Here are my old discussions:

• User talk:R. fiend/Archive1: anything 2004
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive2: January - March 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive3: April - June 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive4: July - August 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive5: September 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive6: October 2005
• User talk:R. fiend/Archive7: November 2005

Everything else is below.

Hi R. fiend, I saw that you weren't sure about how accurate your numbers were in your essay on the number of articles in Wikipedia, so I took the liberty of calculating a 95% confidence interval (fully explained on the talk page). Just thought I'd let you know! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, R. fiend - your comment on my talk page means as much to me as any vote on the RfA page. As I've promised everyone else, I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--note new "admin gold" sig :-D}[reply]

Can you please refrain from attempting to remove content from Wikipedia [1] [2] [3]. It is considered vandalism. If you feel the content should be removed, please discuss it on the relevant talk pages first. Thanks for your time. --SaltyWater 13:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the Bfrian Chase article. The consensus was to keep, and a single editor cannot defy consensus, 14:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Desist in your personal attacks. Thankyou. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Editors like you make it unpleasant to edit here with your nasty personal attacks. Desist, SqueakBox 15:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. I saw this, a moment ago, and went to the block log. I then went to the history of John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. As far as I can see, you reverted three times, and the rules (while discouraging 3 reverts) actually prohibit four, not three. I'll have another look into it, and see if mention has been made at WP:AN/3RR. I'd unblock you immediately, but I'm a fairly new admin, and don't want to jump in without being absolutely sure. Please wait a few minutes, and I will get back to you. AnnH ^(talk) 22:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. Sorry for the confusion. [[Sam Korn]] 22:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- some anonotwerp has created List of greatest Jeopardy! champions and it's rife with factual errors. What do you think -- do you think it's more appropriate to clean up or send to AFD? --OntarioQuizzer 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Tom Walsh, the very first person to exceed 5 games as per the original "5 game rule;" -- nope, Sean Ryan was. "Maria Wenglinsky, who aside from the above is the only person to exceed 5 consecutive games;" -- so did Kerry Breitenbach. Eddie Timanus - "but also for making the biggest comeback in Jeopardy! history up to that time" -- how can that be truly known? Frank Spangenberg, holder of the record for greatest earnings before the repeal of the "5 game rule." -- Wrong on both counts; Jerome Vered and Brian Weikle broke both before the rule was repealed. As I said, rife with factual errors. OntarioQuizzer 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 3RR violation, and I don't appreciate being overruled without so much as a word to me.

For those who can't count:

• R.fiend sets page to his preferred version. Strike one.

• Returns page to his preferred version. Strike two.

• Returns page to his preferred version, again. Strike three.

• Returns page to his preferred version, again, again. You're out.

As an administrator, you should know better. Further, using administrator powers like rollback in an edit war is inexcusable.

The block has been restored, and should stand. -- Essjay · Talk 03:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be kept in the loop, don't announce that you've left. Otherwise you'd have been the first to know. Friday (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kept in the loop, indeed. How ("otherwise") very prudent of you, Friday. El_C 10:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR only applies if four actual reversions are committed. The item you list as "Strike one" is manifestly not a revert. User:R. fiend has only edited John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy a total of five times. The edit you list as "Strike one" was R. fiend's 2nd edit, total, of the page, and was simply a minor formatting change from the previous edit. (And the previous edit happened to be his 1st edit of the page, where he simply added Brian Chase's age.)

The edit you list as "Strike two" was the first actual reversion, in which a diff of two consecutive edits from R. fiend show no differences between them. The edit you list as "Strike three" was the second actual reversion, and the edit you list as "You're out" was the third actual reversion.

WP:3RR makes it fairly plain that there must be more than three reverts in a 24 hour period for a 3RR violation to have taken place. And they must be actual reversions, not mere edits. R. fiend did indeed perform three actual reversions within a 24 hour period, but he very clearly did not perform more than three reversions.

Of course, ideally, a dialogue at the talk page should be opened before the first reversion, and matters should be discussed there without resorting to petty back-and-forth editing in a game of "who can blink first". R. fiend, as an admin, is certainly aware of this, and I'm sure he simply allowed himself to be caught up in the moment, as happens to us all from time to time. I have no doubt that he has been suitably chastened, and given that no actual 3RR violation has occurred, I am taking the liberty of unblocking him (assuming he's still blocked at this point, which I haven't checked).

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, R. fiend. I saw when I got up this morning, that you had been blocked again, and that your block had been increased.[4] It still seemed to me that you had only reverted three times, not four. I didn't want to unblock you again without being absolutely sure, so I posted a message here before rushing into work. I didn't have time to leave a note for you or Essjay. When I unexpectedly got a few minutes free at work I logged on from the staffroom computer, and saw that nobody, so far, had responded. So I decided, after some hesitation, to unblock you again, which I did. I then hastily posted a message to WP:AN/3RR before rushing upstairs for my next student.

Essjay, if you are reading this, I will leave a message on your talk page shortly. However, since you had announced your departure, and had also announced that you would not be coming back, I did not think it would be right to leave what seems to be an inappropriate block in place while writing to you. This is how I read the "four reverts":

• R.fiend sets page to his preferred version. Edit, not revert.

• Returns page to his preferred version. Strike one.

• Returns page to his preferred version, again. Strike two.

• Returns page to his preferred version, again, again. Strike three. You're still in.

