User talk:Indubitably/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

My RfA

Jennavecia, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. Thanks in particular for commenting on my response to Q7. By the way, do you recall the time we had an exchange about guidelines for including music awards? I did not get very far with that. :( Anyway, if ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

On 18 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vasili Blokhin, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer

Thanks for your offer of a place to vent free from over-sensitive flowers. I'm probably a lost cause though; I just looked through the postings that caused the trouble and I was laughing out loud, and I still am. I thought they were pretty damn clever, although I know that probably just reinforces your view that I'm a dick. Still, I just wanted to say thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus (and LL/JV), you're always welcome to come and post abuse on my talkpage as well (consider it explicitly exempt from WP:CIV). Lord knows everyone else does. – iridescent 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Mine too. Although, I've got lots of stalkers, some of them admins, who might revert you and block you. But still, feel free. Keeper ǀ 76 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Dicks and bitches... that's us. XD Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My talk page has been quiet of late. Please troll it. —Giggy 08:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just chipping in to add that my talk page is relatively stalker-free, should you want to use it. Gazimoff 09:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also want to thank you for you offer to me to ventilate on your page. Much of what goes on around here I admit I don't understand. I'm not of the "internet culture" I guess, and perhaps take things too seriously at times. Maybe there will be a time when you can explain things to me. I will consider you a resource. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi back

Sure, I can work on something else for a while. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's not "mass deletions", it's about 15 articles. In the past, deleting articles with 1000-2000 edits wasn't locking the server. If you'd like, I'll wait until non-peak hours. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I'd be fine with oversight -- does that lock the database also? NawlinWiki (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well, let me see if I can get an oversighter who is willing to do it. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't expect to be back here so soon

I've been biting my tongue over a certain current RfA that is gathering opposes because the candidate has insufficient experience of "admin duties". The usual crap gets trotted out, like come back in three months after you've bored yourself rigid at XfD and spent some time arguing the toss with the low-life that inhabits WT:RFA, AN, AN/I and the other dark corners of wikipedia. What I find so irritating about all of that trite cant is its blinding inconsistency. What experience can anyone have had with blocking, without having the blocking tool? What experience has a vandal fighter in dealing with content disputes? How can anyone one who isn't a good solid contributor to the encyclopedia be able to understand when, how, and why to deal with page protections and quarrelling editors? Nobody can have had admin experience without being an administrator, and to suggest otherwise is gold star level stupidity.

There, I feel better now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with you. I got admin with no previous experience with XFD, I had a handful of reports to AIV, I had done very little tagging for CSD. Practically no experience in admin areas. I may have pissed people off since getting admin, but I don't think I've fucked up with my tools so much. Def not that caused a big fuss. I don't know which RFA... I hit the page for Dweller's RFB and ICB's RFA today, but I've been caught up in some Beta stuff, so I haven't made it back yet. :/ Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why bite your tongue...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus is required to bite his tongue for his longevity as an editor. He seems to be one of the rare breed that gets blocked whenever he doesn't. And I 100% agree with you Malleus. Had this particular editor (check Balloonman's contribs, JV) been spending her time at XFD/AIV/WT:RFA instead of, oh I don't know, making featured articles civilly and responsibly, she would have an equal # of shortsighted opposition for "lack of mainspace edits". This RFA is an example of the very reason why wikispeak's definition of RFA is so humorous. The truth is far funnier than any shit we could fabricate. Keeper ǀ 76 16:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, I have MF watchlisted... his dialog's can be quite, um, shall we say, entertaining ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

His dialog certainly wouldn't sit well in some churches, but it is hardly worse than normal, and hardly blockable at the rate it has been blocked on an uncensored website. I've said worse than malleus, and I'm generally a pretty good guy. So's Malleus, and he gets the bonus (or curse?) of actually being intelligent enough to post mainspace articles. The key difference I suppose is that I have my own block button. A tremendously sad double standard. Keeper ǀ 76 16:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm an antitheist, so I really couldn't give a shit what goes on in churches. Perhaps that's one of the cultural divides that's grown up between the US and the UK? Your point about this being a supposedly uncensored website is interesting though. I'll no doubt have much to say about the stifling insanity that laughably passes for a civility policy here another time. Ooh, this feels really refreshing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

