User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/5

You and Tony

Is there anything that I, or anyone else, could do to help mediate/ameliorate this situation? I like both you guys and hate to see the bad blood. Both of you, I know, sincerely love the encyclopedia and have done many great things. If there is anything I could do, you have but to ask. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sympathy

I lost all hope when I saw there was now an ArbCom clerk chair; I've briefly returned to fix some stupidity, and now find who the other clerks are. I see why you've left. My advice: just tidy anonymously, if you wish, or just find something else to do. I've also noticed, with humor, the dustup at AfD, and the crazy threats there. Good show even trying. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Come on, feel better.--Sean Black (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

Flameviper12

Thanks for fixing my Flameviper12 (talk · contribs)-related error over at WP:AN/I :S Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC against Tony

See also my version, here. I would like to keep it solely about wheel warring, which is the main issue anyway, and about which there is broad agreement. Other things may be dealt with later, I would think. But whichever :) I must go to bed now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I would argue my version is a bit better, and more conforant to the style, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. But now I really must be asleep. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind

I need to reply to your last post in longer terms. But sleep is needed - so just, never mind. You were not the one creating vile userboxes, and making silly remarks on an RfC (and they are still doing that). Much has been said all round, not least by me, that woud be better unsaid. Some have enjoyed trolling, some have revelled in victimhood and some of us have lost sight of the encyclopedia. Nothing seems broken that can't be fixed. So peace from me, if it is reciprocated. --Doc ^ask? 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Your RfA

Thank you, no. I am no longer participating in any aspect of the Wikipedia community. This includes, most especially, requests for adminship. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I said that last time

I honestly don't know where i'd be without you recently, never lose faith in yourself, this place needs you. As long as I've got a shoulder to lean on with you, you can expect the same in me. There are certain people around here that make that necessary sometimes.

Oh, if you know anybody on here from the Boston area who has a cheap car, please let me know, I was in a car accident yesterday, and I need new wheels ASAP. Karmafist 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA- additional questions that I felt should be asked here.

I'm not real familiar with your contributions, but I know that controversy occasionally swirls around you. My main question is, do you feel that you can remain civil during discussions? I ask because one of your endnotes is titled "Idiots", which could be construed as a personal attack. I'm curious as to what your opinion is on this. Ral315 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Round two

Your second RfA seems to be going better than the first...

Goog luck, but it looks like you won't need it. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good luck

I'm pleased to see your RFA is going well. The talk page discussion made me think of something. I'm personally grateful for your "hounding" of Tony, altho I'll admit it's gone too far at times (as has he). For every one of him we have, it'd be nice to have one or two of you around to keep things balanced. Friday (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A sorta rhyming thing

My "five minutes" yesterday were even briefer, as I only took the time to vote for you. In honor of you, and your likely adminship, I'll try this, with advance apologies for my idiocy:

Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/11

Best wishes, Xoloz 16:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the rhyming bit is fine, but where's the offensive characterisation, I ask you?

My turn for a soon-to-be-admin smackdown:

Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/12

Much narstier, I think. Nietzsche quote nicked from The Case of Wagner, which is must reading for the budding foulmouth. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 19:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dia duit, mo chara

Brenneman! Sorry, me bonnie lad, but after seeing your RfA I couldn't help myself from saying hello and good luck. Cheers, fellow: may the adminship stick to you like eggs to a dashboard. Blackcap (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to your RfA

First, I wanted to say that I really appreciated the invitation to your RfA, given that I'd voted in opposition before. That's highly laudable! Second, It appears to be sailing through without problem. Were I to comment/vote, I doubt there would be much that I could add that would have any significance, given the comments made already. As you may know, I don't lightly vote, and it's time consuming for me to evaluate people with significant editing histories such as yourself. Given that there's probably little that I could add to the discussion, and given that I am horribly wiki-backlogged in terms of signficant requests (I'm still doing little stuff, but major things are waiting in the wings), I'll have to decline the invitation. --Durin 19:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

Cheers, Aaron. Replied on my talk page since that seems to be the happening place for it... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD via RfA

Just happened to run across your question to RedWolf24 due to his talk page being on my watchlist. Looking only at the five links you provided, my take on it is that it's no big deal in and of itself for most of a person's contributions to be to AfD. Of course, if the content or tone of those are off, it could be a problem. If that's the issue, I'd say focus on that rather than the fact that the user chooses to concentrate on AfD. I think people are helpful even if they only concentrate in a narrow area, like RC patrol, AfD, etc.

Again, I've only reviewed the links you provided. I haven't reviewed the user's actual contributions to AfD, which as far as I know could be basically trolling (like some of the folks who were voting oppose on every RFA for a while). If all the user ever does is provide "diluted" or "devalued" AfD votes, you might look into the sentence in WP:SOCK which states "neither a sockpuppet nor a brand new single-purpose account holder are a valid member of the Wikipedia community." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

aka JJay

In response to your question, I don't feel that your actions were 'bullying', intimidation or harassment, and the idea that you were considering an RFC is clearly a misunderstanding. However, there are a couple of points I'd like to make. I don't really find anything wrong with your initial message to JJay. However, from JJay's reply it should have been clear that he didn't appreciate you questioning his editing patterns, and I think the sensible thing to do would have been to leave it at that.

I take it from your comment to Zoe that you also had a problem with JJay's idea of citing sources. This seems to me a much more serious problem that spending lots of time on AFD, so why did you not mention this in your message to JJay? I can't find anything about this on his talk page.

On an unrelated note, I do like your formatting of your RFA page, and especially your use of footnotes. Great idea. Raven4x4x 01:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Template Speedy Delete

I notice you tagged Country alias Caribbean as a possible speedy delete because "restates title only". I agree with you, it should be deleted. When I created it, I meant to be making Template:Country alias Caribbean (which works for a bunch of wikicoding). Thanks, Josh 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aaron

Today will be a beautiful day, if you only let it happen! Be happy, Aaron! Kisses, Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well dear Aaron, should you happen to need some help with that, you only have to ask ;) Btw, I just learned about your RfA - I'm heading right there at light speed! Kisses, Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) PS. Wikilove is a must when you miss a friend *Hugz*

heh, We've been scooped!

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Suspension, start reading here. We can probably bend this to incorperate your ideas. (and take out some bad ones :-) ) Kim Bruning 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Discussions_for_adminship is where things are moving to. I'm highballing it a bit. See if you can help out! :-) Kim Bruning 00:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:PAIN

Yea, I kind of figured. I just don't know where else to go. That particular user is especially vitriolic and certainly needs to be looked at. --BWD 01:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mind having a look?