As this seems to have caused some controversy, perhaps the best place to discuss it would be that WP:AN/3RR

Regards to both of you. AnnH ^(talk) 16:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to take over that airline, you could change their motto to "The Fiendly Skies".

Hi. I noticed you deleted an article with the above title. I was hoping you could send me the original content. I have seen the movie and know it is more than notable. What I had written was just a stub and was planning on improving and expanding it. I have decided to post it at the requested articles page under the subset documentary films. I have travelled across country (US) since I wrote the original content and have no memory of or copy of the og. article. I was hoping to get it back from you so that I can expand and prove to people (possibly) like you who do not think it is notable. Many famous rock stars, one produced and directed the film, are in this movie and it is a documentary of the albums The Deep End, Volume 1 & The Deep End, Volume 2. It has won an award at an International Film Festival. Thanks Daviddec 05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for expressing your opinions as to the Template:Irish Republicanism. As Tom Garvin states in his books on Irish political culture, terms like republicanism and nationalism in Ireland extraordinarily ill-defined and very often mean what the individual user takes it to mean, even though others have a different definition. The reasons why I don't believe it the template is salvagable are:

1. definition: which definition is used for Irish republicanism? There are numerous definitions used by different sides who insist that their definition is the right one and those who don't fit in it aren't real republicans. For example:
   1. Militant republicanism: (eg, the Provisional IRA, Continuity IRA, etc)
   2. Revolutionary republicanism (The marxist Official IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army, James Connolly),
   3. republicanism as a commitment to independent self-government (that would include monarchists like Griffith, W.T. Cosgrave, O'Higgins, etc),
   4. republicanism as in a commitment to a republican form of government (de Valera, Lemass, etc).
2. POV edit wars: because Irish republicanism is such a clearly undefined term, the template would be a focal point for edit wars over who is included and who is excluded. Many (Provisional) Sinn Féin supporters do not regard the Official Sinn Féin as being republican in an Irish sense at all, believing that it was simply marxist. For a host of groups various inclusions or exclusions would be seen as offensive. Many would find the inclusion of revolutionary republicanism as problematic, particularly where it is not Irish revolutionary concepts but ideas based on class and marxist analyst, etc. Others would go ballistic if Kevin O'Higgins was included in, or W.T. Cosgrave. Others would simply keep adding them in. Pages on the various Sinn Féins and the various IRAs are already under target of consistent vandalism. (One warped Continuity IRA supporter tried to redirect republicanism worldwide into a redirect for Republican Sinn Féin!!!) SF supporters and CSF supporters have being having verbal spats on a host of pages for months. (One insisted on changing references to Northern Ireland to the Six Counties and replacing loyalist terrorists by unionist terrorists repeatedly until banned!) This template would be a mecca for those POV edits because instead of having to go through all the pages changing all the links and invariably being caught, a vandal could just change the template and hey presto, he has changed all the articles that have it to push his POV. It is worrying that one of those most involved in POVing articles (for which he has been repeatedly blocked) has made a rare visit to the TFD page to vote to keep this page.
3. In addition to issues of content (which parties are in, which are out? Which politicians are in, which are out?) there's the issue of where the template is going to be displayed. One user has already been offended with its appearance on the Michael Collins page, arguing that it was highly POV to put a template there given that "republicans killed Collins". Others will go ballistic if they find a template with links to the Provos and the CIRA appears on mainstream Irish pages, because it would be seen as accepting their validity as successors to the original Irish Republican Army, a validity questioned by many historians and most Irish people.

In just about every way imaginable, this template is a POV nightmare from hell. It will either have edit wars over which parties are linked to it or which people, and then over where it is displayed. Having spent so long stopping PIRA and CIRA supporters from vandalising each other's articles, the last thing I and others want to do is to have to mediate over edit wars about this flaming template as well. While the creator may have thought it a good idea, it has 'POV disaster' written all over it. I am normally a fan of templates, but this one sent a shiver down my spine and the POV havoc it could cause all over the place. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R. fiend,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

I've seen you around and appreciate the support from a veteran. I'll make sure your trust in me is founded, and I'll do my best on CSDs. --Deathphoenix 15:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you redirecting all the members back to the The All-American Rejects page? Could you please explain? Alex 101 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template redirects do work, so anyone using tl:infobox 2 will in fact get infobox 1. You're welcome to delete it instead, but that would require fixing all pages that link to it]. Radiant_>|< 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sorted out a problem with DND. Apparently I made an error, although I can't find one in the history of any of the pages involved. As far as I can tell, on the 12 of January I left DND as a disambigaution page. Could you tell me what the situation was before you intervened so I can see if I made a mistake?--Commander Keane 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:

• A discussion about 200 articles, one each for the first 200 verses of Matthew - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
• A discussion about whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo R. fiend, I saw you put up some lists of music videos for deletion some time ago, and they were deleted. I just saw one article by the same name of one you AfD'd, called List of music videos by year. I never saw the articles you AfD'd and thus don't know if it qualifies as a recreation and is thus caught by the criteria for speedy deletions. Just thought you should take a look at it though. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance dance revolution supernova Someone has re-written the article and redirected the article to Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA. You may want to reconsider your vote. SYSS Mouse 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you recently reverted this articel to a redirect. Several edsitors have been attempting to enfoirce a merge of this into an article about the residence hall where it occured. There has been substantial opposition to this on Talk:Saugeen Stripper. Three is also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper to consider. Please address thsi matter on the talk page before restorign the redirect. Thank you DES ^(talk) 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for re-listing the article at AfD. --OntarioQuizzer 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned this in a comment - What is it out of curiousity?

