)
• 00:34, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eat a Bowl of Tea (→Eat a Bowl of Tea - Closed as keep)
• 00:32, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetch (game) (→Fetch game) - Closed as keep)
• 00:29, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Casamassina (→Matt Casamassina - Closed as keep)
• 00:25, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Shepard (→Chelsea Shepard - Closed as keep)
  • brenneman ^{L} 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - The debate was not exactly scintillating here. I'll create a "closing bad debates" section somewhere lower.
• 00:22, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Weber (→Nancy Weber - Closed as keep)
• 00:19, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balloon (Music Group) (→Balloon Music Group) - Closed as keep)
• 00:16, 20 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones Closed as keep)
  • brenneman ^{L} 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Again, this debate was riddled with misconceptions.

19 Aug

• 19:29, Aug 19, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston, Ontario (→Boston, Ontario - Closed, nom withdrew)
  • Contended close
  • BDJ - closed speedily even though it met none of the criteria. SM also reversed Samir's reopening after I noted the issues with the close.
  • SM - The recent close by CharWeb was done right in my eyes, and I thanked her for it. You (DBJ) requested that it be reopened for delete discussion and didnt bother to vote. Time waster.
    • Minor clarification. Boston, Ontario was closed 3 times. First by Samir, second by me, and third by CharWeb. BDjeff, you said that the second close was done wrong, and I just need clarification as to which close. Mine ( closed as uneeded reopen) , or CharWeb's which was subject to a second close due to the relist? Either way its a keeper. SynergeticMaggot 03:52, 21 Aug 2006 (UTC)
      • All three were incorrect, to be specific. Samir's was closed out of process, which is why he gladly reopened it. Yours was out of process, as it not only reversed the reopening, but closed it early without cause. The third was closed incorrectly as it was reopened as a fresh AfD following the listing at DRV, and was never up long enough to get the hearing it was supposed to get, and especially never given the opportunity for those with problems at the original AfD. So my original "second" was Char's, but upon clarification, the AfD has yet to be closed properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:57, 21 Aug 2006 (UTC)
        • SM Samirs thoughts were that of my own. It needed a fresh AfD, as the old reason was no longer valid. SynergeticMaggot 08:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• 00:22, 19 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Druthers (→Druthers - Closed as keep)
• 00:14, 19 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asma Kəsmə (→Asma Kəsmə - Closed, nom withdrew)
• 00:09, 19 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay rights in Brazil (→Gay rights in Brazil - Closed as keep)

18 Aug

• 21:48, 18 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Levitt (→Gene Levitt - Closed, nom withdrew)
  • SM - edit conflict, closed by someone else, removed my tags to give credit to other closer
• 21:36, 18 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Pérez Gay Rossbach (→Pablo Pérez Gay Rossbach - Closed as delete)
  • deleted - closed early?
• 21:32, 18 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William I Orr (→William I Orr - Closed, nom withdrew)
  • nom withdraw - closed early?

17 Aug

• 06:15, 17 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofía Álvarez Vignoli de Demichelli (→Sofía Álvarez Vignoli de Demichelli - Closed, nom withdrew)
• 05:55, 17 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAJAM (→PAJAM - Closing, nom withdrew)
  • Contended close
• 06:27, 17 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic management topics (→List of basic management topics - Closed, but not as speedy)
  • Closed early, not as yet contended
• 06:20, 17 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Michael High School (→St. Michael High School - Closing early)
  • Closed early, not as yet contended
• 06:09, 17 Aug Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grynner Closed, bad faith nom)
  • Closed early, not as yet contended
• 06:00, Aug 17, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible Pink Unicorn (→Invisible Pink Unicorn - Closing early)
  • Contended close
  • Closed within 1 day with summary "closed early" and explanation "no need to drag this on."
  • BDW - Interestingly, not only did it not meet speedy keep guidelines, but you yourself, Aaron, had expressed issue with the sourcing.

Gap - Aug 16 to Aug 14

• The list is both to get a feeling for how SM closes and to examine contended closes. No point dragging every single close in, this is probably enough to do both. - brenneman ^{L} 07:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Aug 13

• 22:28, Aug 13, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Píča (→P%C3%AD%C4%8Da - Closed, result was keep) -
  • Contended close
  • Closed more than 1 day early.
  • SM - Closed from 4th log day, I concider this only one day early, no real reason to delete, consensus to keep.
• 22:21, Aug 13, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bran Flakes (→The Bran Flakes - Closing early)
  • Contended close
  • Closed more than 1 day early.
  • SM - Same as the AfD above. Consensus to keep.
• 21:50, Aug 13, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FeedBurner (→FeedBurner - Closing early, result was keep)
  • Contended close
  • Closed nearly 1 day early.
  • SM - me being BOLD. No real reason to delete and per the consensus.
• 21:39, Aug 13, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fax software (→List of fax software - Closing early)
  • Contended close
  • closed ?? early,
  • BDW - perhaps jumped the gun in the pile of five I originally questioned.
  • SM - Same as Bran Flakes and Pica AfD. Consensus to keep after 4 days.
• 21:27, Aug 13, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pindown (→Pindown - Closing early)
  • Contended close
  • closed more than 1 day early.
  • SM - same as all the others. Consensus to keep after 4 days.

Advice

Thank you for the advice. I will learn from all of this and move forward. Altough, if you allow me to nickpick for a split second...in conflict resolution, I actually did breing this up to two admins before bringing it to ANI. Both said they would have closed as keep. I used ANI as a means to contact a wider audience, in an attempt to intervene (which is the purpose of ANI). It semi-worked (no reflection on your methods). I gave Bdjeff a number of opportunities to work forward. Hes ignored that and every other warning to stop (trolling now). I'll drop by when I feel its right, and thanks for the offer. SynergeticMaggot 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that, it's not a nitpick. I'm always happy to be corrected! - brenneman ^{L} 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I failed to mention that I had asked about such matter on IRC, not officially on a Wikipage. SynergeticMaggot 00:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll threatens to violate "use common names"

This "binding" poll is using majority voting to establish naming conventions that, as of now, fly in the face of established conventions. Using "Michigan M-1" for a highway named M-1 violates both our naming conventions and common sense. Of course you my disagree, in which case you should "vote" too. Because all that matters is a numerical majority. --SPUI (T - C) 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Shortcut

I just copied a the vandalproof thing like WP:VPRF, so that has to be deleted too if WP:WKV is. I think WP: namespace can be redirected anywhere, because you could just redirect it to Wikipedia:Wikivoter and redirect that to userspace which would cause double redirects just for the purpose of not redirecting WP: to userspace. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I might have created WP:VPRF but I copied WP:VandalProof. I Really don't think it should be deleted so if you really wanted it deleted you could take it to rfd and see what many people think. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also WP:VF and many, many more. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And WP:SNIPE. GeorgeMoney (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory

Assuming you're serious (and honestly it is always hard to tell) the particular thing that would strike me as inflammatory was something I'd already quoted: ""if you disagree with me, I'll block you, and I have friends who will make sure you stay blocked." Of course Kelly never said or implied any such thing. Indeed the imputation, by a certain LtPowers [2], was in itself either absurd or inflammatory in itself, depending on how seriously one takes LtPowers' words. I happen to think it's absurd --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that "if you disagree with me, I'll block you" is an accurate summary? - brenneman ^{L} 22:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, do stop being such a silly sausage, Tony. Nandesuka 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I could say the same to Aaron. The suggestion alone that the wording in any way represents a conceivable interpretation of Kelly's words is utterly barking mad. To suggest that it's accurate is right off the map. I'm sorry but that's so stupid it's absolutely beyond belief. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go again. You're so amusing when you pretend to believe things that you know aren't true. Nandesuka 11:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering I hold that interpretation, I must request you cease the personal attacks. Powers ^T 18:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've said it once, I say it again, deescalate everyone. Stand down. Further conversation on this matter is not helpful. The winner is the one who doesn't feel the need to have the last word. --Doc 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure of Hezbollah article

There is a debate about the structure [3]. Please read all of this part and tell us your idea in each case.--Sa.vakilian 04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What would you like me to say?