Hey, from a neutral party, would you mind having a look at John Negroponte and tell me what your overall impression of it is, neutrality-wise? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already added the tag and it had gotten removed. I've fixed my talk page now too. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Review on Centralized Discussions

Good evening, Aaron. I just reverted your link on the centralized discussions page. I did that because it seemed too ambiguous. There are several discussions going on simultaneously on that one page. I could not immediately figure out which topic or debate was being advertised. If I couldn't easily figure it out (and I follow that page quite closely), it seemed that it would be a disservice to new participants to ask them to join the discussion at the top of the page. When you put the link back, would you please do so with a section-link directly to the debate that needs outside participation? Or perhaps frame the question in a stand-alone subpage? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Signatures

Thanks, that was exactly what I wanted to know! --Telsa (^(t)(c)), who will now doubtless make about eight different versions before settling again on Telsa (^(t)(c)) 14:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mesh Computers

You seem to be having fun yanking my chain on this one, but it still doesn't alter the fact you got it wrong. *wink* Hiding talk 16:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mesh Computers have won prizes;

Is that notable? It's divisive!

Can we agree or shall we argue?

A question upon which we must chew.

Okay, it's awful, but it's verse... Hiding talk 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Solidarity

Thanks bro, I wonder what will come out of this -- if we can finally get a rule of law here, or the caste system will solidify and certain people will be above policies. Everyone seems to have forgotten here that Jimbo was Wheel Warring here, yet it's ok for him to do so for some reason.

Eh, whatever. I have alot of things going on outside here now, so it's not as big a deal as it was before. It's just unfortunate that if a caste system does solidify in the next few days/weeks/months that eventually Wikipedia will be eventually be destroyed by someone powerful in the real world who was inadvertently screwed by the caste system here. Karma's a bitch, it always comes around in the end... Karmafist 17:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• As an aside from a nosey parker, how would one go about pointing out the Emperor has no clothes on? Hiding talk 18:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How gutsy are you? ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It appears the best I can do is timid suggestions. Hiding talk 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's a good suggestions. Where I work, missives from the CEO tend to not be paid attention to much, but at least they'd be in writing... ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to offer an alternative possible outcome: That, having collectively realised that there does exist a problem with the unfettered admin, a system (if if only a social one) of greater accountability and responsibility rises. That Jimbo made the correct move, however heavy-handedly, and that this is in fact the brightest sign we've seen in the last six months... but of course it could go either way.
brenneman^(t)(c) 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's certainly something to hope for! ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mathematician

If you're a mathematician, could you please help me with my hurricane formula on my userpage? Also, can you tell me what you think of it on my talkpage or if any changes should be made.Icelandic Hurricane 22:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

50/50/50

Half the time I agree with you totally, half the time I disagree with vein-popping strength, half the time I have no idea what you're saying. You're either a lunatic or a genius, or perhaps both. Keep up with those good, independant thoughts.
With regard,
brenneman^(t)(c) 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Same to you, I'm happy to be voting for you on RFA. I think we agree on most of the principles even if we don't agree on all the implementation. What's your Erdős number, Mr Mathematician? :) - Haukur 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Teenage wildlife forum

Can I draw your attention to Scan of The Complete David Bowie The scan (the front cover of the book) shows a mention of Teenage Wildlife(www.teenagewildlife.com) together with a quote from prominent forum member Dara O'Kearney.
Could you change your vote to keep?

Many Thanks —Fegchanges 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor

I know you can't help being nice to lost causes - but this one is really lost. See the evidence page of his RfAr (and ask yourself how much good faith there is in his actions), he's continued trolling since that was filed - creating two pedeophile userboxes since Jimbo deleted the first lot. He is an irrepressable troll, who is smart enough to push the right buttons to convince certain people he's a martyr for free-speech. His time on wikipedia is coming to an end, and since I like to champion you as a lost cause, ;) please don't let him drag you down. There are causes worth fighting here, this is not one of them.--Doc ^ask? 03:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Mr. Mathematician

Could you take a look at Volume? I've added a few things and I'd prefer if they were filtered by someone who actually enjoys math... :P Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay! It seems I've finally found out the way to keep you out of trouble... ;) I've found out that when I'm tired of Wikipolitics, I just go whack vandals, and it is a relaxing experience... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Leave that flower alone, you, You, YOU... mathematician, you!

That was the size he left ME on MY page, I wanted to give it back to him the exact same size! I've half a mind to start a revert war with you about it. (well maybe a third of a mind) Cheeky bugger. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

• Re: "Are you always a hilarious smartarse or was this an abberation?"
• Where: User talk:Herostratus

I don't know who you were talking to here, but it hardly matters to me at this point. My friend, I would encourage you to be a little more diplomatic in your choice of language. I don't care about anyone else, but Herstratus and Parox have acted with good intentions and with good faith. I intend to defend their reputations in this regard until I am driven from Wikipedia altogether. However, I'm not seeking confrontation, and do not intend to actively seek it. At this point I'm resuming my editing, sans anything to do with anything even remotely related to parahphilia. Perhaps we all need a little More Cowbell about now, including myself. Have a nice day. --DanielCD 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Over the last 24 hours, the whole wiki-world has been cryptic wirlwind to me. I completely failed to notice that a second userbox had been created. I am now thinking... we'll all pull out of this a bit stronger than we went in. --DanielCD 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Per your comments on another user's page: I wish I could have been a little more eloquent with my comments last night at the project deletion.

Also: I sense you are a fellow appreciator of things well put, and well said.

As a poet, I must critique you a bit, and I have to say it was the word hope. I might have buggered off at this juncture, but I clicked the link, expecting nothing other than a large boquet of flowers to pop onto my screen. But, alas! A deletion bureaucracy nightmare page! I'd say it turned the tide from confusion ... to another color of confusion. But that's what tripped me to make a comment; I've tracked it to that one factor.