P.S. I'm not sure why so many care about the Saugeen Stripper. Personally, I love the whole thing..I used to live there and served on the residence council so it's been great to watch this whole thing explode. The whole reason it's a big deal is because UWO spent so long trying to get of their "party school" image and it's totally back-fired. I wasn't a big fan of the adminstration and I am a fan of having this hang over their heads as a constant reminder that all the money spent on positive PR can't beat one crazy night in a dorm. --Sarnya 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write a new version of this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is now complete. It's at Tally Solutions Ltd. Please list this for deletion if you have read the article and honestly believe that this encyclopedia should not have an article about a company with such major clients. An article of this kind must never, ever be deleted from the encyclopedia without a very good reason. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you also deleted SuperOffice. Don't do that again. The company is publicly listed and has a turnover of some Euro 30m. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it here, after another user was kind enough to remove it (the "Critical response" section is really for me to edit; I'll be happy to add most insulting remarks, though):

I bet R fiend works for the record industry as he voted to delete lists of music by year so people cannot use them as lists to download. Shame on you R fiend, I nominate your page for deletion. I bet you love the power you wield, but remember what Uncle Ben said to Spider-Man, "With Great Power Comes Great Responsiblity" You sir, are irresponsible and should have your power stripped away.

I wanted to tell you thanks for cleaning up the taint article. I wrote the Mr. Show stuff in a hurry and was relying on second hand info so it was a bit off. I would not usually do that but I needed to expand the article in a hurry because it was the subject of a pretty heated AFD debate. So anyway thanks alot and sorry my edits were not 100%--Cenestrad 04:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not neccesarily object to your merging of Pepsi-related articles, I would, however, like to know your specific justification. BTW, I do like the new listified version of your merge targets better than the old redirects to the main Pepsi article. Cheers. Youngamerican 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt and satisfactory reply. If you need any help on this project, just let me know. Youngamerican 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that images cannot be undeleted, thanks for the reminder! - Trysha ^(talk) 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick is a character from a recurring SNL sketch. 68.75.191.214 08:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we do need to stick to process. I have nominated the AfD closing at DRV on the grounds that 40:20:6 is in fact consensus. --OntarioQuizzer 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you'd consider an alternative path for the deletion nomination of this article. I wouldn't have written it if I hadn't been able to find enough material to satisfy WP:CORP easily. Deletion would probably be wrong, but perhaps the information and that about TomorrowNow should be merged into a joint article about this new genre of independent support companies whose history is bound up together, and which predominantly exist in the shadow of Oracle Corporation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R Fiend, please unprotect Saugeen Stripper in its current, redirected state. Your protection of that page is a violation of WP:PP, as you were directly involved it the edit and redirect discussion. Thank you. Phantasmo 20:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly we stand on opposing sides of this issue. I am late to the party here, but I think that this whole thing has been a mess. yes, my preference would be to revert it back to its original content, and wait out the deletion review process. That said, whether or not the article will be reverted to a state that you disagree with (although a state that the afD con con resulted in) should not be the overriding factor here, the overriding factor should in fact be that it is a violation of policy to protect a page that you are involved in a discussion on. You choose your own path though. Phantasmo 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I missed that amidst the hyperlink war. Pattersonc 06:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you deleted the page? I was in the process of gathering more information, if that was the reason.. or are date articles only added after the actual date has run its course..? drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are articles for recent years. You'll note on all date pages (example) a box that says "This date in recent years" with links to articles from '03, '04, '05, and '06. There are also some page for 2002.. but it wasn't included in the template because of sparse coverage. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I didn't include it on the January 26 page because it isn't exactly a monumental event. The recent year pages though allow for a more in-depth look at, relatively, more minor happenings. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 20:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.. It's been a few hours. I believe your decision to delete the article was made from a misconception about articles on specific dates. Thusly, I'm reopening the page. If you have further objections, please notify me. Otherwise, I must assume that you now understand the precedents here at the Wikipedia about this kind of article. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 22:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - noticed your tags on the Fancy Dress Party article. I'm just getting all the facts and contexts now =) Cheers for being so viligent though.. Keeps me on my toes doktorb | words 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your help would be much appreciated in editing the dance studio page in order to be able to keep it up as the other studios have been allowed to! Thanks!Madangry 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • AS LONG AS IT'S ALL FAIR! THANK YOU!

=)