PS to Keeper. No, I don't think your analysis is quite right. My unforgiveable fault is that if I tell you I think your an idiot, I think you're an idiot. No number of administrators knocking on my door will persuade me to change my mind and apologise just to avoid being blocked. My mind is made up. You're an idiot. In just the same way that Jennavecia's mind is made up about me; I'm a dick. I don't demand that she apologises, or raise silly little Wikiquette alerts, because I'm not 13 years old and I've quite come to terms with the idea that not everyone can see things as clearly as I can. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an irregular verb: "I make fair comment regarding user conduct", "You are a disruptive troll", "He is a suspected sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz". – iridescent 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(E/c reply to malleus)That certainly is a key difference. Instead of looking at it as "no number of administrators knocking on my door will persuade me to change my mind and apologise to avoid being blocked", what about looking at it as "Wikipedia doesn't want me to call others' idiots, even when they are idiots." It is also a "13 year old" response to refuse to apologise if an apology is warranted. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, its bygones. But consider the option anyway. I've seen you apologise before (heaven help me, I won't find the diff) when you were wrong. You didn't do it to "avoid a block", you did it because it was the right thing to do. Keeper ǀ 76 20:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will always apologise when I have been wrong. What I will not do, and what I will never do, is to apologise to appease some clown of an administrator just for the sake of a quiet life. With all "due respect" to the 1,193 administrator clowns out there, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's something else to chew on. When have I ever called someone out for being "uncivil"? Never. Is that because nobody has ever been uncivil to me? Just look back. It's because I'm not a kiddie and I don't think like one. I don't have even the slightest problem with Jennavecia calling me a dick, because I know that she equally won't object if I call her a bitch. That's fair rough-and-tumble as far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, there is an art involved with dance. Sometimes, its appropriate (and expected and accepted) to stomp, but it would look very out of place to slam garbage can lids together on stage during Swan Lake. Know your audience a bit better, perhaps? Keeper ǀ 76 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I said it before (and Giano said it first) but it always warrants bearing repeating; on Wikipedia, assume that anyone you're talking to is a bright 14-year-old unless there's evidence to the contrary. Generally works as a rule, both for article writing and general conduct. – iridescent 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank both you iridescent, and Keeper, for what is obviously very good advice, and I'd take it if was able. Sadly though, I'm just not constructed that way. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind being called a bitch, but I am highly offended at being called a "clown", and I demand an apology! I am afraid of clowns and would be quite upset with every glance in the mirror were I a clown. NPA... NPA!! I should block you for this gross breach of CIVility. Shameful, shameful behavior. *glare* Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider you one of the 1,193 clown administrators, very far from it. Just a bitch. But like you said to me recently, you do make me laugh. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

\o/ I can deal with that. Actually prefer it. :D Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer to question