I'm glad to see someone around here appreciates fine words well-strung. You should meet Erik Beckjord..! Seriously... --DanielCD 21:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

No,I got what you were saying right away, lol, thanks for the note. Yeah its true, a little humor helps quite a bit... I was a little frosted over the whole thing for about an hour, but enh, tempest in a teapot, whatever happens it'll all work out. Herostratus 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your nomination

was grudgingly (smile) accepted. I have filled out the page to the best of my ability, have at it with your sharp knives ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the reply! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A Poem for you (did my best with the rhyme)

Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/13

pschemp | talk 04:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/14 ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | talk 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me, as someone who opposed your nomination, be one of the first to congratulate you. I said I thought you could be a very very good admin. Please prove that part of my comment right! All the best, gadfium 05:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Our best wishes are with you. hydnjo talk 05:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Now I expect all those complaints about cabalism to stop, seeing as how your one of them now :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Trying an RfA after a week or so of an RfAr takes some guts. You have some BALLS, Sir, just for doing that. But to acutally come out of it with the sysop bit set on... impressive. I salute you with this flamethrower. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just remember to use your new flamethrower (+25) in a judicious and calm manner. Don't go blocking all the nervous users! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Aaron. Use the clarinets fairly and lawfully. ENCEPHALON 09:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me, as well. :) --Ashenai 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If the flamethrower doesn't work, use this MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb)...it's the end of the world as we know it anyway, with you being an admin...congrats!MONGO 06:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! Here's a collection of handy vandal-fighting weapons. I think the two on the right are clarinets. Good luck. --TantalumTelluride 06:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-09 08:42Z

Congratulations. And keep up the being nicer than me bit! (And if tempted to revert Tony, please at least discuss it first :)). --Doc ^ask? 08:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job on your (unconventional) RfA. I think in another day I would have switched from nuetral to support! Keep up the good work, and set a good example for us mere mortals. ;) Turnstep 12:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! -- DS1953 ^talk 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good on ya, lad! Use your powers wisely. *grin* Blackcap (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You made it! Hurray! -Will Beback 21:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Go jump in a lake!

Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/15 Kim Bruning 12:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

File:Beerlao.jpg

In congratulations for your successful RFA, I award you zOMG more imported beer!1! — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK)

'Tae a sysop'

Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/16

--Doc ^ask? 14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Welcome to the ranks of the admin! You should be getting your Cabal t-shirt and bumper sticker in the mail any day now. – ClockworkSoul 13:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me also! and don't believe the bit about the t-shirt and bumper sticker, they promised me the same thing, but apparently there is a backlog. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's about time. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no!

It's started! The world is going to end! ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Quick, take that one to DRV. File an RfC! Admin abuse, deletionist on the rampage. --Doc ^ask? 23:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure this should be brought to the attention of the ArbCom. And Jimbo. I've already emailed him, in triplicate. --Ashenai 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You deleted a page. The bots caught it. The bots don't lie... mwhahahaha Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can the bots tell me how to purge the cache of Special:Whatlinkshere/The_Real_World_(Detroit) so that I can be sure I've cleaned up after myself? - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything seems fine. For that, you might want to add a "purge" tab to your monobook. You can just steal it from mine... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

/*Clicks link*/ Ahhh! My eyes!! Cabal-code!!! - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You will be assimilated, resitance is futile. --Doc ^ask? 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, Aaron!

Drunken singing
For Brenny's a jolly good fellow *hik*...

Congrats, dear Aaron! Everybody, get a mug of beer! Brenneman's paying! Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 01:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Onion article

Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm still getting a hang of all the policies, and I wasn't sure which tag to use. --Aking 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Druid's foot

Oops, sorry about the mis-list as speedy. I thought for it fell under "unremarkable people or groups", since it's described as an "online community". Doesn't matter to me, AfD's fine too. Meanwhile, the user who created that page has been link-spamming all vaguely-related pages. Whee. Clean-up time. :( Csari 03:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Don't forget to delete talk pages after AFDs and speedies ;-) Tim | meep in my general direction 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh. Thank you. - brenneman^{T}{L} 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

So much to learn (for me too!) Tim | meep in my general direction 10:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:SamsungLogo.gif contact

Hi over there, I have noticed you left me a notce in my discussion page, i have removed it from my User page. You can go to Image:SamsungLogo.gif where it says there are no links to other pages. HappyApple 16:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Marianne Curan

Hi brenneman, thanks for your message. That seemed to be the general opinion of the admins that could see the content. I am happy to take your (collective) word for it. I will create a new stub when I have some time to do a bit of research. Thanks again. - N (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably a Typo

I think it's a typo. I'll fix that in a second. Thank you again for being during that tough time last week. Ultimately all it took was a realization to end the feeling I was having: I am the master of my own destiny, both on here and in reality(I'm on AOL at home, and I make 99% of my edits on a laptop, I likely have used more IPs than Tony has deletions under his belt). With that out of the way, I can do my best to help fix the real problem: the lack of respect between users on here. Also, I was wondering what you thought of my manifesto. Thanks again, and congrats again on your rfa. Karmafist 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discussions_for_adminship/Lar

May be a failed experiment, hasn't seen any action in a while. I'm OK with waiting to see what happens or whatever... thoughts? (you can reply here, I wikistalk your talk pages...) ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Colonel Xu

But the guy was on IRC ;-) Yay for instant communication... lol. But yea, I normally would do that (i think). Sasquatch t|c 03:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: 733t-ness

Totally awesome! That button creeps up on you, it's true. Anyways, thank you for restoring my uderscores. And good job on unsing your tools responsibly. So far :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

It didn't take you long to start abusing your tools to pursue your agenda, Aaron. Grace Note 02:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Abuse? That's funny. Friday (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't understand the speedy delete on Brian Peppers. I haven't been watching AfD very long, but it appeared to me that User:Hall Monitor posted that particular AfD as an attempt to gather some consensus. You closed the AfD early "without prejudice" in the event that consensus is eventually obtained to put the article back.

I don't understand what process is supposed to be used to acquire that consensus, if not AfD (and it looked to me like the AfD was trending towards a 'no consensus', which usually translates to 'keep' in a normal AfD). Is my thinking muddy? Could you enlighten me? -Ikkyu2 04:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the associated talk page. Which you forgot to delete (again).  :) Maybe you should let it hang around for a bit, so other people with the same question could eventually find their answer. Ikkyu2 04:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this time I left the talk page on purpose, to let people continue the discussion there. This has been talked to death, but a consensus had been reached. Further talk on the (not deleted) talk page. - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, I left a message on the noticeboard but it is easily missable so I thought I'd request here as well. I've read over the talk page and was unable to find anything about the status quo being deleted. But, it is likely I've missed it. Could you please direct me to this decision? Arkon 06:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to make you ask twice. I was referring to the deletion review. - brenneman^{T}{L} 06:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

You make a good point. I think the edges of the system are really being tested lately. --DanielCD 23:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Did someone close the AfD early? --DanielCD 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day, dear Aaron!