Madangry 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the deletion? I restored it for now. If you'd like to discuss it, I'm available. --Kbdank71 20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the redirect in due time. For now, if you want to comb through the other area code articles and redirect those also, I'd appreciate it. --Kbdank71 20:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern about the Ku Klux Klan template, but do you think you could go back and reword your comment? Calling people "fucking morons", attacking Kelly Martin, referring to a "bunch of idiots" isn't civil and may well harm the point you want to make. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was doing pretty much all of 'em before Xmas and got bored too (plus it leads to zomgkabal). There were a series of those (as you're probably discovering) where I made a new nomination rather than reopening the old debate. I did so just because the old debate was from days ago, and it's not really like we're re-opening the old debate...I thought. Maybe I should have done so, and moved the transclusion to today. If you like, you can speedy my new AfD pages, and re-open the old ones by moving the transclusion out of the old day into today and adding a note to the new debate about the prioer speedy+undel. That said, I'm fairly sure they'll all get deleted anyway. -Splash^talk 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean the debate never got closed and would (I think) confuse today's log page. Better perhaps just to do the delete+retransclude. Or do an actual move of the old AfD page to the (2nd nomination) one. Either way, mention the recent history of the article. -Splash^talk 01:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate that you want the review of the first AfD to continue, but I've decided that it will get a better appraisal in a consensus-based forum such as AfD, I've relisted it and the discussion is in progress. Please do not remove this good faith deletion discussion without good cause. There do seem to be rather a lot of people with an opinion on this article and the AfD discussion enables us to sample that opinion and arrive at a rough consensus on whether to delete--which was the purpose of the first discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have reverted your preemptive close of the new streets AfD. I don't see how having two discussions could possibly harm anybody, and it might be a useful illustration of the differences that have developed between DR and AfD. It is quite clear to me that there is no set policy in this area, so rather than trying to force one why not participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. - SimonP 05:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now R. Fiend has reverted you, and closed the AfD, falsely claiming that this is a bad faith nomination. Now really, this is not the way to proceed, R. Fiend. Please stop this. Restore the AfD and we'll continue and see if there is consensus to delete--which is what the first AfD set out to find. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you give some reason for why having that debate is harmful I'm going to reopen it. As Aaron Brenneman has pointed out, we were likely to have such a debate in a few days anyway. - SimonP 05:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so much perplexed by R. Fiend's actions, which are worrying enough, as by the extraordinary personal attacks and blatant shows of bad faith with which he has chosen to accompany them. I am deeply worried about this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'm deeply worried that you can perform actions like this and still with a straight face claim good faith.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever wonder how much more content of a truly encylopedic nature you might be able to contribute if you weren't forced to partake in pointless gamesmanship? I personally would rather be doing clean-up, or new page patrol, or almost anything. But oh well, as long as ther are those who keep puting sand in the gears, I guess that folks like you and I will be forced to keeo cleaning up after them.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always end up deeply depressed after spending any time looking at Special:Newpages. Have you ever looked at Contributions/newbies? The horror, the horror... The solution that I've been proposing to anyone who'll listen is that we throttle page creation the same way the we do page moves. I usually drop a note on the page of someone whose article I tag for speedy deletion as well as looking at thier contributions, and the majority are people with less than 100 edits. I say no article creation until 250 edits and/or one month, and that for your first page creation you are automagically sent via "Your first article".

And thanks for the offer, but I'm still not quite ready.

brenneman^(t)(c) 06:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading this dispute correctly, would you mind amending your reasoning in the speedy-closure of this nomination (or allow me to amend it) to explicitly state that this nomination was speedy-closed because the Deletion Review process was still on-going and that it was an inappropriate nomination? I would not like future readers to misunderstand the reasoning and assume that your action conflicted with the other decisions. I know you referenced WP:DRV but since we don't archive that page, the link will rapidly become unhelpful. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I thought. I've taken the liberty of clarifying the reason for the early closure. Please amend my edit if you are uncomfortable with it. Rossami (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a similar thing, User:JesseW/10 page test, you might be interested. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar! I'd have thanked you sooner, but I don't always go to the bottom of my user page. I truly appreciate it. Let's speedy! - Lucky 6.9 08:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete the article for Solar Dynamics Observatory.. I was working on it! I added the stub so I wouldn't have to keep my browser open for hours. It says right on the speedy deletion policy page "Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it". I think you gave me 20 minutes.

You may want to revisit your position on this article; I have added some media citations on the AFD page, including several for national media (CNN and the Christian Science Monitor). -Colin Kimbrell 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant passage from the CNN transcript: "LIN (voice-over): Craig and Mike have com up with a blunt way to deal with the problem. The Web site address is xxxchurch.com -- a name designed to snare porn addicts surfing the net, and show them how they can break their obsession. They tried billboards to advertise, but those got ripped out by nervous communities. So they created the porn mobile, a rolling advertisement that is hard to ignore.

GROSS: The best is when we pull up next to a guy and he shakes his Bible at us.

LIN: Their booth at a pornography convention shattered conventional wisdom, and targeted both the messengers and the message.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you the Christian guys?

LIN (on camera): Why do you have to be so in people's faces? GROSS: We have to be. We're as loud and outrageous as they are. I mean, they are finding -- they're using technology; we're using technology. We're willing to do just about anything to get this message out to people.

LIN (voice-over): The message got to Joel Harris. It led him to admit his addiction in front of his chapel of 800 congregants.

HARRIS: It's something that thoroughly consumes me.

LIN: He believes exposing his obsession got him the support he needed. Now he uses software from xxxchurch.com that alerts two friends to any Web sites he visits, to keep him clean and accountable. And he preaches what he practices to other young people -- stay away from porn. That is what porn Sunday is all about.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's time that the church takes a lead on this issue and goes...

LIN: Seventy-five church congregations talking about porn, an unconventional success for two very unconventional pastors.

FOSTER: Jesus was a uncontroversial figure. I mean, he stirred it up with people.

LIN: You think Jesus would drive around in a porn mobile? Do you think Jesus would attend a porn convention and be friends with porn stars?

FOSTER: Absolutely. Jesus always hung out with the wrong crowd.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: And there's this. Craig and Mike tell us they plan to do 20 more porn Sundays next year.

The subject of our next story was one of the most remarkable champions we've seen all year.