That you guys are doing great things in saying that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, that by deleting the content under the logic that it's not references isn't saying "This content could potentially be wrong, so I say it IS wrong!" What should I be expected to say when you've done literally nothing to help with this article? The lack of references is not the reason for deletion, it's your argument to get rid of cruft that you don't like (even though that oh so silly majority likes it). You and AMIB have been scraping up anything you can to "clean up" Wikipedia to what you would like it to be. What logical person would argue that lack of references should lead to deletion? Would you delete Mario Kart: Double Dash!! if it lacked references? No? Then why are you applying this inane logic exclusively to articles that you dislike? Simple - you dislike them. Anything that you can use to argue against the article, it's fair game. Get over it. If you can't accept that people don't value your opinion over theirs', then leave Wikipedia, because this isn't your kind of place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It says "if we cannot find a source, we shouldn't post it" or something of that sort, right? Well, have I ever once, or any of us ever once stated that this article was unsourcable? Why must you say that this ONE article, out of millions, needs to be immediately sourced and if it cannot be, it should be deleted instead of marked with a citation tag? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And? Yes, it is the writer's obligation to add sources. But you are making a 100% baseless claim that it cannot possibly be sourced. Why should we disprove an argument that you can't prove? Does it say that all content not sourced must be deleted? While you are at it, why don't you deleted the tag, since if anything is labelled with it, it must be deleted instantly. I hope that you have plans to do so, since you are trying to get content deleted for not having sources (instead of, oh, say, putting a note saying that it lacks a source? God forbid though). You are deleting content with MANY, MANY people who make their opposition to what you are doing clear as the fact that the Earth orbits the sun. What argument are you making? That because of lack of references, you can remove all content? And you keep citing that and ignoring the simple fact that you're the one making an argument. You're trying to immediately delete all content (disregarding everyone who disagrees) on the basis that you're saying the content doesn't exist. Even if we have to provide proof, before requesting it, you immediately said "hey, this is gonna be deleted, okay bai bai", and refused to allow it to exist in any way until I eventually got enough current support (because apparently, old votes are irrelevant). I think anyone with an ounce of common sense could take a look at what you're doing and say: "Hey, this guy's just trying to find reasons to delete an article which he doesn't think should exist". First you and AMIB said it was bad quality. Then you said that keep can be interpreted as redirect (because you two decided that the removal of content from Wikipedia is synonymous with keeping the content on Wikipedia). Merge and Redirect mean keep in an AfD, keep does not mean merge or redirect. Then you said it couldn't be referenced, saying "find a reference or I'll delete the content". I've already personally shown to AMIB that it can be referenced based on the IGN cheats section with a mention of Mr. Resetti's antics.

So, Brenneman, I ask you this - if I were to remove unsourced content from a variety of pages, would it be vandalism? Because that is exactly what you are doing. If you aren't willing to help me remove unsourced content from Wikipedia, then I would interpret that you think what I'm doing (which is what you are doing) as vandalism.

One more question - do you know what the citation needed tag is? And do you know why people made it? Cmon, think about it! It's easy. Well, I'll tell you anyway - so we don't have to DELETE CONTENT. So people can actually know that the unsourced content EXISTS. How is it progressive to delete content that is unsourced? How is that going to make WP better? By deleting the content, you create no opportunity for it to be sourced, which doesn't really help me to believe that this isn't an attempt to remove cruft from Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your objections have been addressed.

(Characters in the Animal Crossing series) Contrary to your, LttP, and my own initial assumptions, the article is verifiable. Your objections to the existance of the article (No sources, multiple clean up tags, better dealt with in parent article, unencyclopedic tone. Not much else to say really.) have been addressed, as shown below, and I would like to have the merger tag removed.

1. No sources. Sources have been provided in part, and the potential for verifiability of the rest of the article shown. In fact, as I was reading the article I noticed several sentences which were near-direct plagarizations from the player's guide (now fixed), which suggests that the original author was using the guide as a source, and merely forgot to reference it... causing all of us a lot of trouble in the process. I do not possess the necessary resource to reference the half of the article about Animal Crossing Wild World, but am searching in hopes of finding an individual who possesses it. I will continue to add additional references tomorrow, but I need to sleep for now.
2. Multiple clean up tags. All have been addressed except for citations, which is still in process.
3. Better dealt with in parent article. False, as the article is a precise application of the WP:FICT guideline on lists of characters. Also, would create WP:SIZE problems if merged.
4. Unencyclopedic tone. Fixed.

To summarize, the article has been repaired from its previous and admittedly horrid state to a workable, living, improvable article which meets the Wikipedia 1.0 Start-class criteria on the assessment scale. If people would stop arguing over it, and instead actually work to improve the article, (and I found a guy with the Wild World guide) this could easily rise to B-class. With continued collaboration, I believe it could actually become a very decent Good or Featured List.

In conclusion, your emergency measures have succeeded! The article Characters in the Animal Crossing series has had its course reset to the proper direction, and normal editing may now resume. (Which is what you wanted, right?) All editors may now cease tearing out each other's throats, put down the large wooden mallets, take off their flame-proof eyeshields, and use those pens for what they were originally meant for rather than stabbing each other in the eyes.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

--tjstrf 09:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Laundromat and Xbox 360

Take a look at the history of Xbox 360. I'm in a slow-burn edit war here, and I figured I would ask if I'm being unreasonable. Nandesuka 12:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's on my watch list now. - brenneman ^{L} 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You put them in, you take them out: please!

Please, change this "Two Girls" abomination to anything: Pioneer plaque, fine, though I think for a Biography Project it would be better to use an image of an old, leather-bound book with some press guilding and some silhouette that would offend no one: Beethoven's, Newton's, Aristotle's, you name it. I find "Two Girls" image so offensive that I am ready to blow the top and start a vandal war over it, and that's not really in my character. The problem is, this image is a racially motivated imposition of certain ideology that I despise. Human beings should be regarded strictly on their individual merits, without classifying them by race. Race-based political correctness is a racism, painful to anybody who has been persecuted on the basis of their ethnicity -- inverted racism, granted, but still a racism. Like those questions about your race in government's questionnaires. If they are skin-color blind, why do they care what my race is? The same with this "Two Girls" photograph. It is a real torture to me, to see it on the talk page dedicated to my favorite writer. Please, remove it ASAP! Arvin Sloane 08:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

SNOW

Hello. I realize you just did that to upset Tony, but it would be nice if you had made some effort to give a reason for the change, at least to me, who have a genuine interest in the page, rather than a personal vendetta to pursue. Regards — Dan | talk 01:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Everytime someone claims I have a "vendetta" against Tony, god kills a kitten. Is it at all possible that I object to the actions and not the editor? I don't understand why it's so difficult to encompass the paradigm that

1. Person A does thing 1 lots and lots of times,
2. Person B thinks that thing 1 is really bad, thus leading to
3. Person B objecting to thing 1 lots of times.

With all due respect, it's simply intellectual laziness to write my actions off in this manner. How shall this work then? Hmmm, Aaron objects to Tony's actions a lot. Ignore him. Friday too. Ohh, let's ignore Bish and Geogre while we're at it. Splash clearly also has a grudge, write him off. Until finally we can say, without a hint of irony "No one without a personal vendetta has a problem with Tony."

brenneman ^{L} 08:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - Apologies to all the above named, illustration purposes only, no presumption they agree with me. There is no cow.

WP:SNOW

(welcome back by the way!) Dude, changing that to proposed might not be a good change. There is a pretty strong consensus that this is more than just a proposal. Let's talk about it, eh? I'm on IRC if you wanna chat... ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply didn't see the consensus at that time, and was practicing "drive by" editing. I'll be more explicit in my reasons next time.
brenneman ^{L} 08:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeking jaundiced eye for another process essay

User:David Gerard/Process is Dangerous - work in progress. I'm after your critique and reading of it. It's not meant as a restatement of IAR, for example, though people on the talk page seem to think so. Evidently it needs work to make its message clear - David Gerard 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back

WB from your wikibreak - good to see you about. But seriously, two edits in a fortnight and both are reverts of a certain person? The points are very minor, but are you trying to pick a fight.--Doc 00:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Och aye, no. I didn't on purpose revert Tony twice, just happened that way. The WP:SNOW header I didn't see consensus on, that's all. With regards to referencing that essay in closes, there has been demonstrated multiple times on the DRV talk page that consensus exists not to do it. As I explained above, I have no problem with Tony personally, I don't know him personally. But as long as he keeps doing the same things that I object to, I'll keep objecting. Simple really. (And thanks for the welcome back!)

brenneman ^{L} 08:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Third party look at Laura Angel

Could you take a look at the Laura Angel page please? I'm sure I'm looking at the start of an edit war here on the article, and I think the pair of us may have also (inadvertantly or not) violated the 3RR rule. I see you've encountered the other user's edits before, and I know we've sparred elsewhere on Wikipedia as well on edits. I'm just looking for a neutral third party who can grab a fire extinguisher if needed. Tabercil 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I'll have a look sometime in the less-than-distant future. First impule is that the DVD cover must go, it's not fair use. Everything else will take more time. - brenneman ^{L} 07:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's much simpler than you think

I like my version, and I think your version is somewhat overloaded. This style of editing is quite different from article editing, but it's in normal use on arbitration cases and works very well in situations where one does not expect the parties to all agree on matters. Fred also apparently wants to signal that he prefers the version I proposed (as tweaked a little by him). Maybe he'll change his mind over time if we keep them side by side.