Happy Valentine's Day, my sweet dear Aaron!
Phædriel

Memory Alpha

I wanted your thoughts on this, I'm a little perplexed. Memory Alpha is a featured article; it also appears to fail WP:WEB. Hiding talk 10:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but... Maybe it's more than merely a website? Rather it's a reference first and a website second, and should be judged on those merits. (as I have argued elsewhere about other primarily reference sites) ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Always happy to see Lar's butt... err, I mean, please do continue to jump in with comments. I'm also torn by this article... it's introspective, but meticulously so. I'm having a good think, but I feel like one of those guys that spin plates on sticks right now.
brenneman^{T}{L} 12:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Aaron, had I known that, I would have sent you a valentine too! But watch out for Too much information! Ok, re MA: I admit I'm not good about following up on ideas and notions and suchlike once I half bake them, but see pghbridges.com and the associated AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pghbridges.com (including the talk pages) for some thoughts about reference sites and the applicability of WP:WEB to those sorts of sites. For me it's more quality than pure quantity. If the site is a source people rely on in a significant way, it doesn't matter if it ranks high in Google or Alexa, merely that the cites of the site you find in Google show that people (serious people, like librarians, academics, etc) DO rely on it. That's my thesis anyway. I need to do more about getting more people to think about it. The idea here is that WP is for researchers as well as general knowledge seekers and describing a site that researchers need isn't "promoting" it per se, it's making the researchers job easier. Now, MA probably has less "serious" research info than pghbridges (or structurae) but it's still solid research that gives sources, making it a reliable citation source. And I think that means that just randomly citing it via refs doesn't go quite far enough. That's my thesis anyway. (I raised it on the talk for WP:WEB too IIRC)++Lar: t/c 14:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am positing the thought that it's a source, but then the next question is, is it a reliable source? I've started a discussion germane to that question at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Other wiki's as reliable sources. I stumbled into this through User:JamieHari who linkspams the Marvel Database Project into comics articles, sometimes listing it as a reference. I then stumbled across Memory Alpha, and it makes you wonder if the article, no matter how well written, is either worthy of inclusion or featured article status. Whilst I'm not averse to sources being written up, you're right, we have to consider the value of the source and also the notability of it. Is it worth a rewrite of Wikipedia:Notability along the lines of WP:WEB and WP:CORP and put all these discussions at least on the right path? Hiding talk 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I say that I'm quite pleased to see sensible discussion taking place on my talk page? It leaves me with the impression that I'm hanging out with the right crowd. To address the points lightly (given that the majotiy of my processing power is elsewhere right now) I'd say that Notability has been itching for a total re-write for quite some time.
brenneman^{T}{L} 15:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• A rewrite of WP:N in my user space for now for you to consider. Hiding talk 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• It strikes me as about as reliable a source on things trek-fannish as any source could possibly be. It seems to reference episode scripts and interviews with the creators pretty regularly. I read your take on N, thought it well written, but wasn't quite sure if it's all that different in outcome, although it's certainly crisper! I need to compare them side by side. Of course I've my ax to grind as I referred to above so if you really want points... ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• See Lar, the angle I come from is that when such websites are cited by scholars and the like, those citations are in reliable sources, and therefore pass the criteria of WP:WEB, having non-trivial coverage in reliable/reputable sources. Also with regards to Memory Alpha and sites like it, they're what's called tertiary sources aren't they, which means we evaluate on the strength of their sourcing. But I think we're probably on the same page in this discussion. What concerns me is getting the debate to this level, rather than one of debating whether Hiding's fan page on the Legion of Super-Heroes, for example, is a reputable/reliable source. But feel free to grind that ax. Hiding talk 20:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nod, for the most part. But is MA 100% a tertiary? It seems to cite directly from scripts and cast interviews, which are primary sources. It ALSO cites from some secondary stuff, clearly. ++Lar: t/c 07:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know, you'd probably be the one to judge that rather than a layman like me. I was just going on A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. from WP:RS. If we're a tertiary source and we use primary sources I figured they were too. Hiding talk 08:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have no expertise or standing in this area, I am no more than just another random Trek fan (and not that big of one of late, the newest stuff left me quite cold). The difference I see is one of degree.... WP we certainly does quote from primary sources once in a while but for the most part, it "usually summarises secondary sources". My read on MA is that they quote from (and summarise) primary sources a lot. It's perhaps not a very important point, but I'm interested in your take nevertheless. Is it possible for something to be partly secondary and partially tertiary? If so, what does that mean? Is it a meaningful distinction? I have no idea. Also, how would you classify HAER for example? THe photo database part seems quite primary, and it hosts original (commissioned) research and works... But it's also a repository for work done elsewhere which is merely housed there. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps also worth noting in this conversation (which I have shown up extremely tardy for) is that Memory Alpha was included in a Knight Ridder story that was carried in the Charlotte Observer, The Wichita Eagle, and Contra Costa Times. The site has also been covered by Florida Trend magazine. So, it would seem to meet WP:WEB, in that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." -- Dragonfiend 03:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I must admit I was confused by the debate at WP:WEB until I saw this. But yeah, the sources above plus the SciFi.com thing put it way above anything that's even remotely borderline on AfD. Nifboy 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really care whether MA meets WP:WEB or not, because its notability is established by being a verifiable (and cited) reference site, not by its traffic, or by its mentions in the popular press. I think that's a minority view but it's nevertheless my view. Restating that view just to drive it home: WP:WEB is irrelevant for sites that primarily have value as references. Were it to come up for AfD again I'd again defend it (and any other reference site) on that basis. ++Lar: t/c 05:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Listed Marvel Database Project for deletion

Well, I listed Marvel Database Project at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvel Database Project (second nomination) but it's not attracting huge attention. I probably should have speedied it. Hiding talk 16:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder If You Can Help?

I have been trying to create and maintain a new entry (and help another) but have at every turn been, attacked, cut & paste etc, by a ISP that is hell bent on distruction. To prove my point after you correct redirect [1] the same ISP has come back and changes your directions.

This ISP is also in attack mode at the AfD.[2]

And if you look over my project (History) has created another AfD SEE, after a cut and past hack that was reverted?

Any ideas on how to stop this constant attack?