He was once the world's ugliest dog. Coming up, the end of the tale.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)"

It's about 7/8 of the way through. Also, when I checked the "Porn Sunday" website's "Media" section[5], I found video links to nationally-aired bits on "ABC World News Tonight", "A Current Affair", and "Geraldo at Large" (on FOX News).-Colin Kimbrell 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why you deleted the US-mil-bio-stub and the US-hist-stub templates from the Colestah article. Granted, Colestah was not a member of the US military, but her biography is related to the US military because she fought them, and the template says that the biography only has to be of someone related to the US military, not neccessarily members of it. Why shouldn't those categories be on there? - User:Asarelah

How would one setup a redirect so that it goes to a specific part of a page (i.e. not the top of the page)? I know that it involves using an anchor in basic html, but I'm not sure how to do here. I'd like to have the "ozone therapy" article redirect to the appropriate section of the "ozone" article. Fuzzform 19:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD of this article that you speedied... *nudge* - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R. fiend, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Kim Bruning 05:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a way to redirect to a specific section. As it relates to the Ozone article, I could (and probably will) place a redirect on the "Ozone therapy" page as follows: "#REDIRECT Ozone#Use_in_medicine" (with appropriate internal link designator). This would, of course, redirect to the "Use in medicine" section of the Ozone article. Thought I'd let you know that it is at least possible. Fuzzform 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering how you counted the votes on List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names? I got ca. 25 for Overturn/Relist and 14 for endorse. Is this correct? It looks like we are within 50-75% where an new listing on AfD is needed. -- User:Docu

<moved from User talk:Docu>

There was no consensus to overturn the original closer's decision, and keeping the article in the WP space is the best compromise. -R. fiend 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

</moved from User talk:Docu>

From Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decisions_to_be_reviewed:

If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a three-quarters supermajority to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.

The guidelines ask for relisting if there is no mayority to keep deleted. Besides, it looks like some of those who endorsed agreed with undeleting, but in WP namespace. Thus even those didn't agree with the initial outcome. -- User:Docu

Hi. I'm afraid I don't understand what has happened here either. Discussions on this certainly weren't "concluded", they were still actively ongoing this morning. There was an high level of support for the view that the decision to move this article to the WP namespace was wrong. It may be that I'm misunderstanding the process here - isn't the right thing to do, given the outcome of the discussion, to restore the page to the main namespace? Can you explain (for my own educational benefit primarily) SP-KP 18:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Could I just ask (again just for my education) what would have been enough to overturn the original decision (and if this is documented in policy/guidelines anywhere)? SP-KP 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed the last message I posted above. Could you let me know the answer to those questions? Thanks. SP-KP 18:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for dragging this divisive circular argument out of DRV. I wish I'd thought of that. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid avoid disrupting AfD, just because you disagree with its outcome. -- User:Docu

• I believe your closure of the AfD was out of process. Following the lack of a 2/3 concensus at the undeletion debate, although the clear majority wished the decision to be overturned, the next step was to reopen the deletion debate which was done by User:Docu. This was in line with the process at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decisions_to_be_reviewed: "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process.". Your closure of the 2nd nomination which stated "The result of the debate was article has already been deleted (note the redlink). Requests for UNdeletion go to WP:DRV" does not appear to be in line with this process and is sending it on full circle. If you do not explain how your actions are in line with process, or you do not revert your actions, I propose to take the matter to a RfC, specifically Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges.--A Y Arktos 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comments, but I am still confused as to how you think "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process." as specified at DRV should apply, if not as per the process by User:Docu given the tally for the vews expressed at the DRV debate on this article. Could you plese explain how it should have worked. The AfD debtate was flawed by your moving the debate to refer to an article in the wikipedia space - all votes before your action were certainly referring to the artcile - the ref to 2nd nomination made it reasonably clear what was intended - many of the votes after your ref to the wikipedia nqamespace still referred to the article. If necessary, due process could be restored by contacting all voters after your change in ref to clarify their vote. Du process does not appear to be served by premature closing of the AfD.A Y Arktos 23:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, mr. fiend. Regarding cross-namespace redirects, they are not taboo in any sense; simply discouraged. A common reason not to delete such redirects is that "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways."