I want to answer one single question, since no one has yet to do so: What experience can anyone have had with blocking, without having the blocking tool? Obviously you cannot. But you can demonstrate said knowledge of the tools without having used them. This can be accomplished by simply watching the normal functions from various pages defined as admin related areas. This is not a difficult task. And the same goes for protecting as well. I failed to demonstrate this at my last two rfas. Something so easy should never be overlooked (you can have knowledge of the tools, without having ever used them; learning is the precursor to the tools, and the tools are not de facto installation of knowledge). Synergy 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is it's not necessary, nor should it be required. I got admin without such experience. And if anyone feels that is a failure in the RFA process, then please speak now on what I've displayed to show I should not have been given access to these tools. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I only wish that were true, Lara. You yourself suggested this course of action, and it helped me (immensely). No one is suggesting your RfA is related to this current one, so I'm quite put off by your response. You also answered your questions with more clue. But hey, we won't see eye to eye on everything. Synergy 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I suggested what course of action? Not running without experience in this area? Surely did. But not because I think it should be required, rather because RFA is a black hole of stupid and I know that's generally required to gain the rights. I'm an exceptional case in this regard, and I'm not ignorant to that, so surely I will suggest anyone gain experience in these areas before running. That does not, however, mean that I agree with it, or that I won't support people who do not have said experience. Lastly, I'm not disappointed with her answers. Mine may have been more "clueful", which I'm sure is debatable, but I also did not have that many, I don't think. Regardless, the point still remains: It is not necessary to have previous experience in order to be able to effectively utilize the tools. It's a matter of learning. Adminship should be granted based on trust. Clearly this user can be trusted. Learning the tools should not be an issue for her. That should be the grounds on which she is judged. Not by the results yielded by the fake wanna-be kate tool. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's more like it. I paid for the full 30-minute argument, and my time's not up yet. (Any other Monty Python fans in the house?) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Malleus, with your remaining time, you must give us all a good spanking. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You are Taxwoman and I claim my five pounds – iridescent 20:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chicka, don't joke about that!! I'll be indef banned before anyone can blink an eye! >_> Hurry up, <_< help me pack. *peeks out curtains* They'll be after me now. >_> Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Poetlister once, the comparing-thingy-tool shows far more of a match between Tax & myself than it does to any of the alleged alternate accounts. Don't even get me started on the legitimacy of that particular block. – iridescent 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that I'll show the next guy that says we don't need more admins the charts here and here then ask the same question. Gazimoff 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I ought to start so many arguments discussions at once, but it seems quite clear to me that one of wikipedias's problems is that there are too many admins. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, possibly not. I do find it interesting though that the number of active admins has flattened out somewhat, and that 20% of admins are responsible for 80% of admin actions. I'd ask if this is the right kind of admin model to have, considering the number of articles and contributors continues to grow at a high rate. What do you think? Gazimoff 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been clearer. You suggested this course of action (making edits to admin areas; being opinionated in ban and block discussions, etc.) because my answers to the questions during my last RfA sucked (you didn't put it that way, but they did suck). I applied this reasoning the same way to her, as you did to me. The only difference being that I told her during her RfA, and you told me afterwards at my request. I don't get it... This all started with the assumption that the opposition was looking for experience of using tools before being an admin. An assumption that is fallacious yet goes even further to suggest any reasonable argument that counters it is gold star level stupidity. You might as well give me 40 gold barnstars. RfA is designed to gauge an editor. To see how they would fair with the addition of a few buttons. If you have no edits to gauge, and your answers are lacking (such as this candidate): you will be opposed by multiple editors. Its a fact, and not an opinion (and one the candidate should have already known). If we just handed out the tools like this... Synergy 10:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)I could cite multiple reasons, but I shouldn't have to.

Perhaps I'm reading it in a different tone than you are writing it, but with all the emphasis you've added, it's coming off a bit hostile. I've made my position pretty clear. I gave you advice on what areas you needed to work in to appease the regular voters at RFA, for what the current trends are. I am under no obligation to vote with the trend. Like you said, her's is a different situation than yours. If you think her succeeding in this RFA will eventually result in her desysop, then that's your opinion. I don't agree, thus she has my support. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You should know, at least by now that my emphasis does not carry any hostility and I would come right out and tell you otherwise in three other methods of communicable channels. I may not be the best article writer, and do not exploit or flaunt my article contributions (not that she is doing this currently; I'm just modest when it comes to my content contributions. for instance, I once had my sub-page for article contributions deleted because I am not partial to vanity.), but I am still of the opinion that she falls into the same trend you mention and I address above you. I am neither asking nor expecting you to change your position on her RfA, and I apologize if you have somehow been given that impression. And as for -sysoping: the mere mention of this is a corollary to the methods by which an editor in the article I linked can slip through the cracks of the request process. I wasn't suggesting that she would have her tools removed from her, far from it. Synergy 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is then. What are we debating? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Try going back over the discussion (I always find that helps) but... zOMG I think I have an article to edit. Synergy 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Or maybe an AfD to close.