Regards Vufors 14:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about this earlier. You may have noticed that I left a short note on one of the IP's talk page. I'd like to have a more in-depth look at the history of this before saying anything else, see my note about running on one brain cell, above. - brenneman^{T}{L} 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Seduction Community

The answer to your question is that I probably nominated it for speedy deletion, it was, and then it was recreated. Or maybe I nominated it after the afd notice was removed. Ya ya ya TheRingess 01:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Auriga_Logic

BC, Why did you delete our page, we were in the process of editing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamuk69 (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess because the article did not have anything else than a box. OK, since this is work in progress I have restored the article and moved it to User:Lamuk69/Auriga Logic so you can work on it there. When you submit things to the main article namespace, try to have a reasonably OK article which can stand on its feet. If you want to do some work "in progress" use a subpage of your userpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sjakkalle! - brenneman^{T}{L} 13:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN

people feel like they that they ought to be able to voice some opinions about Geogre or somesuch.

Any chance you meant to say "George" here? :-) I know that Geogre is a controversial figure in some circles, but I didn't think he was quite userboxable. FreplySpang (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rogerthat's RfA

I did indeed. Whoopsy! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

city of Fresno, California

Could you please check the discussion page on the above article. It's getting pretty nasty and all I've done is ask for a verifiable reference! 82.141.187.170 09:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do, we could use some more sane voices there... Dsol 12:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Arbitration

Boxing matches

Aaron, probably not, at this point, not as a committee. And you've noticed, I expect, the RfAr on Tony? (Also, a bit short of a reply, as I'm falling asleep here.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Trout time...

"Boy, you've got a real hard-on for Nadesuka all at once, don't you? I'd urge all involved to simply ignore any further "principles" that are obvious attmepts to punish an administrator for having the temerity to edit this page. Let us concentrate on the substantative issues, rather the the obfuscatory ones. - brenneman{T}{L} 05:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)"

That's probably a bit over the top... as I said on the talk page I'm of two minds. It just drives me batty when Tony doesn't follow process, but I see his point about the effect some of these really corrosive things have too. But this is turning into a game of appearances and right now the appearance given off is that it's you vs. him, for the most part and he's coming off looking far more reasonable. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 07:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Trout slapping accepted. Even in the face of Tony's increasingly hysterical attacks on Nandesuka it was not appropiate for me to respond the way I did. I just get frustrated with how Tony's words never seem to mean what they say, and how he is able to perform the most outrageous actions with utterly dispicable motives while crying "assume good faith!" the entire time. He consistantly fails to deal with others honestly, and we're prevented from speaking out plainly and saying, "Hey, that smells!"
brenneman^{T}{L} 01:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "despicable motives"? What motives are these? --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Aaron and I ascribe no "despicable motives" to you, I ascribe nothing but good faith, but I do sometimes wonder if you've a touch of hubris about how much you know about how things ought to be here. I know I do when I'm on my home turf, it's not at all uncommon to be certain that one knows what is best to the point of not being willing to listen to others or to explain why one actually is right. See below as well. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus

You said on User talk:Crotalus horridus: "You've just been awarded points for staying clear of the arbitration. Keep of the good work!" Can I clarify what is meant here? Does this mean that you want him to stay away from the Tony Sideaway arbitration, and if so does this include adding evidence to the evidence section? If this is the case, why? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony has the time and energy to ensure that his side is well presented. He also clearly believes that the best defence is a good offense, look at the transparent manner in which his now attacking Nandesuka. If Crotalus shows his face on the Arbitration workshop, nothing good will come of it. Do you suspect that there is some evidence that Crotalus might be aware of that is being missed? At to the "good work" comment, if you'll examine his contributions you'll see that he's actually continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia.
brenneman^{T}{L} 01:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I also said that I admired Crotalus for working on the encyclopedia. I don't think Crotalus acted in bad faith over this and having investigated Netoholic's evidence I don't believe that he is a sock of a banned user. Nor would that really be relevant if he is now acting in good faith--it's what you're doing now that is important to Wikipedia, not what you did last year; all banned users can in principle be redeemed.

As far as I can tell Crotalus is a good editor and, despite this case, we have both shared civil words since he brought it. Such evidence as exists to suggests faux pas is minor--such as nominating a RFC process page for deletion and complaining of vandalism when people removed the tag. The Committee is highly unlikely to consider this worthy of attention.

Nandesuka's case is different. It appears to me that he deliberately used his administrator powers three times to undelete a page that he admitted would certainly (his words) end up being deleted, when at the time of his first undeletion there was a 52-9 pile-on in favor of deletion. That shows poor understanding of what sysopping is about. --Tony Sidaway 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I fail to understand is why overriding process was a good thing in that case. I understand the argument that if process is about to give a flawed result, if consensus seems to have arrived at a finding that the sky is green, the good of the encyclopedia requires that the right thing be done. But that wasn't the case here. If process is about to give the right answer, and soon, letting it actually do so makes all of us process wonks feel that the system is fairer. (note carefully I speak not of rights, not of free speech. We have no right to free speech here, and in general no rights at all other than the board grants us, except not to participate, or to fork. I speak of perception of fairness). So why the rush? The argument needs to be made that there was a compelling urgent need to override a process that was about to give the correct result anyway. I do not think you've made that argument, in general. That you seem unwilling to make it, unwilling to admit that sometimes you do act rashly, or at least give the appearance of doing so, gets under the skin of some of us to the point that some of us say uncivil things to you, which is regrettable and should not be abided, but which does not dilute the validity of the point, it merely undermines the ability to make it effectively. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sidaway RfAr

I have posted evidence of Mr. Sidaway wheel-warring behavior on behalf of an absent colleague. I stand ready to defend it, but I may be inexpert at navigating RfAr, having never been involved in one before. Please double check to see if I have might have missed a comment that needs my attention. Xoloz 17:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Frustrated

You seem to be able to keep your cool. How do you do it? I'm very frustrated about loosing quite a few of my favorite userboxes. I don't know what to now. I really feel like doing something uncivil. Any advice? --Dragon695 03:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti pope user boxen

Please place any comments regarding this box here. - brenneman^{T}{L} 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would anybody object to that box in particular? A.J.A. 01:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question. There are a lot of boxes. Way too many, in fact. But picking out for speedy deletion ones at the edges, quasi-randomly, isn't really going towards solving the root cause. So I'm trying to talk to people instead. - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I went along with your request to remove the userbox, but I do not believe it should be deleted. I have it on my user page, but not as much because I disagree with the pope as much as I find it to be funny. It depends on how you view it, and I personally think it should remain for its humor value. Blue80 10 February 2006, 09:15 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd agree that this box is pretty harmless, but we've got quite a few people upset over user boxes in general, so I'm trying to keep the peace while everyone has a chance to think a bit. - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Its funny. Foant 14:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Like Blue80 and Foant, I only added the Antipope box because it ws funny, and I like a laugh. Frankly, I think it is probably a bit bizarre that a Presbyterian should claim to be a Pope anyway, so I'm going to remove it now. Thanks for letting me know about the speedy deletion criterion though. Blarneytherinosaur 04:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Hey there - not really sure what I'm doing but my entry for webGM has been put down for deletion by you. Are you able to give me more info on this please?? Waverley73

Further on webGM

Thanks for your reply. I read your guidelines and fair enough. What if the entry is specific to the name 'webGM'? On the page it might mention that webGM developed a site and have a link to that site. I am only new to Wikipedia so I'm obviously still getting a feel for whats acceptable and whats not.