In this particular case, the page is widely linked-to, internally and externally; and a redirect seems appropriate. It is also quite unclear which namespace it belongs to... if I were looking for any sort of encyclopedic list of placenames, I would probably give up after searching the main namespace. Please do not speedy the now-restored redirect. Cheers, +sj + 23:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. fiend -
This looks like a straightforward good thing to me. Article still exists in a place where, if the effort spent complaining about the process were applied to citing sources, it may one day live again. The nomination of a deleted article for deletion was at the least poorly considered and at worst an attempt at disruption. We can count "votes" all we want, but I'm not seeing any downside to the current situation.
brenneman^{T}{L} 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenneman - "relisting on AfD" is the appropriate result of an inconclusive deletion review. I don't think the renominator was trying to disrupt anything; simply to help fix a troubled process. The question of how to 'cite sources' for certain kinds of lists is important and nuanced; but not a reason to go shifting things into inappropriate namespaces. +sj + 00:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the question of citing sources on lists is a thorny one, and often ignored. The movement of this article out of main space was actually a bit of mercy to give it a chance at living and breathing. The alternative was outright deletion. The solution is quite straight forward: fix up the article. A fully cited list with evidence that reputable sources have stated that the name in question is "interesting or unusual" would be deletion proof. Every word typed, every second spent arguing about how and why it's been deleted/redeleted/protected/moved/whatever is time and energy spent not fixing the problems that resulted in the deletion/redeletion/protection/moving/whatever. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you deleted the article about Tickle Cove Pond, after the link in The Hard and the Easy suddenly went red. The reason given being (proabbalt copyvio, source material in any case). I'm guessing that means "Probably Copyright Violation." This song is actually an old traditional Newfoundland song by Mark Walker (1846-1924) as you can see here. I think being around and popular for almost 100 years makes a song notable, and fits it into public domain. I was wondering what was the problem with the article, since I couldn't find any VfD talk for it, and if there was any way to improve it, instead of just deleting it. Thank You. Nekura 06:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slap yourself and read some policies. It is ridiculous to call 16:7 (counting the article author, who can formally dsqualified because of virtually nonexistent edit history) consensus controversial. mikka (t) 06:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "Discounting newbies". There was discounting astroturf, which must be done with strong hand. For fairness, in the tally I even counted such editors Thatcher131 and Mmirabello, who by the policy are below radar, another admin would safely count 16:5. And the rewrite did not address the main issue with the book: bullshitting. If he is professor, pity for his students. mikka (t) 07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also all this fuss is IMO ridiculous. No one forbids to write a better article, which would cover the criticism of AfD. All keepers-redirectors did nothing useful but noise. I myself salvaged a dozen of articles from deletion, despite their low significance, such as "Grrr", but there is a big difference between a low-significance topic and unverifiable bullshit. mikka (t) 07:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience "less effort" is a dubious expectation. I am closing my nominations for three years now, and this one is the first "litigious" case specifically against my closing. The success rate of my nominations is over 95%, so I am quite proud of my bullshit radar and I am not going to yield to surges of "political correctness" not cast in policies. I am not in the ranks of deletionists; neither I am on AfD patrol recently, so I can survive your occasional "wristslapping". mikka (t) 07:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I stand corrected. Sheesh! So many rules in wikipedia lately. After your last remark I counted 7(!) pages dealing with deletion (and I am not sure I've seen them all). Well, like I said, I am not a deletion functionary here. mikka (t) 08:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but I think it's best for me to decline. I have two major reasons: one is that when I think about what makes a good admin, it seems to me it requires a lot of patience, and I frankly admit that because of health issues my patience is not what it should be. The other is that I've tangled with a lot of problem users and since they seem to have no trouble finding each other to bad-mouth me behind my back, I think they'd probably overrun the vote, foaming at the mouth for a chance to announce to the world what a horrible person I am. So, I think I must decline; I'm not enough of a masochist. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi r fiend. The article on WARP(club) should not be deleted as it's a famous tech club in India, many people know about this club, and many would love to know. So, in my opinion it would be against the policies of wiki, if we delete it.

R. fiend - the Universist Movement will be on CNN again this Sunday, LIVE at 7:30A.M. CNN is re-airing their feature story and afterward will do a live interview David Rutland, the Vice President. Here is the prior CNN coverage. Those who wanted to do their homework can even download the video: http://universist.org/cnn.htm The media page has links to lots of good things: http://universist.org/media.htm Your attention to the integrity of Wikipedia is not thankless. Universist 04:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the debate at DRV, I have 'undeleted' this (i.e. reverted to the last non-tagged version), unprotected it and renominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universism (4th nomination) since the DRV debate seemed to call for such. -Splash^talk 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that someone (not me) put in a number of {{fact}} tags in the Universism article. Apparently nobody ever put in the references for the media coverage. It seems to me that you had them marshalled and ready at hand, so maybe you'd be in a position to do something about it.

I try to play fair, but as WP:V says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material," and I don't want to knock myself out providing source citations in an article that I didn't want to see kept in the first place... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it... Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sean MacDermott page should be renamed as "Seán Mac Diarmada", I know you may not agree so I thought I wouldnt contact you fist to initiate a discussion or possibly put it to a vote. regards Vintagekits 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Place names considered unusual, can I remind you of Wikipedia's 3RR policy. I have now protected the article from editing, please discuss you concerns on the article talk page. Thanks/wangi 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a section of your talk page archive User_talk:R._fiend/Archive2 which relates to a living person. This is done in accordance with foundation level correspondence. We have not removed the content from history, so a record remains of the conversation, topic content removal is done to prevent search engine spidering and disparagement of the conversation's subject. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to undelete the article during the deletion review. However, to state in the undelete comment that the article is not the one listed on the AfD, after the listed article was moved to here, is disingenuous. I will assume good faith that your comment was not meant to disparage my action in closing the AfD. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm REALLY confused how you came up with this idea that Kirby will suddenly stop being popular after a few years. He has been around for more than fifteen years, he's the most popular video game character created by HAL Labs, every main Kirby game with the exception of one (Canvas Curse) has sold 1 million copies. At what point do you predict that the fanbase will suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually a conversation going on here. Would you care to join us as this is going nowhere. Maybe you could point us to policy, or state where it was noted as standard? Thanks. Look forward to conversing at the talk page. :) Bubba hotep 14:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I feel that you are unfortunately biased against video games on Wikipedia at times, I should have conducted myself better in the Kirby move discussion. Just because I disagree does not mean that I should have acted in such a way and try to discuss civilly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. As a prominent contributor to Sulla, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Sulla, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Nick 15:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for starting the process, would it be possible to suggest solutions in the discussion section prior to editing the article. I know that I maybe biased here!, but I think as it is now written is very confusing. If it is possible to reverse the edit and await a consensus, I would very much appreciate it...thanks Nick 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, have re-read your suggested compromise, I think it is quite a neat solution. I don't know the protocol on these things, but should you enter it into the RfC on the discussion page, prior to editing the article. If I am wrong, please forgive me, leave it where it is and forget I ever said anything! Nick 17:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, thank you for the assist. Nick 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent has reject your and all compromise (including your fellow Sysop User:Xyrael(I can provide transcripts of the mediation if required), is it possible to protect the page from his edits for a while, otherwise I see no end to this...thanks Sulla16 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued on the Sulla talk page that the wording on which Sulla16 insists is both unsourced and erroneous; he has not bothered to reply. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:DSCF1427.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL. 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Legge (filmmaker) (third nomination): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. John254 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That was a major improvement via deletion! --Myke Cuthbert 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem quite active on the Easter Rising articles, can I get some quick input here please. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: What is Geogre's Law and why is this article a violation of that? Postcard Cathy 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How cool! You made me laugh. Well, Geogre did but you pointed me there! Postcard Cathy 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SSgt.BarrySadler.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not have seen I created {{Easter Rising}}. I was thinking it could possibly end up something like {{1981 Hunger Strike}}, so if you've got any ideas as to who/what else could go on it feel free to help. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you deleted sections of the Victor Jara article. Someone has deleted most of the entries into the Trivia (References in popular culture) section of this Victor Jara English article. There has been a delete of the mentions of U2’s song One tree hill and the clash’s Washington bullets and many others – just compare revisions?