I did go back over it. I guess we'll have to stop with the "agree to disagree" deal. As far as your essay, I read the shortcut as CHIP SLAW. I haven't decided whether or not that would taste good. >_> Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommand's restrictions

Hello. Look, I don't think it'll help anything to pursue the debate on the ANI thread but I think I understand the source of our disagreement. You seem to be looking strictly at what is written at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. But if you look at the ANI thread that resulted in this and if you check the extra diffs I provided from BC's talk page, there is really an extended discussion about semi-automated edits and edits that appear to be automated. There's a lot BC can do for the project other than test Twinkle and he knows full well that these runs of 40 edits a minute will generate trouble. If you also look at the recent history of his talk page, his attitude is so baffling: I have somehow become an admin with "an obvious COI", Friday has become a troll, he's targeted because of his work on NFCC. I just don't get him I guess. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what the other stuff stays. He's had community sanctions placed against him. When he's blocked, those are the sanctions that should be linked to. However, they're not even in a linkable location. They link to something completely irrelevant and you scroll down to some little obscure sub-sub-sub-sub header to find these sanctions, only to read they are vague and ambiguous. That's unacceptable. If there's a bunch of discussion that leads to community consensus that Beta should not run semi-automated tools, then that should be clearly expressed in linkable sanctions and his access to those tools removed. Otherwise, it's shaky ground we stand upon. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, dear

That was nice; we'll see how it goes :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hope others appreciate the words and consider them. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

She who is the recipient of the Laralove redirect

Are you still following the Food service task force? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Has something happened? :p Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Skype logs

I confess that I don't understand much of what has gone on, mostly because so much of it appears to have happened off-Wiki in private or semi-private settings. Nonetheless, if you're concerned about your family's privacy then it appears that log sharing is apparently only part of the problem. If you need any help on-wiki, let me know. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads up - Evolutionary history of life

Hi, Lara / Jenna. I thought I should let you know about this because you might get dragged into it. Evolutionary history of life, which you passed as GA, has content issues - see Talk:Evolutionary history of life#Structure and questions. I've posted about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology#Evolutionary history of life 2, Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Evolutionary history of life and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Holes in GA .2F FA review process for .22academic.22 or .22technical.22 subjects.

I've tried to make it clear in those posts that this situation is not at all your fault. IMO WP needs to improve its review process for "academic" or "technical" subjects, preferably at the same time reducing the emphasis on WP:minutiae to avoid increasing the total burden on editors and reviewers. I hope you won't get any unpleasant fall-out from this, but it's only fair to let you know about it. Best wishes -- Philcha (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't get any unpleasant fallout. I started pushing for tandem reviews with experts about a year ago. I can't get it to gain consensus. Perhaps it's something I should bring to greater community attention for discussion. If the article isn't good, delist it, if it hasn't already. Once it's improved and accurate, renom it at GAN. I'll take a look at the links you've provided and see what I can do to help. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Delist it? How?

I suspect the main difficulty about "tandem reviews with experts" is defining "experts" and then getting some. Of the top of my head I'd guess we'd need at least 20 to cover the history of life on earth properly. Has anyone come up with any ideas on that? -- Philcha (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Go to WP:GA and remove the article from the list. You've already left a detailed rationale on the article talk page, so that's it. As far as expert reviews, if you need 20 experts to get the article right, then it will always be inadequate. It's not going to happen. I wrote out a process I thought would be good. Basically connecting to Wikiprojects and creating a page where experts would sign up in their field, offering to work the review process. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading a while ago (? Village Pump) about the leakage of experts from Wikipedia. Is that still considered a problem, if so is anything being done about it? -- Philcha (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be corrected, but it won't be. This project is beyond a point of improving in that area. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 23:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward on the BC mess

Hello Ryan, CBM, Jennavecia (same message on all three talk pages). Seems like the ANI thread has gone stale although this idea of small-committee discussion has received pretty solid support. Look, we're never going to have 30 people agreeing on who should be working on this so I'd suggest you three take a shot at it. Am I dumping this thankless task on you guys? I sure am. I don't mind helping out but BC has gotten this idea that I'm out to get him so that might just increase drama. I know Jennavecia has expressed concern that she might be viewed as a BC cheerleader but you're all reasonable people and, as Jennnavecia put it, I think you all "understand the grievances of most editors who want to see Beta banned and at the same time, find great value in his contributions". CBM has bot experience, Ryan has MedCom experience, you're all admins, you've all been around and you've all followed the various BC ANI threads and ArbCom cases enough to understand the situation. I expect that both ends on the BC-love spectrum will spit at whatever compromise you come up with but at this stage it'll have to do and cooler-heads can probably prevail... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to this. Is there a central location for us to discuss this? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 02:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw this section title and was hoping there was an exciting new Bathrobe Cabal mess from which we should move forward. Alas, it's only about that rascal Betacommand. Maybe next time.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