Your determination to read some kind of wicked intent into this really mystifies me. --Tony Sidaway 06:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I cannot help but see your determination to present only the facts that you like as "wicked." I'm interested in presenting a clear and factual account, you appear not to be interested in doing so. To choose only the most egregious of examples, you like the statement "There was also a great deal of opposition including strong opposition from those he had blocked for "hate speech"." It would be more accurate to say "Of the over seventy people who opposed, two of the three users blocked for "hate speech" were included." But alas, accuracy does not seem to be what you are shooting for. Aaron Brenneman 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not write the words in question, and I have no particular objection to the refinements you suggest. I've already suggested that you try splitting out your long proposal into one or two extra findings to see how it flies. --Tony Sidaway 07:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Magic wands

I find my magic is in short supply these days, alas; also, I have recused myself from the case, for various reasons, and as such I don't think I ought to try to do much with it. I may give some comments as an outside view, as I have already given in private to some of the involved. (BTW, welcome back; how's things?)

As for the forked findings of fact: breathe and calm down. I know when I have taken things from the workshop pages they have ended up being syntheses of the parts I liked best. In some cases—this may well be one—I think it may cause less squabbling if everyone gets to put up the version they like best and solicit civil comment and refinement on each. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh* I'm resigned now, in face of waves of support for this method, to doing it this way. I've sworn not to compain about it anymore, so insert long rant about collaborative editing here... I won't. Will you be available for one of your patented refactorings despite your recusal? I think it's going to need it soon.
brenneman ^{L} 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks on Xbox 360

Thanks for removing the redlink images. I was going to do that earlier but the vandalism on the page was so fast and furious I forgot. Dan D. Ric 06:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Conch Republic

Moved to User_talk:Gene_Poole#Post_block_talk

Opt in

I'm here. - brenneman ^{L} 12:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn You

Moved to User talk:Peter Orme

RfAr/G

Just some thought here, we may be happily throwing remedies and principles one after another, but that isn't going to help unless we actually have sufficient evidence to build a case. And from past experience I do not think Arbitrators want to look into the past or beyond the scope of the incidence, so I suggest that evidence may be better gathered from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Giano, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/archive3 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 68. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom statement on Tony Sidaway

Hey Aaron. I haven't run into any issues with Tony in the least. I actually commend his behavior that I have seen. That said, it is interesting your general collection of various incidents over years in the evidence section with regards to Tony. I will be following the case to see how it turns out. There is one editor that I have run into that a similar case could be made against, if not stronger than the one against Tony. The question is whether such a long term case based on multiple disputes with many people in the context of a significant edit history actually results in anything meaningful. Have you seen a case such as yours work before? Can you point me towards such previous models? Thanks. --Ben Houston 05:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My spongy grey matter tells we've had at one in the last two months based upon "history of disruption" or somesuch. But a precedent is a good idea... *goes to dig through old arbitrations*<br?>brenneman ^{L} 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, burned man

I think tht WP:STEAM needs to have the status of an essay, not a parody. It's all too true, and it needs to be expanded with examples. I can think of plenty myself. What do you think? Billy Blythe 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fez

Maybe you'll be sorry to know it but your comment inspired me. I just couldn't cram in the tiny car, though. John Reid 13:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as long as I can continue to goad people towards creating things, I'm happy! Full snort-my-tea-laughing-when-I-clicked-it award points to you. - brenneman ^{L} 23:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like it. I take requests. John Reid 08:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Excessive posting

• Edit by brenneman to Tony Sidaway's talk
• Tony's removal with edit summary "Oh for heaven's sake"

Aaron, You've been leading a charge to refactor the workshop, and slow the rate of Tony's input. I won't speak to refactoring, I'm not sure it's a huge issue, but as to Tony and his input in the Workshop, I'd ask you to consider:

• When you began contributing to the case, you pulled out Tony's past going back quite a bit.
• A great deal of critical attention has focused on Tony.
• If you look closely at his comments, he's done more to contribute civilly and recognize the complaints of others than he has in any arb case where he's been an involved party, at least that I've seen. And I've been watching since the WebComics case.

Please, look closely at his contributions. I think real progress is being made, not just for Tony, but for many people participating, and I think pushing him too hard on this is only going to accerbate old conflicts between you two. Things are proceeding, and it may be messy but not as messy as some cases have been. This won't go on forever. --InkSplotch 02:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye, as I've stated elsewhere you are always a sensible poster. You're correct, I initially posted quite a bit, but I'm trying to cut back. And Tony should of course feel free to stage a vigorous defence. I am simply asking him to consider that several people now have asked him to consider changing the manner in which he does so. - brenneman ^{L} 07:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Tony went way overboard, even by his own standards; more to the point, he did so at a time and place where he offended more than one or two editors at the same time. He's paddling furiously; let's let him do that. I'd rather not see him leverage some vague charge of being denied right to reply into sympathy leniency. He's already pretty much endorsed his own de-adminning; given his level of general political support in and out of ArbCom, that's about as much as we can expect. Anyway, he's not the big fish in this particular barrel. By all means, let him boil his own broth. John Reid 07:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I can see the rationality of this, even though I'd have put it much more gently. I'll just do my own thing.
  brenneman ^{L} 11:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well apparently I may not just keep doing my own thing. There appears to be some mixed messages with regards to the purposes of these pages, but I think I'll say no more lest I say too much. - brenneman ^{L} 12:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to bite your fingers at this point (the e-version of biting your tongue), since the "only a clerk may do that" begs the question enormously. At the same time, Fred's right about one thing: the investigation into a big mess will be a big mess. That's a separate problem, though. No one knows who the Rfar is on or what it is about, so we all take our pick. I know it's about Tony, but it's also about Kelly, somewhat about James, somewhat about Giano, maybe about me. There is no way that I can foresee an actual decision being made, much less a remedy, given that the whole thing is a shotgun blast. Part of it is, as you've identified, "clerks." Part of it is, as Hamster Sandwich has pointed out, "who gets to lobby on the mailing list" (and "can recused people still be arguing on the secret mailing list?"). The hundred places where "Trust us: it's for your own good" is breaking down are showing up, and that's combined with very specific people doing very specific misdeeds. In Tony's case, we can say that it's "progress," but it's progress toward where he should have been at the very outset of being an admin. The rest of us don't block like that, and no one else would act like that and still be an administrator 9 months later. Kelly's behaviors have been abominable, as well. So, we all take our individual angles, and the result, I fear, will be dissipated force. Geogre 16:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't understand how the arbitration committee groupthink works. What could can possibly come of failing to specify the parameters? I'll not venture into speculating why we need a class of editors to ease the burden of arbitration by doing grunt work and providing summaries, but that normal editors are now forbidden from doing so. I shall however begin doing my homework prior to the next arbcom pseudo-election, presuming that we have one.

I'm hoping Nandesuka will run again, and I'll be pushing him hard if he tries shirking. You have said in the past you are not keen to run, I'd like to officially begin lobbying you on that. I'd also be keen to hear whom you'd like to see on the committee.

As to the "diffusion," it's word smog, it's an effective tactic in this milieu, and I'm past caring if it is by design. The iron grip of good faith means that I must not presume further. I can only note with dismay how much effort is spent now on the discussion of the issue of consensus vs. supermajority. This is an argument that has exactly one proponent. If the oddly imperious, inconsistent and inflexible higher powers won't stop it, I suppose simply ignoring the less relevent sections is the only alternative.

brenneman ^{L} 03:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Put down the tiara and step away from the cheerleader

Aaron, would you consider taking a step back from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop#Statement_by_Tony_Sidaway? Tony's statement seems genuine and I know you two have more backstory than a Russian novel, but challenging his sincerity at this moment seems most likely to cause him to backslide. What we want is forward motion, not rocking the boat or reversal, eh? -- nae'blis 19:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying for "forward motion," and if since it looks like I'm not I shall reconsider my approach. I'll stop posting to the page(s) until you tell me otherwise. But I'd ask two things of you as well:

• Show me the diffs where I've stepped furthest out of bounds, and
• Let me raise with you any issues that I think are being missed.