Trivia on an article is not encyclopedic but it does provide rudimentary information that can be used to expand the body of the article. Before being removed there should be a tag placed on the article, requesting editors to place it in the body of the article.

Don’t remove information from the Victor Jara article without stating why it has been removed. Thank you. Moshe-paz 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm currently on WP:RPP patrol right now. An anon editor has requested that the article above be unprotected as they say they have been removing unsourced information while also providing detailed edit summaries. When reviewing, I find that that certainly does appear to be the case and I'm requesting unprotect here, rather than undoing your admin action here. I believe comments to this effect were already made in ANI some days back. Remember (and this applies primarily to User:Snappy56) that anon accounts are editors with the same rights as the rest of us and are not obliged to get an account before editing. The comment, "revert deletions by anon editor - have the deceny to get an account and identify yourself", I found to be particularly disturbing, given that this is the encyclopedia "that anyone can edit". Thanks - Alison ☺ 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also came across this on WP:RFPP. Alison says on her talk:

So there is consensus, yes? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing that on the talk page - Alison ☺ 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either. And even if there is, consensus doesn't override WP:V. And even if it did, it would still be inappropriate for you to protect it yourself given you are in that dispute. – Steel 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Can you please provide a source to this subjective sounding statement you re-added to the Checkers speech page after it had been removed. Tiggerjay 17:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found your user page when I Googled Wikipedia and smerge, looking for a good definition of it for use in an AFD. Probably the vast majority of merges should be smerges, to avoid undue weight in the target article. On another topic, Wikipedia will soon reach the milestone of 2 million "articles" and it would be interesting to repeat your previous analysis of the quality breakdown via random article sampling. I would be happy to do my part in it. Regards. Edison 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Love it - I found this when adding a note on Edison's page about something else... ah, Wikipedia serendipity. Thanks for the term - it's a useful concept. As for common sense - I see less and less here as time goes on., sadly. Tvoz |talk 23:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come Ed Poor is blocked? You didn't specify a reason. MessedRocker (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Hi, why did you block Ed Poor, please? Your block summary is not informative. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked Ed because you never gave a block reason. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Looks like a mistake. Oh well. No harm done. R. fiend 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd mistake to make... so you meant to block another user then? Which user? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a mistake, I'm sure an apology would be gratefully received. WjBscribe 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've seen you around on Clash articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Clash, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Clash on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us. – Pjoef 13:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Know Your Rights"... Listen to this / Run ... to join us! Todo: Highest priority Expand all articles related to The Clash Fair use Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use). Resize large "fair use" images to less than 300 pixels, @ 72dpi. Articles Try to expand all songs stubs if possible. Some song stubs can not be expanded and should be redirects to the album. See WP:NSONG. Expand album articles (all). Remove Trivia sections (trivia sections should be avoided in favor of presenting information within the framework of the article's main text). To Create: The Right Profile, Hate and War, What's My Name? (song), Cheat (song), Protex Blue, 48 Hours (song), Johnny Green (manager), List of awards and nominations received by The Clash, List of The Clash concerts, Category:The Clash tours... (see project pages Songs and List of The Clash concerts) To Destub: (see: Category:Stub-Class The Clash articles) To Expand: (see: Category:Start-Class The Clash articles and Category:C-Class The Clash articles) To Improve to GA-Class:: (see: Category:B-Class The Clash articles) To Improve to Featured standard:: (see: Category:GA-Class The Clash articles) To Nominate at WP:FAC: The Clash, London Calling Needing attention Current activity: Article alerts To Clean up: none (or all). Please, see: Cleanup listing Lists to complete: List of The Clash concerts, Genres Wanted Pics/Graphics: Gary Barnacle, Terry Chimes, Tymon Dogg, "Every Little Bit Hurts", Ellen Foley, "Groovy Times", The Latino Rockabilly War, Keith Levene, London SS, Ray Lowry, Sandy Pearlman, "Pressure Drop", Bill Price, Red Rockers, Bernard Rhodes, Nick Sheppard, Ray Staff, Strummerville, Kosmo Vinyl, Vince White (see: Category:The Clash articles needing photographs) Maintain: none (or all) Collaboration: none To Deorphan: none To Remove: none Project building Add WikiProject The Clash banner {{WPClash}} to all appropriate talk pages of all Clash-related articles. Add/update assessments for all project pages. Personally invite quality editors working on The Clash articles to join the project. Project Discussions: The Clash WP Talk If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