I await your reply.

Cheers,

Waverley73 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: webGM

Hey there. Thats sounds fair. Once it is decided will the page be moved by you (or someone) or will I need to do something to my it to my userspace?

Thanx for you patience as my experience here is not extensive.

Regards,

Waverley73 03:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webgm

Sure, you don't really have to ask me as far as I'm concerned. --W.marsh 15:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought there would be more dialogue regarding this before the article just got deleted. I see brenneman's note regarding him talking to whomever deleted it. Please advise me what the outcome of this is. Waverley73 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

webGM - whats going on?

Hey there. I am still awaiting communication regarding my entry 'webGM' and it's subsequent deletion. Seeing as you have recently received admin priveliges I would of thought you would be doing the right thing and keeping the communication levels up regarding this. I am only a new wikipedia user and would of thought that seeing my entry was made in good faith that you'd be letting me know exactly what is going on here.

Awaiting your reply. Waverley73 11:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've finally userfied this, sorry you had to ask so many times. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I see it has now been 'userfied'. Thanks for that. Just a question - when the actual site that webGM is linking to is up and running (probably in August) would that mean that I could perhaps relist it then under the Fantasy Sports listing (or as it's own listing)? Waverley73 00:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

Amber Brooks

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Brooks
  

Hi. I noticed you removed the {{db-bio}} tag and added a {{prod}} tag to this article. The problem is that I removed a {{prod}} tag when I added the {{db-bio}} tag. (Confused yet?) I believe the rules of the Prod tag say that an article can not be re-prodded and therefore the article must go to AfD. Sorry, it appears that I may have made a mess of it as I was unaware that non-notable porn stars don't go to CSD. James084 04:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Fuel to the fire

In a nutshell, there was a very good chance that it would work. Some of the trolls were already blocked, progress had been made on clarifying policy, etc. It was an opportunity to effect some change. I'll maintain that a large part of the problem is that we've tolerated the disruption and subversion of ordinary processes like TfD for too long, which has only served to reinforce some of the common misunderstandings of what Wikipedia is about. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sasha Ogata

That was inconsiderate of you to delete the article without notifing me first. Anyways, she fits under the notability guidelines as she has appeared in many magizines, has a fan base, and name recognition. So, do restore the page and I'll add the relevent info.--Moosh88 07:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Where will it appear if you put it in my user space?--Moosh88 07:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Why are glamour models treated with disdain under the AfD?--Moosh88 08:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

fresno

Sorry, you're right I shouldn't have kept on reverting, I guess I am getting a bit frustrated. I feel discussion is a bit wasted on this belligerent anon ip but don't want to be disruptive myself. Thanks for keeping a cool head. Dsol 13:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Two Nazis ...

Moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/17

 No insult intended - but I like the form

Yeah, a real poet, almost the quality of a visiting professor at a business school even. WP:NPA doesn't stop applying when you post on someone else's talk page. Dsol 20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if you assumed that I was implying that you or any other of the editors on the Fresno page are Nazis (as the last line might suggest). I do however believe that there are Nazis (what was this WW II thing all about?) and that they are subject to critisizm, like everybody else. Let's keep this discussion off this page and leave it in Fresno.

No apology required! I understood the spirit in which it was intended. - brenneman^{T}{L} 12:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fresno &c

I feel like this is beating a dead horse. I think that Brecher's print columns themselves provide ample verification for the claim that he writes media coverage on Fresno, or if you like, is relevant to a popular culture section on Fresno. If every editor but the belligerent anon ip were of this opinion, I would say we have consensus. But I'm still not sure what you think here. Going with the analogy to made on the article talk page, would you really say we need multiple independent media sources that Janeway is from Bloomington, IN in star trek? Dsol 20:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please have another look at talk:Fresno, California you get a chance. You insisted earlier that all parties stop reverting and dicuss, and rightly so. Since then the anon ip's version has stayed, while everyone commenting on the issue in talk except the anon ip (and possibly you, I'm not sure) agreed that some (perhaps qualified) mention of Brecher could/should be included based on the UPI interview. I think the discussion has clearly established a consensus and I am ready to revert. However, I admire your level-headedness throughout this tired affair and would appreciate your candid opinion on this as well. Dsol 19:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check Fresno again

Please check Fresno again, you might also check Steve Sailer who seems to be a "remarkable" journalist.

Sigh. You're going to kill me, you know that, right? You're going to keep pointing me at things like this until I have a heart attack and die, right here while I'm typing. It will make the papers, and then someone will look at how much I was editing and say "Wikipedia had a duty of care! Adminship should have come with warning labels!" Then my wife widow will sue, and Jimbo will go bankrupt. You are trying to destroy Wikipedia aren't you!

Get an account. Please. Then things like the Sailer article will be easier for you to handle without breaking the fragile admins. But I'll have a longer look at what appears to be an unholy mess of external links and quotes, and see what's actually underneath.

brenneman^{T}{L} 10:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Before you go out and get yourself that heart attack, you might be interested in who this anon ip (possibly) is and why it has such a strong POV. If so, feel free to ask myself or Slimvirgin. Dsol 12:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't care. It could be hitler's cloned left buttock, to me all creatures great and small are equal in the eyes of the wiki, as I judge only the contribution and not the contributor. - brenneman^{T}{L} 12:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Like I said before, I appreciate your level headedness and I will stop reverting on Fresno or elsewhere anytime to discuss at your request. Dsol 12:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased that everyone seems to have moved to a calmer plane, and I do appreciate that you've been so willing to work this out a bit slowly. Everyone is in too big a hurry around here, methinks. - brenneman^{T}{L} 12:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Also moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Userpage items/Poems/17

(let me know if I've out worn the invitation at the top - but I was inspired by your imagery. No offence intended or taken, and I'm sure we'll all try to keep cool)

As always, 82.141.187.170 15:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I removed a rant/personal attack from the Fresno talk page.