I appreciate you taking the time to raise this with me, and as always I value your advice.
brenneman ^{L} 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid getting dragged into the whole morass there, but if you want to vett language past me for unintended subtext, that'd be fine with me. As for wording where I think you were out of bounds in that thread:

• "...it would be easy for the above statement be taken with, as someone notable in her absence said, "a cowlick of salt." - This looks like you're quoting KM (though I'm not sure if that's the her), and in any case being the first commenter on Tony's apparent mea culpa makes your voice commensurately louder than all who come after. Casting doubt on it from the get-go isn't assuming much good faith. I don't think even you would argue that Tony doesn't mean what he says when he says it.
• "I'd find it easier to believe this if it were accompanied by something more solid. For example, asking the arbitration committee directly to apply some of the remedies on offer would be a good start." - This looks like a kick in the ribs. Tony is /appears to be trying to take this seriously and you asking for him to submit to a Scarlet C or sit in the stocks won't make him feel any better about it. If he's going to change, it won't be because of the opinions of his detractors, I think we've established that as well. Tony seems to reply best to those he already knows calling him on the disparity between what he says he is doing and the apparent effect of what he's doing.
• "...This is not an attack, or a "tarring" but a simple statement of fact. Have a look at this statement by Tony Sidaway. ..." - It's also something you've said before, and many times over (maybe not that specific diff, but ones like it). I know it can feel vindicating to finally have Tony listening to others, and to try to repeat your points, but it's doubtful you'll convince anyone anew now by repeating old diffs, and it just makes you look like you're holding a grudge (which you're entitled to do, emotionally, I just am not sure it benefits this RFAr, remedy, or Tony's current viewpoint on his own behavior).

Feel free to reply here or on my talk page, as you see fit. If you'd like to bring up new things to run by me, probably post them on my talk page so I can respond sooner than when I check Special:Watchlist/User_talk:. Cheers. -- nae'blis 02:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're a legend, thanks for the above. I'll have a stew and see what I'll do different next time, and perhaps redact the statements. I'll reply here since I like to keep things together. - brenneman ^{L} 02:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Special Operations Command parachute team

The original site is a .mil site, which is US government, which makes it public domain. Do you mind if I revert your copyvio tag? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Very kind of you to ask. I've reverted, thanks for keeping me on my toes. - brenneman ^{L} 02:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Portnoy's cousin?

Look here [4]. Hamster Sandwich 02:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Age of Empires external links

Moved to Talk:Age of Empires#External links (October)

Nice

I really admire the way you summarized and closed up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanide and Happiness. That was a complicated situation, and your handling of it had great class. :) Thanks. --Masamage 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! - brenneman ^{L} 02:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh captain, my captain

Thank you. I'm verging on losing my cool, and it's nice how much better a chuckle at my own expense has made me feel. Do I get to pick my own cabin boy?
brenneman ^{L} 02:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But you can't kill and eat him if things don't go your way. Haukur 22:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Online creation and User:Jlambert

Aaron:

Mr. Lambert has been sternly admonished. I am hoping that the "more flies with honey than vinegar" approach works this time, but if not, the blockstick is ready.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak}
05:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate. - brenneman ^{L} 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Note(s) to self

These are here becaue I want to make sure that the solution will "Stick" before I know myself out over it. - brenneman ^{L} 13:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Special:Whatlinkshere/P-P-P-Powerbook done
• Special:Whatlinkshere/SGGS_on_meat done
• Special:Whatlinkshere/One_Piece_attacks - removed link from template, check back in a few days

templates

Make "I've changed the tag on [[Slumlord Productions]] from [[WP:CSD|"delete right now"]] to [[WP:PROD|"delete soon if not fixed."]]" into something with parameteres.

This is inactive.

My office.

Who

I'm here. - brenneman ^{L} 01:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can be a party to this. Where might we begin? Mackensen (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How

Presuming that anyone shows up for dinner, it's nice to have the table already set. So here's my initial thoughts on the running order. - brenneman ^{L} 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Three tremendously prolix editors in one spot might cause a tear in the space-time continuum if we're not careful. If everyone tries to keep it short and rhetoric free at first that would be great.
• We know that there is some areas of disagreement. Rather than going over them again, if would could start by finding that on which everyone agrees.
• These run at brenneman speed: glacial. It's good to be careful, and get things right. But as this is meant to be a containment scheme, keeping it here as opposed to spread everywhere is a must, even if it takes some time.

Seems to have been sorted out. - brenneman ^{L} 02:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment to SV

[5]. I am amused. JoshuaZ 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Unusual blocks

I'm terribly unimaginitive and prefer to keep conversations all on one talkpage if that's okay. My reply to your query is at User talk:Kylu#Unusual Blocks (well, until the page gets archived anyway). Hope that explains things. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Powerbook Deletion

Hi Aaron,

I noticed that you overturned the 'default to keep' AFD for the 'p-p-powerbook' article. I think that getting a second opinion would be good since the closing reason seems to rely on a bit of judgement and there is room for disagreement (like me! I think the sources are reasonable for the subject matter of the article). Would you consider restoring or going to deletion review on this one? novacatz 07:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! And feel free to call me "brenneman" when you're here. All administrative actions should be subject to good-natured review. I'll put it on DRV now. - brenneman ^{L} 07:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Now at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_4#P-P-P-Powerbook. - brenneman ^{L} 10:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reversed your reversal. Your reversal amounts to a decision to overturn the closure of an AfD because you feel the article should be deleted. This is no different than an out of process speedy, and is a serious abuse of administrative privledges. Phil Sandifer 13:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Snowy, longtime no speak. I must say, what the heck are you talking about? Are you sure you know what you're talking about? - brenneman ^{L} 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Was there a response to my concerns that I might have missed in amongst the perjorative nicknames and character assasination? Phil Sandifer 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, where to begin. I'll wear that I didn't make it clear that I was reviewing a close by a non-admin in my statement on the AfD. However, since you commented on the deletion review before rstoring (and I'll spare you the link to your contributions) if you had taken even the slightest care you'd have known that. Let me see if I've got this timeline right:

1. First you incorrectly blast me here for overturning an admin. (13:07)
2. Then you comment at the deletion review. The one that starts out "I deleted this upon review of a non-admin close." (13:08)
3. Then you restore the article. (13:13)
4. Then you come back and alter your comment to change your mistake. (13:14)

I think that about covers it. Is there any part of this account that I've gotten wrong? I'm always happy to be corrected.

brenneman ^{L} 13:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Parsssseltongue

Hi,

I disagree pretty strongly with your encouragement to this editor to consider continue to close AfDs. AfD/DRV is contentious enough; reading the capacity of non-admins to close broadly (or, gulp, IARing it) is an invitation to headaches and frequent deletion reviews. It's my view that, once an editor has exceeded his authority in closing unclear debates, he/she should be prohibited from closing anything prior to gaining adminship. I came to his page to tell him as much, found your note, and know that I need to discuss this with you first. A user who redirects his userpage to a version of IAR isn't somebody who needs encouragement of his boldness. Your thoughts? Best wishes, Xoloz 23:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming around! Yeah, I'm well aware that I'm on the outer with respect to non-admin closings, and I left a note with SamBlan telling him I'd worded up Parseltongue and asking if he wanted to counteract my advice.

I understand what you're saying about the potential for making a mess. There is clearly truth in it (he says looking at DRV/Log/2006 October 4.) I think about in like this:

1. Admins are normal users with extra buttons and experiance,
2. It's the experiance bit that counts,
3. You learn things form study, but also from stuffing up,
4. Better to have them stuff up when it's easier to fix.

Either Parseltongue will sort himself out (e.g. learn form the experiance) or not. If he does, then everyone benefits. If he does not learn anything then when/if he requests promotion, the "disgusting rabble" (or whatever the insult-of-the-week is) will have more information to base their decision on. I can see with hindsight that my laissez faire advice potentially impacts you, as the Duke of DRv, more than most. Sorry 'bout that mate.