O, no. We mop those up... >_> (See: "The Bad Touch") Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the Mediation Committee has a private wiki where this can be handled discreetly. As a member, Ryan should be able to set this up (I think). I'm tempted to close both the current ANI thread and the ANI subpage thread. Actually, if the three of you agree to take this on, let me know and I'll close them with (hopefully) a convincing explanation of why that's the right way to go. Cheers (oh and ok ok, I'll archive my talk page...) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks (about your talk page) XD. Uhm, I spoke with Ryan briefly on IRC to ask when we'd be able to discuss here on wiki. Later this evening. I've not had an opportunity to talk to CBM, but hopefully we'll all be around this evening for long enough to hammer this out. Fantasy Football league drafts tonight... Kurt will be very disappointed with my picks! Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, you can do this quick enough to avoid further meltdown. Angusmclellan has just blanked and protected BC's monobook... Can't imagine that this'll cool things down. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Collective: Unconscious

Thanks for your notes.

I sincerely want to resolve this. Formatting aside (and I want to make the formatting more appropriate; I have removed all "artist" references that do not have wikipedia refs), I am especially concerned about the conflict of interest charges.

Citing oneself I cited myself once in the entire article as a producer in a single series. As listed, I was one of over 30 directors of the facility, producing one of dozens of long-running series, over the theatre's roughly 14 year run. As per the COI, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest....Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged."

Financial I am neither "receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations" nor do I "expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia."

Legal antagonists I am not "involved in a court case, or close to [any] litigants."

Self-promotion Whereas I no longer have an official affiliation with the organization, I am in no way engaging in "self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."

Autobiography Nothing in this article is autobiographical, and with one exception, I am not mentioned.

Close relationships I have no "high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization."

If you take serious issue with a tongue-in-cheek comment about a "viscous fluid," then just edit that, fine. This latest revision was absolutely not a reverted previous version, and this simply shows that you did not do due diligence in your review. If you would have reviewed more carefully, you would realize I was one of over 30 members, and my formal relationship ended in 2002.

Methinks you dost protest too much. Please carefully consider your future editorial suggestions in light of this, before you threaten "to issue... a short block if you continue to edit in this manner." I could easily escalate this issue in the same manner, but I believe it is in the interests of the Wikipedia community to some to a calm, mutual balance for all parties.

As per Wikipedia:Administrators under Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse"): "If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution). For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges and Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents"

I hereby appeal to you that we "try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner" before this becomes a more formal conflict. Justindavila (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out exactly where I have a conflict of interest? Thanks.

Thx for your edits. --Justindavila (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Air Force...

Air Force! That's awesome! Now give me a 341! :) Kelly ^hi! 04:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

per your post here Majorly said: "No wonder you can't get any further than waiting and minimum wage jobs in supermarkets." You responded: "and the inaccuracies, last time I checked, the United States Air Force wasn't a supermarket)" My question: So it's true that the Air Force pays minimum wage? ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your rank and your hours. For me, working about 60 hours a week, it averaged to a little more than minimum wage. However, I lived for free and got discounted food. Also tax free shopping and 100% medical insurance. So there was more to it than just pay, and I ended up saving a whole lot of money. So I'd say it's much better pay than a minimum wage job... and still not a supermarket. Also, I make well over minimum wage at my current job. So his comments were really just ridiculous drivel. A failed attempt at a burn. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 21:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, my dad retired as a light bird... I told him when I was in HS that since he was officially on the clock 24/7, that I made more money per hour than him.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the month of paid vacation each year, too. Can't beat that. Did you get that with your high school job? Haha. But yea, salary can be good until you start working killer hours, then the hourly pay starts looking really nice. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