Other folks seem to be starting to edit the Brecher and the eXile page. I'm staying out of it for now.

As always, 82.141.187.170 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm inspiring not only peace but verse. All is right with the world. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template Help

I want to put the template Football in Cyprus in the Cyprus Cup but unfortunatelly is very bad. see what I mean:

Can you help me please???? User:KRBN

I went back 2 edits and seem to have something working. But I'm not sure what he was aiming for so I don't know if it's what he wants. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with Control Freaks

Hey Aaron, you probably recognise me from the Munt page. Anyway, this post is in relation to another article -Jungle Music.

Me and a few others contributed a fair bit of time, effort and unique information to the original article. It has since been repeatedly deleted, re-directed and vandalised... even to the point where two Wiki-users collaborated to knowingly start an edit-war by repeatedly re-directing the whole page and completely removing my and other editors contribs.

The debate at hand is whether or not Jungle and Drum&Bass are the same thing. My POV is that they are different, and that drum&bass evolved into a separate genre FROM Jungle. They obviously disagree.

Seeing as this is obviously a POV disagreement for now, I offered a solution that we keep the articles of drum and bass and Jungle music separate (with references to the debate in the headers) UNTIL more research has been done... this met with a resounding silence and continued sneaky redirections. Is there any way to lock a page (or lock a user from editing a page).

I guess I fear that over-bearing, control-freak users will make it too difficult and stressful for a lot of useful information to be posted... I know that I have stopped adding to the Jungle-music page until I know my work won't be deleted. I have a 17,000 word thesis (on the history of these styles of music) being offered to me in order that I can add more the info there - but what's the point?

Please post a reply to my Talk page as yours is massive!

tactik 15:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. - brenneman^{T}{L} 04:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Brian Peppers

Of course. I've kept my cool throughout this whole thing and will continue to do so, edit warring and other such things will just worsen the chance that the article will be restored, and I want this article to be restored to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. VegaDark 00:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Brian Peppers

I wish I could. This mess is extremely disturbing to me and I would much prefer to just ignore the issue. Unfortunately, I can not in good conscience reverse my action because I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

Can I at least get partial credit for knowing that the move would be controversial and immediately nominating my action for review at WP:DRV? Rossami (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

I accept that you did what you thought was "best". Where we disagree is on whether it's even good, let alone best. Aaron, frankly, I think you should never delete an article that you are not sure consensus wants gone. Neither should Jimbo for that matter. He isn't actually the Pope and his judgement is not infallible, even if it is unchallengeable. If you think that a good way to promote discussion is to piss off half the people already involved in discussing something, I really do think you need another think about it.

Perhaps the difference we have is one of conceptualising the debate, Aaron. You think we were having a debate over whether an article should be restored. I don't. I think we were having a debate over whether people who don't like the article should be permitted to destroy it. I think that is always what any deletion debate comes down to. Sometimes we agree that they can and sometimes we don't, but they should have our agreement before doing so. If we are making out that we work by consensus, we stand by that. Otherwise, we have to understand that we work by fiat. I for one would never have voted for you had I had that understanding. I would in fact vote against each and every admin candidate who suggested that they should be allowed to remove content by fiat rather than with the backing of consensus. If you are able to look at it from that conceptual frame, you may be able to understand why I don't think your action in removing the content was helpful, particularly if you consider that some of the discussers, including me of course, do not have the tools to prevent you.Grace Note 03:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I do understand that re-deleting the article didn't solve the problem I was trying to address. I appreciate all the time that you've taken to talk to me about this, and hope that you understand if I don't talk about it anymore it's only because I think that I talk too much. Keep an eye on me and do keep telling me when you think I've screwed up.

brenneman^{T}{L} 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay civility!

It's okay. I'm not so much annoyed at you as I am completely jaded to the webcomics situation as a whole (Including, but not limited to: Eric Burns, the Arbitration, and Comixpedia). Nifboy 02:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

All we are saying.....

... is give peace a chance...Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll--Doc ^ask? 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio at Copyvio

Although the copied text was hardly encyclopedic in tone, it was hardly a copyvio either. The text is a translation from japanese promo material originally posted on an internet forum. It has been widely distributed on Digimon sites without further modifications. Circeus 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not aware of how copyright law adresses re-distribution without attribution of promotional material, Japanese or otherwise. It was a painfully short article, and trivial to re-write for someone who knew anything at all about the subject (e.g. not me!) I appreciate you keeping me informed. - brenneman^{T}{L} 03:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Again)

I have just readded three proposed remedies to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch^(talk) 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

Re: AfD/Spinnwebe

Thanks for the comments regarding civility. I actually have a long and sordid history with these people, going way back before my involvement with Wikipedia. I doubt if anything I say on the AfD page will really change or improve the situation, but at least I tried to make the point that we're in Wikipedia-space now and we should play by Wikipedia rules.

Other than this incident, I've found Wikipedia much nicer, and not generally populated by people with an axe to grind. I'm here to edit an encyclopedia, after all. --Elkman 16:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

Please comment

I thank you for your support of userboxes in the past. Please comment on my counteroffer on the talk page of Doc's userbox proposal. --Dragon695 06:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm keeping tabs on it already. Oh, and just to be clear, I don't think I've ever voiced support of userboxes themselves. I've been in support of more discussion and less action about userboxes. Small point, sorry, OCD back in check now.
brenneman^{T}{L} 00:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

TVRage.com

You're the WP:WEB guy, right? Could you help us sort this out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination). Haukur 15:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Post deletion debate

Note to self: Check "what links here" and fix red-links when browser is behaving. - brenneman^{T}{L} 00:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That must have been a tough call. All I want to say is: kudos for not being afraid to take on a challenge :) Renata 00:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Aaron! (as I commmented on the AfD talk page (and THAT is why I don't want to be an admin. Doing it right is too much work!) ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And a lot of us think you're still wrong. TVRage is growing whether you or anyone else around here likes it or not. So eventually, they'll be right back here with justification that you just won't be able to deny. I don't get why you feel the need to prolong the inevitable. Good thing I'm in charge at Tv.com, or I wouldn't know the truth. You've actually proven that you are biased, and have decided the bigger website can't have competition on here. This link from our Modirator Lounge proves it: [3]. Undeniable proof that Tv.com admins and managers asked staff members here directly to get rid of TVRage. I agree with most, but not all of JohnQ's statements on the delete page. This is just proof that all those reports are true. This website is unfair and not to be taken seriously. And if you really wanted to be serious, you would have merged with a formal library long ago. Sincerely, P.P.