Does that all seem resonable, if divergent from the norm?

brenneman ^{L} 23:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There's more than one way to learn from experience: if PT were warned against closings because he had mucked them up, perhaps he would quiet down and watch admins do the job. This one series of incidents is enough "educational stuffing up" in my view. What troubles me is his somewhat defiant tone on his userpage, and his reference to that inexplicable mystery, WP:IAR, as a justification. He's a rogue, and he isn't even an admin yet. Aside from the fact that this would bring vigorous opposition from me in any RfA, I don't think he's learned well from "stuffing up" unless he does a better job of acknowledging his failures.

Still, I'll consider him under your tutelage, and come (mildly) complaining to you again if he fills another DRV log with his stuffing. :) Wiki-love, Xoloz 02:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should not prohibit him from closing, but I for one have put his contributions to Wikipedia-space into my favourites, and will be checking for any discrepancies. Daniel.Bryant 01:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Rory096 RfA

Hey Aaron, just checking that you're not off your meds again; oppose or support, which is it? :P -- nae'blis 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Cyde's talk page

Aaron - Cyde happens to hold a different opinion than you do, on a topic where well-meaning users can disagree.

Even though I happen to disagree with Cyde, we did have a polite, productive discussion on IRC about it tonight, wherein he explained his views (and I found them reasonable). I happen to agree with you, Aaron, but I don't think the sarcastic comments are helpful. Raul654 00:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn you for being right. While I find his method of communication infuriating, my irritation should not lead me into snark. Thanks for the tune-up. - brenneman ^{L} 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

On G11 deletions

Duplicated at User_talk:Improv#deletion_of_Tim_Tam.2C_tim_tams.2C_etc

I like to keep discussions together, so I watch any page I comment on. - brenneman ^{L} 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You have one guess.

The more I read about DELETION of CRITICAL INFORMATION on the article I referred you to, the more convinced I am that my hypothesis, though farfetched, is plausible. Can you swing by and un-ruin the article? Nandesuka 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Insult as requested above.

You think you're a god, but you're truly not, Aaron,
You're smelly and ugly as my cousin Karen. Ral315 (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh that was terrible! I love it. - brenneman ^{L} 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Arnott's Biscuits Holdings

Well I can try to bring it to standard, but I work full time now and am not a slack Uni student anymore ;). - UnlimitedAccess 05:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion of Get The Picture Corporation

Mooved to User_talk:Search4Lancer#Get_The_Picture_Corporation

AfDs

Thank you for your input. I really will proceed differently in adherence to policy in the future. But I have to say, with all the discussion this is provoked, I am glad I did it. Maybe there can be some positive changes. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you have a look at this?

See User:Friday/Sandbox. Dunno if this is a good idea or not. To me, Cyde's behavior (namely, incivility and improper blocks) is a problem, but then again it'd be easy for me to think so, given some of the things he's said to me. I don't believe that Cyde sees his behavior as a problem at all, so perhaps it'd help him see it, if he saw that sufficient numbers of other editors agreed (assuming they did agree.) Anyway, feel free to have a look, edit, tell me I'm crazy, or whatnot. Friday (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oy vey, it is the season I suppose. I logged on just now considering what dispute resolution options were available. I'm not going to over edit this next bit, it's a free text field. - brenneman ^{L} 00:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1) to seek broader input. 2) improper blocking and civility. 3) Probably not. However, if an editor were to see evidence that their conduct was considered inappropriate by a broad range of users, I hope they would seek to modify that conduct. (This hope may be entirely foolish.) Friday (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please edit this section

1. What will the solution to this look like? What is the perceived problem here? (Actually, this should go first. Done.)

   1. improper blocking and civility This should be something everyone can agree on.

   2. That cyde will be able to do normal admin work without being harrased, that he's just doign his job, while friday and aaron both state they are concerned only with issues of conduct
      • That cyde will be able to do normal admin work without being harrased. that cyde feels harrased by friday and aaron, that he's just doign his jobMoved better version up.
      • friday and aaron both state they are concerned only with issues of conduct
        • "issues of conduct" == WP:WEASEL. What issues?
          1. that blocking is applied responsibly
          2. that civility</> wrong word. write wikipedia word but not a real word
2. What is the purpose of a request for comment in general? (What tool is this?)
   1. to seek broader input
      • Chapter and verse: "identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart"
        • So, what's the common ground here? This can be a good place for "what wil the solution look like?" This should have come first.
          • That there are clear boundries for behavior to insure that those editors who are damaging the encyclopedia will cease doing so, or be blocked.
      • Chapter and verse: "Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first."
        • That could probably be tried again.¹
3. Is there a good fit between these two things?
   1. Probably not

Comments

1. Perhaps not by me, though. Having someone look over my last attempts and slap me for my mistakes is a good start, and doesn't require Cyde to do anything. - brenneman ^{L} 02:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, make that please look over what I've said to or about Cyde, any onlookers. All polite critcism welcome, even rude criticism in the form preferrred by the page. - brenneman ^{L} 04:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple comments on his talk page yesterday were probably unhelpful. (But, it looks like you realized this too, hence the apology). However, I'll admit I find it hard to take seriously any editor who removes criticism from their own page without comment. I try to make it a habit to not address an editor anymore once they've done that- however I've broken my own rule countless times. I'm a hopeless optimist (is that even possible?) and I always assume that a previously-unresponsive editor could suddenly become responsive at any time. Anyway, I thikn I'm just babbling now. One possibly relevant point tho: if someone expressed concerns to an editor, and they delete them without comment, this shows that dispute resolution has been attempted, and it (IMO) shows that further attempts to resolve the issue with that editor are unlikely to succeed. Friday (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA#Discussion_.28for_expressing_views_without_numbering.29

AN

I suggest you examine and recognize trolling for what it is and not tell me to be quiet again.--MONGO 06:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You big lug-head, let us presume that this person is in fact simply being disruptive. Stop giving him ammunition. If you think someone is not genuine, don't engage them. If you can't be arsed to respond politely (which you are under no obligation to do) then don't respond rudely (which you are under obligation not to do.) I'm always happy to field questions from "obvious trolls" so just ignore him and be done with it. Ok? Then you've lost nothing (it takes even less time to do nothing that to delete comments.) And, on the verly slim chance you're wrong about this guy, I can make him happy. - brenneman ^{L} 06:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, I was trying to get you to stop talking so that I did not have to remind you of your obligation to be civil. - brenneman ^{L} 06:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How did you get the links at the top of your talk page when it is open for editing?--MONGO 06:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For having to deal with an ogre like me.--MONGO 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncalled for

Duplicate comments at User talk:Urek
I like to keeop converstaions together. - brenneman ^{L} 06:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but how will you know if I add things to my talk page? Is there a way to get new message indicators from other pages? Urek 06:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page, and I'm unsure if it is possible to get new message indicators for someone else's page and so I am alerting you here. Urek 07:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your talk will be on my watchlist so if you leave a meaningful edit summary I'll see that. I also go over my contributions regularly and it's easy to see "top" if I've made the last response to a page. I'm going to log off pretty soon, so I'm hoping that the heat has been taken out of this at least for now. - brenneman ^{L} 07:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit offended, but wouldn't describe myself as angry. I applaud your attempts at helping us find a resolution. I don't quite understand the watchlist, do you have a reference for it? Does it leave me orange notices like when someone leaves me a message? I've been reloading tabs in my browser to check for changes. Urek 07:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is actually working out nicely: The mechaincs discussion over here, the issues discussion over there! The linked page above explains the watchlist far better than I do. In practice, I keep my wathclist open in the far left-most tab, and refresh that. I only ever open pages from it with a right click, so my watchlist is always there. I must go off line now, I appreciate your patience. - brenneman ^{L} 07:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Have a nice night and thanks for the help. One last question for when you sign back on-line, is there a way to generate message triggers like for the talk page, but for my watch list? Urek 07:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, because some of our fellow editor's watchlist is too huge (4-5 figure lists). But recent changes will bold the page you have watched whenever there is a change by another editor. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

JJay

JJay has been very disruptive, and doesn't contribute content to any articles. This recent edit, [6], in which he changes your sig so people can't contact you says it all. I believe an RfC might be in order. Futher he has done this to my own edits[7] often. --Arbusto 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

JJay can also be a valuable contributor. He drives me mental and we agree on almost nothing, this is true. But he's passionate and prolix. The desired outcome is that everyone can contibute without friction. That may be difficult. - brenneman ^{L} 00:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? I haven't seen him add sources to ANY articles. What articles has he contributed substance to? --Arbusto 00:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd ready to take this to an rfc if you're willing to help. Arbusto 04:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently working on some changes to the way user request for comment works. Because anyone who's ever been involved in one will agree that they usually don't. Until then, unless JJay can be engaged in productive discussion (which should always be the first through fifth steps) I don't think it would come to much good. I'm still thinking. - brenneman ^{L} 04:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Laura Angel head shot