341s, zOMG, that number haunts me. I had the worst experience ever when I had three of my four 341s taken from me in one incident. OMG. I knew for sure I was going to wash back, and in a band flight, that was two weeks! Luckily, they just scared the shit out of me and that was that. Talk about stress. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I only had one taken from me - I was on door guard in another flight's dorm, and the TI tried to jump in the door without showing his authority to enter while the flight was coming back in from PT. I slammed his hand in the door - man, was he mad! He threatened to have me recycled but nothing came of it. Kelly ^hi! 04:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, snap. That's pretty much what happened to me. I was dorm guard for a baby flight. They didn't yet have a roster and, unknown to me, the door had been left unlocked, since they needn't identify to be let in. So my ass is standing at the podium, reading the manual, as usual, and the flights busts in the door, shocking the hell out of me. So I run up and watch for the TI. Well, I glance down the hall to make sure that they're going into the day room, and I see one go down her bay. I yell for her to go into the day room and when I turn back, not only is their TI standing there, but my TI is in my face. Talk about bad times.

He said something like, "Are you just going to stand there, or are you going to try to secure the door?" So I start to close it and, of course, he's like "Well, it's too late now, don't ya think?!" Ya... I think. So that was bad times. He opened the door to my flight, which was across the hall, and proceeded to scream at me about how I just killed an entire flight for about 10 minutes while my flight piled up in the hall of our dorm to watch and listen. So, he tells me he's not sure if he wants to see my face again, for me to go back in the baby dorm and wait for my punishment. Okay, so I walk in and the baby guard's TI (a male) walks in behind me and I am so shaken I forget to yell "Male in the hall, secure the latrine." So, my TI took a 341. Then this TI took one for me not yelling out the warning. He looked at it, sigh. Our squad had one girl write out all our 341s. We each took tasks and would do them for our whole squad, as it was quicker that way. Well, turns out she was sabotaging. She'd also been putting dry cleaning tags in our pockets, we found out later. Anyway, so she had filled them out wrong, he noticed. Asked me for another for that. So three 341s in a matter of minutes. And I only had one left, so I was about to piss myself in fear that he was going to take another, because I was one short.

Anyway, I get back to my dorm later that night, and while I'm getting things ready for my shower, my twin (this chick looked so much like me, it was nuts), came out of the TI's office (she was the house mouse) and asked me if I'd had three 341s taken. I told her I had, and she informed me that all three were in his trashcan. \o/ Woooo! Not another word was spoken about it. I so thought I was toasty and that was my last night with my flight. No hiccups after that. Warrior week was awesome times ten, until the five mile march that almost killed me, haha... and we sailed through the last week. Ah, the memories.... Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Your story is way better than mine...though I could tell your some Survival School stories that would turn your hair white. :) Maybe sometime - take care, and Airpower! Kelly ^hi! 05:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

After searching for 341, I didn't find an article. Would someone puhlease create one so I know what is going on here! :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh - here's an explanation. Maybe someday we will have an article, but we don't even have an article on US Air Force Basic Training right now! And all the other US services have articles on theirs. Kelly ^hi! 07:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's something you and I can work together to change. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I will take credit for the idea. Just kidding. :) And all of this talk about Air Force is rekindling my consideration of joining the Coast Guard...<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Coast Guard? OH NOES! Kelly ^hi! 04:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno why, but the Coast Guard is something I have considered for a long while. What's the matter with it? (No feelings hurt for the truth) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just teasing, all the services rag on each other with stereotypes (Air Force is wimpy and lazy, Marines are kill-crazy maniacs, Army is dumb, Navy is gay) - follow your heart! The Coast Guard normally sees more action than any of the service, in regular peacetime at least. And they get the satisfaction of doing some great humanitarian stuff. Kelly ^hi! 05:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've still got some fitness issues to improve on, but I am seriously considering it again. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Adopt a user

Am i correct in thinking you used to be an adopter. If this is so can you give me a link to your adoption page? I would really appreciate it as i am now an adopter myself. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I used to be, but I am no longer. I deleted the page, but I can recreate it in your user space. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't put yourself out. All i wanted to look at is a previous program of someone who I know is a good adopter. Thanks anyway, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 10:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly

It's obvious the RfC isn't going anywhere and that consensus has been reached... I think it's time to go the next step.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It would appear so. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 01:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/Collaboration

As a member of WikiProject Discographies, I thought you might be interested to participate in the collaboration. Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)