Err, yes. Error(s): You do not have access to view topics on this board. is all I get there, so if you're going to convince me that I've been compelled by my TV.com controllers to delete this page, you're going to have give me a bit more to go on. Why, for instance, would "staff members" care what a third party wanted up to do with regards to "competition "? What coercion and/or inducement are you suggesting was offered? - brenneman^{T}{L} 13:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I though we took off the barrier. A couple of our staff have gloated that they have your people "in their pockets." You removed TVRage, which was a site in direct competition with us. Wiki = publicity. We know this. Why do you think we added a page on here? A good portion of our traffic comes from the fact that we have a page here. You deleted our competition from the website so that only ONE source for television info could remain here. We steal the traffic TVRage would have gotten. I'm not saying YOU specificly were told to kill them off. I don't even know who the "pocket people" are. I'm just saying that we're aware of how things around here really work. You don't care what the users on the site think. You start a delete post, get opinions, and then cast your own votes amoung Admins and a few Editors. I am saying that there are at least two people in charge of that vote who are registered at Tv.com, and a few others who were convinced by some of our staff and some officials at CNet to vote delete. If you think I'm wrong or full of it, go back to when Tv.com was up for being deleted, and see how quickly we got the vote to stay. We've won no awards, all our publicity comes from other CNet websites, and no one has bothered to write an article on us. But we've stayed! I wonder why? All I'm saying is I think TVRage got a bum deal because a lot of the members from both our site and here are corrupt. No one would have even bothered TVRage with a delete post if we hadn't been watching for them to re-post here. And considering that it's been shown that both normal users and respected Editors were saying TVRage should stay, it's rather suspicious that they'd still be deleted by the Admins. And I'll thank you not to post my IP, I want to remain anonymous. P.P. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

• You will want to get an account if you wish to remain anonymous. It only takes one click for anyone (administrator or no) to see your contributions in my history. It's standard practice to place an identifier after comments that are unsigned (in the narrow wikipedia sense of providing a link to the user and contributions) and almost anyone who sees your comments will do so.
• I do care what users here think, and try to ensure that deletion decisions reflect what not only those who participate in the debate itself wish, but also those who've participated in hammering out guidelines. It's a lot more work to construct a framework within wich it's possible to make unbiased decisions than it is to make intuitive responses to single issues. Notability guidelines are usually worked out over months and have at times included input from hundreds of users, and should not be cast aside lightly.
• I care not one whit for competition, to be frank. All I care about is encyclopedic value. If and when TvRage has bitten into, well whomever, enough to garner some coverage in independant media to demonstrate its encyclopedic value, I'll be happy to see it restored. But not until then.

brenneman^{T}{L} 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

Vicious sycle

seems to be back. (yes I was nosing around in your admin actions log)... candidate for speedy as recreated, or AfD it? ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is something screwy going on here... someone replaced the article with a redirect to Vicious cycle. Seems it deserves its day in AfD (whoever recreated it might revert that). What do you think? I'm ASSUMING you speedied the first one under WP:MUSIC?? See also Talk:Vicious Sycle (note the uppercase differences...) I'm tempted to revert the redirect myself, then start the AfD process. Thoughts??? Should I even get involved? Talk to me, man! ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it... hang five. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to list it if you want, just say the word. (it would be my second listing, I could use the practice) ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, although the blue link looks suss, it's what we often to with cra.. er, non-notable bands. Since their names are usually "plausible missplellings" they often get redirected. So, "Daith" has in fact simply recreated a deleted article, but someone else has come along and done the correct thing with it. One (slightly smart-arse) outcome is that the "very new" users often have difficulty knowing how to do re-direct... thus resulting in things popping up with varied capitalisation. So if you'd like, just put it on your watchlist and if it turns into a band article again then send it to afd.
• Just a small point - we can't delete things per WP:MUSIC. There is a chasm between the speedy deletion criterion and the suggested inclusion critera, on purpose, that we have to send to afd. We can, however, now send them to {{prod}}, thank you Radiant! wherever you are!

brenneman^{T}{L} 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Maybe I'll do the same thing to the uppercase version too. Still leaves the talk page for one of the variants hanging out though... It seems sort of cruel to make people retype stuff though (because they won't know how to use history to get a previous version) ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A DIFFERENT request...

Now that we're making you look at articles :P mind having a look at these two? I'm trying to expand those, but I'm not sure as to what to do (before sending them to WP:PR). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

E-Fed Articles

Hello, I noticed that you nominated an e-fed, which I added its subpages to the AFD. Well I did some rooting around and I found a few more. Check out:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HGW wrestling
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Phoenix
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACW Torak
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Kitsune
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Championship Wrestling

Just thought you might be interested. Englishrose 00:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

Re : Stubble webcomic closing

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubble (webcomic)

Okay, that sounds interesting. :) One moment please while I sort it out. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Note that other admins may decide to close this short though, as substansial opinons have already been formed on the VfD. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Proud to receive flak as a a Deletionist! And not just webcomics, practically nothing is safe from my claws of VfD! ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 01:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I have offended

I do apologise if I hace caused offense. So that I can clarify things, could you tell me which part of the RFC where I have been rude? I would like to apologise and quote the RFC if this is the case. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, this I don't understand. Anyone who has read fair use would quickly realise that our application of fair use on those TIME images is not correct. I have explained to various parties why I'm deleting, ad nauseum. The pages Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria should be all we need to show what I am doing here. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In this case, feathers were going to be ruffled no matter what I did. You can't please everyone all the time. I encourage you to consider a policy amendment, however, of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell has made a number of insightful and important comments on this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

Thanks, but...

... I didn't say anything so remotely predictable. Just wanted to know where the applicable rules were so I could see them for myself. ;) --Wolf530 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Doh! Embarassing. Sorry. *^_^* brenneman^{T}{L} 02:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my successful request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsible use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 08:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is done.

Navigating your Talk Page

Hi. Your talk page is 97kb long but for some reason you have turned the TOC off. It's making navigating the page rather difficult.

I considered sending you a rhyming insult but I think a gentle request to archive the old stuff or remove NOTOC might be more appropriate at this stage :-) --kingboyk 19:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)