Moved to User talk:Jaiwills

TawkerbotTorA

I don't see what harm it does, so I can't say that the specifics of what Jimbo said matter. It seems to be a job that needs to be done. I can't reconcile the oppose arcuments with WP:AGF; they all boil down to "Talker and/or Werdna secretly want to get a bot with a sysop flag so they can do whatever they feel like without community approval." -- SCZenz 01:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, basically the same thing on my part. I respect both you and Tawker immensely, but basically this is a case where we're trying something new. It's an experiment, let's give it a chance. --tjstrf 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does the experiment need to be conducted? At 200-300 blocks a month, if you drop the list on my and Aaron's talk page once a month, we'll clear it between us in what, 20 minutes maybe? It's not been thought through properly, already attempted via smoky backroom conversations (see the comment by Werdna where clearance from Jimbo was sought in a top secret conversation on IRC), doesn't actually need to be done and, most of all, is a technically seductive solution to a problem that need not exist. -Splash - tk 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot

I will digest this and chime in sometime tomorrow evening, probably. Nandesuka 01:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help in clearing this up, I appreciate it. I'll be on hiatus a few days for business reasons, but I had a couple of questions/requests.

• First off, I'd like to see mediation w/ MONGO at some point in the near future.
• Second, I wonder if you could explain to me exactly what happened. Is this community really so arbitrary that someone can be summarily executed just by the whim of an administrator? I thought the rules said otherwise. I hadn't even broken any rules and one of MONGO's chums decided to ban me forever? How does that work, and what actions are being taken to discipline the administrator who abused their power?

I'm a bit disheartened already about this project, and will probably go back to lurking to some degree, at least for a while until I figure out exactly what happened. From my point of view, Wikipedia looks like an Encyclopedia run by a group of thugs. I hope this isn't the case, but what would you think if you wandered into a book store, only to be assaulted because you asked a manager a question.  :-/ Urek 17:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm back and touching base. Any comments on the above? Urek 23:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm replying to this here (despite having just left a message on your talk) since I like to keep discussions together. There are several factors at play here.

• Firstly, MONGO recently experianced a fairly intersting time with regards to being mentioned on another website. It linked his user page and encouraged people to, erm, visit and comment.
• Secondly, your contributions are a couple of standard deviations outside the norm.
  • If you go to the top of this page there's Special ADN. Click the "N" and you'll get contributions by "noobs." Have a browse and compare.
  • You've only got like fifteen main space contributions, but quite a few more outside article space.
  • You're quoting policies and guidelines chapter and verse, using the shortcuts
• Penultimately, you're a persistant bugger.
• Finally, you've asked about something which is always controversial. "Normal" users can't protect their own pages, and in the past there has been some heated debate on this issue.

Add all these up, and MONGO connected the dots and decided that you're here to hassle him instead of contribute to the Encyclopedia. This was not an entirly unreasonable conclusion for him to draw. While I choose to handle things differently, I can empathise with his response.

My advice is to write it all off to bad luck, misunderstanding, and miscommunications. In general this is a warm and welcoming space, particularly for those who spend more time writing articles (or reverting vandalism, or finding sources for things, or whatever) and less time on pages starting with "Wikipedia:" I hold steady at about 30% article contributions, and any time I get cross with things, I just go and do some article clean-up and I feel heaps better.

brenneman ^{L} 00:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten about your getting blocked. This was a mistake,, but again an easy one to make. You saw MONGO's "troll" response as being about you, JzG saw your response as pointless argumentation. Which doesn't means it didn't get right up your nose. I've been blocked, and it's frustrating as hell. But most of the mistakes we (as admins) make are quicky reversed, and we can only beg indulgance. I myself made a similar error in the very recent past.

brenneman ^{L} 00:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like something ought to be changed if this sort of diplomacy and greeting via bazooka is common. Urek 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Age of Empires II units

Hey Aaron, I was wondering if you could offer me some advice on the issue of AoK - the Age of Empires II page has all those horrible unit details that need to be rooted out like at AoE, and there's a discussion suggesting we should split the article into two. I'm not sure if the AoK units would justify their own article though, and as you're an admin I imagine you'd know whether this would be deleted or not. You can get back to us at the discussion page if you like. Thanks for your help! Richard001 23:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Noted, and I've commented there. Thanks for the message. - brenneman ^{L} 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Advice

Yeah...thanks. Remind me to give you tips on how to be a better administrator some time. And no, it wasn't an issue for the article talk page in my case. Him making a comment rather than a stupid edit would have been nice, but what, exactly, would be the point of me going "Aah! Someone...DID something to the page!" Nah. No thanks. I did that when I was just starting out. Serves no purpose and makes one look like an idiot. Also, I didn't just say "inappropriate edit". I explained the situation in detail. User by user, edit by edit, the comments are made on their talk page unless it's an issue for debate with the article. Does the listing of a confirmed character seem debatable to you? Now, you might have a soft spot for the user. Whatever. I don't care or judge. However, I'd rather you not come at me questioning my actions without a solid reason. Beyond the edit summary, I was in the right, if not polite. Urek user error. ACS calls user on their error. Peace throughout the land. Later. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll pass this on to someone else for a second opinion. And please feel free to give me any feedback on my administrator actions at any time. - brenneman ^{L} 04:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Preventing disruption

I hope you will try to give Geogre, Giano, and SlimVirgin the same advice you have given me (watchlisted you). --Ideogram 05:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the history of that page and observe that every time I am actively involved I effectively silence the debate for hours at a time. It is only when I am gone that people feel free to bait each other and the discussion gets heated. If you disagree with my assessment I would be happy to discuss it with you. If you agree with my assessment I will thank you to stop accusing me of being the locus of the disruption. --Ideogram 06:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Email

Why is your email off?--MONGO 07:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah. I knew I had forgotten something. - brenneman ^{L} 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A rip of the hat

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece attacks

Very sensible comments when closing that longwinded AfD, Sir. There's one slight surprise, however: This is, to some degree, a rip-off for the "defenders" of the article. Do you perhaps mean a tip(-off) (i.e. advice to concentrate on verifiability in the future)? Or conceivably you really do mean a rip-off; an apparently unfair (even if actually justified) removal. Either way, you might like to revise that one part of what you say, before questions and complaints come flooding in from people who're disappointed. Again, that bit aside, it's well written. -- Hoary 15:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, heading to redact now. - brenneman ^{L} 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Oh, and <snare drum> for the section heading. ^_^ - brenneman ^{L} 23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A gutsy close indeed. You should probably brace yourself for the DRV on that one. Good work though, that article really was a travesty in its existing state. --tjstrf 03:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc's comment

Well, I was vieweing Tony's talk page and I just saw that Doc came on there an made a random comment that pretty much just told you off, that was pretty much the reason I said that to Doc. Meh. Oh well. — Moe 18:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC) PS. Sorry it took me a while to respond, my computer doesn't have a mouse and it takes forever to move from one page to the other :(

Would you mind...

...taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Diane_Farrell? Specifically, the last lines from User:Francisx, "Aaron is being less than honest in calling me a vandal because he disagrees with me on the status of this article. Note that he has not hestitated to interject his personal political views into discussions in the past. I'm curious as to what other statements of mine Aaron is using to label me a vandal." He's been at this all day, but between this statement and his postings on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell (Second nomination), I think it's finally crossed over the line into intentional trolling. Regarding his quote, I used {{vandal}} with his name on WP:ANI for the usual reasons anyone would use {{vandal}} on AN/I: To provide quick links for the admins. I didn't label him a vandal in the text. As for "he has not hestitated to interject his personal political views into discussions in the past", he didn't cite it, and it's a WP:NPA violation regardless. It's just getting to be too much for me to let slide. So if you have a moment to look, I'd appreciate it. --Aaron 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (not you, the other one)

Main idea

• Good timing. I had just made a comment in one area of this thread, e.g. restorations and deletion review! I'll have a look. - brenneman ^{L} 00:49, 9 October 2006
  • I'll be responding to this one in quick snippets (since my connection is very bad today), so here's the first one: Every time I use vandal I think to myself " I really should use {{Userlinks}} instead, so that no one gets offended. - brenneman 9 October 2006
    • Oh, but this is avoided by using {{subst:vandal|Aaron Brenneman}} as you should always do anyway! Then the user never sees the potentially inflammitory tag. (I knew there was areson that I kept using it.) - brenneman 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think he only saw it because he looked at a diff of the page or saw the code when he opened AN/I to make a comment. I'm pretty sure I didn't refer to him as a vandal on AN/I, though I certainly told him elsewhere at least once that removing {{afd}} tags is vandalism (as it explicitly is per WP:VANDAL). But thanks for pointing out {{Userlinks}}! I wasn't aware of that one. --Aaron 01:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (not you)

      Duh, now I get what you're saying: subst = code, not tag. Of course! --Aaron 01:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Second one: it's always bad to have discussions split. Having a deletion review and a deletion nomination is as bad as it can get. One of these should be closed. I'd normally favour closing the afd, blanking and protecting the page with history intact. (See P-P-P-Powerbook.) Here though there's enough debate on the AfD that the other should probably be closed lest we get inconsistane results. - brenneman 01:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I can't say I disagree with you on that one bit, but it's Guy that launched another AfD. He's an admin, I'm not, and that = not worth arguing over. :) --Aaron 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (not you)
    • I've closed the deletion review thread. - brenneman 01:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, now that I feel like the loose ends are tidied up, I'll have a chat to this user. - brenneman ^{L} 01:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking over the discussions to date, I'm confident that it is a combination of passion, mangelating process, and misunderstanding. (Another in the apprently endless series, more the worry.) Could have been avoided by everyone going a little slower, taking a little more care, and talking more. - brenneman ^{L} 02:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tag removal vandalism

I've stuck this down here as it's a more general thing, and so as to not (further) muddy the waters. While the removal of tags (and in particular afd tags) is defined as a kind of vandalism, we should use caution.

• Often it's simply that very new users don't understand that it's a process, and think that if they disagree, they can say so by removing the tag. It actually introduces a bias towards deletion both by screening out people who are interested in the article and by prejudicing the afd crowd, but that's another story.
• In this case, there clearly was some dispute about the best way forward. In his edit summary the user pointed to the deletion review. An ill-advised edit, yes, but it appears to have been done "in good faith."

I tend to be very careful about calling people vandals/sockpuppets/meatpuppets/etc. I try to use words that reflect on the contribution, not the contributor, as much as possible. Rather than getting into it with someone over whether or not they are a "vandal" it's best to focus on the edits. Which in this case you've done, so I'm making general observations here. - brenneman ^{L} 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• No objections at all to anything you've done above, I intend to adopt your recommendations immediately, and I thank you for your help! One tiny quibble, though: Francisx's WP:NPA stuff calling me a liar and someone who edits for political purposes is still sitting on AN/I. The only thing I've got going for me here is my reputation (never been involved in any dispute resolution process anywhere beyond talk pages, with the exception of a single 3RR in my early days that was reverted almost immediately for being miscalculated - and even there the guy I was reverting turned out to be pretty much the troll I'd suspected; he ended up being block for 4 or 6 months by Arbcom on a totally unrelated matter a while later), and I really don't need stuff like that hanging around uncontested in the AN/I archives if I ever make a run at adminship (which I intend to do eventually). So while I'm not going to ask you to nuke it point blank, I would very much appreciate it if you'd look at those accusations, see if you can find any evidence that they are true, and act accordingly per WP:NPA and the general Wikipolicy on unsourced negative stuff. I don't think you'll find any evidence to back them up; as an example to prove otherwise, an AfD was just closed where'd I'd nominated eight separate articles for being part of a walled garden of spam, even though most of them were about books and people overtly supportive of my political party (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Ahead Publishing). But whatever decision you come to, pro or con, will be the end of it and I won't mention it again anywhere. I know I'm being a bit pushy, but like I said, my reputation is all I've got here; I don't ever hang out on IRC or the mailing lists or otherwise interact much with the "community", wherever it is. Thanks again... --Aaron 02:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I do undertand your concerns. And pushy? Please, like I don't know from kvetching. Try Special:Contributions/Aaron_Brenneman if you want to see pushy. But here I think you're letting it cut too close to the bone. Easy for me to say, I know, but I think most reasonable people will be able to see the context of the discussion. The number one skill you'll need to develop if you ever get promoted is the ability to ignore abuse. And don't be fooled: The community is here on-wiki, not IRC or anywhere else.
    brenneman ^{L} 02:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough; I trust you on this. I'll just forget about it. Thanks again for your help on this; I won't forget it. --Aaron 19:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (the other one)

• I mean, I will forget the AN/I stuff, but not forget your work here. Heh. --Aaron 19:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Brenneman, would you mind having a further look at Francisx (talk · contribs)'s edits to Diane Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? It's a month until elections, and s/he seems particularly emotionally tied to this article and election, and perhaps just isn't yet well versed in policy. S/he is deleting text sourced to reliable sources, and has engaged in edit warring, reverting two different editors reinsertion of the well-sourced material. This series of articles is going to need some watching, at least until s/he learns policies. In addition to accusing me of bad faith on the AN/I report, s/he has now done it again on the talk page at Farrell. So far, I do think it's just a matter of not understanding policy, so hopefully some guidance will help. Sandy 16:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Similar removal of sourced text from Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by a Connecticut (Cablevision) IP address, 67.86.109.24 (talk · contribs). And it's not even election time yet <sigh>. Sandy 19:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::I'm afraid I'll have to escalate Sandy's comment into a formal request that you semiprotect the page. It's already under attack by IP vandals "editors". *ahem* --Aaron 19:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC) See below.

How about if we give it some more time, continuing to try to educate them about policy via the talk page? It's better to educate new editors than to alienate them, and they probably just don't understand that they can't delete sourced text and insert improperly attributed statements. (There are now three of them, and there will be more.) A word to the wise from admins to help steer them may help, but I think it's early for semi-protection (which will certainly be needed eventually, as this appears headed for a heated one, as happened with Lieberman in the primaries). Sandy 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If Sandy's willing to watch the page, then that's fine with me. I agree though, that semiprotection is going to happen eventually. --Aaron 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But I will need help :-) I'm a very busy editor, and these articles aren't my cup of tea, nor do I know all the issues. I tried to bring peace to the Lieberman articles before the primaries, and it ultimately failed because of the desperate anons, who seem to think people read Wiki before deciding for whom to vote, and had to be semi-protected. The most we can hope for is to watch out for violations of WP:BLP on all candidate articles, and try to educate the newcomers to policy. Sandy 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have to admit I hate election articles like a sheep hates shearing. They are always a terrible pain in the tuches, but lots of people love them... *sigh.* Regardless, this editor seems to be responding positively and I'll continue to asnwer any questions they have. A big tip of the hat to Sandy, by the way, for the efforts to date. - brenneman ^{L} 22:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You tipped the hat too soon, Aaron, I hit the wall with this one. I tried, but perhaps I'm just naive, or overly optimistic, or just plain dumb ... I spent a bunch of time explaining that letters to the editor aren't reliable sources, the other editors do seem to be coming along, but Francisx accused me of inserting POV because I explained that letters to the editor don't cotton.[8]. She's heading over the top on Talk:Diane Farrell.  :-( Sandy 23:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Now that Francisx is engaging in blatant lying, I'm going to formally ask for you to take administrative action against this edit, or at least put the relevant {{npa3}} tag on the editor's user talk page so I can take it straight to WP:PAIN when this editor does it again. Specifically, I'm complaining about this line from User talk:Francisx#Diane Farrell et alia: "One poster, {User:Aaron} even stated on the first AfD Discussion page for Farrell that he 'would never vote for her.' I think that demonstrates rather heavy POV against this particular bio." Really? Well, Here's the first AfD. Compare it to my user contribution history and you'll see I was in the middle of a months-long Wikibreak at the time, and thus would have had a bit of trouble making any comment in that AfD whatsoever. And just to provide evidence that this isn't a mere mistake on the editor's part, here's the current one, which I did participate in. I didn't say anything remotely like "I'd never vote for her" there, either, nor on the DRV that you closed, nor on AN/I. Between myself and User:SandyGeorgia, this sort of thing has happened too many times from this editor to be mere mistakes. And I would like for you to take action appropriately. Thanks, --Aaron 00:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (the other one)

CT elections

Sheep to the shearing: the only good thing is it's over in 3 more weeks. Sorry to touble you, since I already left a message for FloNight about 12 hours ago; I don't know when FloNight will be online. In addition to the other issues, we now have a possible copyvio, with exact wording and structure from Farrell's campaign ads used to write an entire section on Christopher Shays. I discussed it on talk page, reverted it (correcting several other accumulated problems in the same edit, also discussed on talk); my removal was reverted and labeled "vandalism" [9] by Francisx (talk · contribs). Farrell's campaign ad is still on Shays' article, along with other poorly-sourced edits. I imagine Farrell would be thrilled, and Shays puzzled, about why Wiki carries Farrell campaign ads in Shays' article. I thought it important to correct it quickly, but I've been reverted. Sandy 07:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see my timing is bad with these trivial problems: I'm sorry about the larger imbroglio. I'll see if I can find someone who can help me out in the meantime. Heck, it's Wiki's problem, not mine, anyway. Best, Sandy 07:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Struck, misunderstood the joke from MONGO, and understand your reluctance about these messy election articles. Thanks for bringing it to the attention of ANI. Maybe when the Wiki admins finish fighting over incivility among themselves, one of them will find time to look at the incivility down here in the trenches, where we're trying to write an encyclopedia and keep Wiki out of BLP legal problems. Thanks again, and sorry for the trouble. Sandy

No need for you to apologize: it's not your problem. I guess I only ended up here because you were helping out the other Aaron. And I understand how it must be sapping you. I'm pretty disgusted, though, that I've had to put up with the accusations and incivility for a week, when Shays' or Farrell's pages aren't my problem. I was just following the rules and trying to keep Wiki out of a BLP mess, considering the New York Times coverage of Farrell's article. I guess I'll let them handle their own messes: I'm a busy editor anyway, to be dealing with the level of tendentious editing that allows someone to write an entire section from an opponent's campaign ads, while making accusations about me. Wiki's problem, not mine. But I don't understand why it happens, along with the incivility. "Warring editors" (plural): that's the slap in my face on ANI for trudging along down here in the trenches like a dumbo. I'm going to put a POV tag on the article, be done with it, and get back to work. Best, Sandy 11:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Online creation

I'm near 3RR, but please review the section of the talk page "Post-MUD" and the recent activity on the page. If my edit makes sense to you, some help would be appreciated. Nandesuka 02:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am always impressed by your terrier-like determination. - brenneman ^{L} 02:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, now I'm imagining myself wearing a little tartan cap and saying "Grrrrrrrrrrr! Grrrrrrrrrrr!" Nandoguka 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Block leakage

You might be right, if the user's IP didn't change after a reboot, or something. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL it happens :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

hello

hello - probably other people might have mentioned this, but did you know that the top bit of your page doesn't really work in Firefox - with the User Talk: Aaron Brenneman bit appearing on top of the 'Community', 'Deletion' etc. bits - i just thought that you might like to know.... Purples 12:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no else has ever mentioned it, damn them. And I'm using firefox right now... hmmm. Thank you.
brenneman ^{L} 12:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I noticed it this morning actually but thought it was a Linux bug, not a Firefox bug ;) I hope I am not damned for too long! Ansell 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

well hope that helped then! - sorry i'm too far too stupid to know what to do about it, but good luck anyway! Purples 12:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, and now that I see this in Netscape I can't believe that no one else has mentioned it to me. The pain! - brenneman ^{L} 22:52, 9 October 2006

I figured you were just making an artistic statement on the jumbledness of our modern world or something. But ya, it looks not at all the treat. Oh, check your mail. ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it for ya...added top:60px!important; to each entry, which only FF reads. IE ignores it. So, it looks good in my Firefox 1.5 and my IE 6 under XP. It ought to work on other platforms, I hope. T'would be nice if, some day, IE and Firefox could just implement a standard the same way. --InkSplotch 03:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

By the by, your (page) nesting instincts scare me. --InkSplotch 03:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't look at my pages then. "IE and Firefox could just implement a standard the same way. " ... as if! And Aaron, STILL check your mail, you pommie wannabe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tankred

Thank you for your message.[10] But can you advise me please what I can do with the personal attack warning templates that User:VinceB put on my talk page after I filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VinceB? I believe he/she violated the Wikipedia policy while using these templates because I have not commited any personal attack (as I explained here and User:PANONIAN supported here). It was clearly VinceB's revenge. I am afraid he/she will ask to block me just because I have those templates on my talk page. But I do not know if it would not be a case of vandalism if I remove them. I do not know what to do. Do you think you can help me somehow? Thanks a lot in advance. And if you need explanation or clarification of any of my actions in the past, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. I hope this dispute will be over soon. Tankred 15:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thread moved to User talk:Tankred#Personal attacks. All replies directed there.

These buttons are easy to hit...

• '''Bold text'''
• ''Italic text''
• [[Link title]] -help -"talk:"
• [http://www.example.com link title] -use backlinks detector instead
• == Headline text ==
• [[Image:Example.jpg]]
• [[Media:Example.ogg]]
• $Insertformulahere$ -User
• Insert non-formatted text here -User
• #REDIRECT [[Insert text]]
• <s>Strike-through text</s>
• <div style='text-align: left; direction: ltr; margin-left: 1em;'>Left-aligned text </div>
• <div style='text-align: center;'>Centered text</div>
• ^{Superscript text}
• _{Subscript text}
• <small>Small Text</small>
• <!-- Comment -->
• <gallery>Image:Example.jpg|Caption1 Image:Example.jpg|Caption2 </gallery>
• <blockquote>Block quote</blockquote>

Information Builders

OK, thanks muchly. Is it just me or is some of this deletion mania a bit overboard? Gzuckier 14:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Brian Anderson Entry

I have updated his entry and will do more when I get a chance. Thanks. Caudell34 16:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A note

Whither those who come only to reprove,
But the adminbacklog tag from CAT:CSD you did remove

In future meetings I do proffer the advice
that commenting it out would suffice

-- Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Gilmour Academy

Moved to Talk:Gilmour Academy#Removed image

Don't be lazy after you told someone else off for doing the same thing!

Clean up redlinks from Re-evaluation Counselling Resources Site

RfB With A Smile :)

Refactoring

Moved to User_talk:Trödel#Sorting_of_pseudo-votes

Mind your head(er)

I made another small change, when I noticed that white block div you had to cover official messages. I hadn't applied my firefox fix to it before. You might want to check it in IE and Firefox to make sure things still look like you'd intended (don't forget ctrl-F5 forces a reload, ignoring cached info). I hope this helps, else I'll stop poking about now, promise :) --InkSplotch 21:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pax Cydeicia

Cyde is a woman. Thumb through block logs for about five minutes and you will figure that out. (Hint: the blocked user was named something like "WHO WILL HAVE THE BALLS TO BLOCK ME?") Fredil Yupigo ^{What has Wikipedia become?} 23:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete my comments

Moved to User_talk:Ghirlandajo#C.27mon

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --MONGO 07:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You bastard. That gets me every time, right up until I see the signature. Which I suppose means that I am not keeping my nose as clean as I should. - brenneman ^{L} 07:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. Guilty conscience. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

oh, crap, I fell for it. Scratch my message above. Sandy 07:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I already had my flame war message written and ready to go, but apparently I'm too sleepy to figure out what is jest and what isn't. I should go to bed. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

...HA!--MONGO 07:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris Shays -- Sorry !

I really don't like going to Admins like this (especially if they don't like US politics!), but I feel I need to correct a significant misrepresentation. What Sandy terms "campaign ads" are reliably-sourced quotations from Chris Shays that articulate his views on the Iraq War issue. They are provided without prejudice, POV or commentary. Sandy seems to feel that they constitute an "attack," and has said that they are taken out of context. I have encouraged her to place those quotes in context or provide more information, and yet she has not done so. Frankly, I do not understand her concern or see why she feels this is "Democratic Camapaign Material." I do, however, regret having my hard work summarily reverted, as happened here.[15] So as not to waste your time, I won't continue this argument on your talk page, but I don't want you to have any misconceptions about the situation.Francisx 07:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Lack of civility and failure to assume good faith continues.[11] Sandy 21:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Harvey Jackins

I deleted your box remarks on the Harvey Jackins page because of what looked to me like a very POV "RC is a walled garden" statement - have you had contact with RC, or is this due to something else? The HJ page has been worked on, and argued over, for a long time and includes a good deal of research, some of it very anti-him and anti-RC, so it is not a fluff piece. Can you say why you made this statement? I note that it follows a very similar use of that phrase from another user on the re-evaluation counseling page. Thanks. MarkThomas 07:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)