Hi R. fiend, I notice that long long ago you voted to keep this list, which was then a paltry and worthless stub. I thought you might be interested to see how far it has come since then! Thanks for supporting it way back then! Adam Bishop 08:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still filling in the names and some of the offices need to be redirected, but you're right, it is a little too ambitious...maybe it needs a different name like "List of Catholic clergy in 1220" or something. The other years will be done eventually too; once this one is done, the whole list will be essentially the same from about 1100 to 1400 (with names changed as necessary, of course). Adam Bishop 17:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats going on at Kevin Barry. It appears that you were edit warring, and have protected your version, or have I mistaken? Regards, Mercury 18:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that edit warring is disruptive and can lead to preventative blocks. Additionally, please do not apply protection to articles you are currently in dispute. Regards, Mercury 19:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it looks like you were involved in the dispute at Segi, it appears you've blocked a user you were in a dispute with; doing so arguably presents a conflict of interest which could be easily resolved by posting to WP:AN3 (or a similar page) to get the attention of uninvolved admins. That aside, the user is currently requesting unblocking, if you'd care to comment. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to say what Luna Santin said. Please don't block users you are in a dispute with. Metros (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what the hell were you think R. fiend, it is not the done thing to get into an opposing POV from another editor and then blocking him for the same! I have just had a quick look at the edit history on that page and its looks like Domer48 was the least of your worries - yet unsuprisingly/suprising he feels the sharp end of your admin powers - care to explain why those who shared your POV avoided this? As an admin you should know better - rest assured that if your adminship is ever up for recall there will be plenty of editors only to willing support its withdrawal. No warning, no 3RR report + COI = no block. You should unblock immediately.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I have no POV on Segi, as I know almost nothing about them. My involvement in that article was to to re-insert the information of just who the hell Segi are (a Basque organization apparently, the article didn't say that) because for some insane reason it kept getting removed in the edit warring. Domer broke the 3 revert rule. It was a bit late for a warning at hat stage. Hell, I've been blocked without warning when I didn't even break that rule. I don't see the big deal. If I didn't block him someone else would have. -R. fiend (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have witnessed your recent POV editing - to block Domer48 - who yuou are in direct conflict is a big no no, you are supposed to be an admin and show some bloody example. Your actions with regards to this have been farcial.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If I didn't block him someone else would have" - if you dont understand why you shouldnt have done that then I am at a loss for words. Is your adminship up for recall?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a bad move this block considering it was a content dispute and you were an involved party no matter what your reason it was defo a WP:COI-- BigDunc (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be blocking users with whom you are in a dispute; doing so is easily construed as an abuse of your admin priviledges. Aside from the obvious conflict of interest you have, it creates a chilling effect by implying that users disagreeing with you will find themselves blocked. Not the sort of climate we want to nurture. It's very easy to get a neutral admin's attention. Now, you're free to keep defending your role in the block, in which case I'm willing to bet several of the concerned users commenting here will escalate matters, causing you much further annoyance and potential embarassment; wouldn't it be easier to just say, "My bad, I'll keep it in mind"? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with sourced material, take it to the talk page of the article, instead of just deleting content that you don't agree with, and the issue is not adequately covered in the next paragraph or section.--Padraig (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not stated I had any problem with the information you added, but it dosen't address the issue dealt within the section you are removing.--Padraig (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop removing REFERENCED INFORMATION because it doesnt suit YOUR own POV. Are you really an admin?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case it's not clear, Cobain is listed on the upper section of the page (I should have said this in the edit summary); what I removed was a duplicate listing that was claiming Courtney Love might be a murderer. Various versions of this content are frequently added by a small number of people and a selection of IP addresses who want to claim that Cobain might not have killed himself; what isn't added, ever, here or in Cobain's article, is references for the claim that his suicide is actually debatable (let alone accusation that Love might be a murderer). I'd appreciate you reverting your edit (which I suppose is a reaction to my lousy edit summary); otherwise, if you want to keep the material as given, it will need serious referencing, as you are accusing a living person of possibly being a murderer. Thatnks for your time. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, enough is too much. You may be an admin, but you are expected to abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I don't have an opinion on the content, but dial it back about six notches on the sarcasm-tron, please. You are expected to work with other editors civilly , even ones you don't like. Stuff like this is way way way out of line. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I try to be civil, but the attitude expressed so sarcastically in the edit summary is exactly the attitude I'm getting from another editor. He refuses to discuss on the talk page, just posts templates about "original research" for anything that is not a direct quote from another source. He reverts everything I do, including grammar fixes and clarifying sentences that are confusing or misleading. While he was blocked, progress was made, but now that's he's back he's started edit warring to make a point. -R. fiend (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page, at this time. While you're technically still able to edit the page during protection, doing so could draw criticism. Mainly letting you know in case you miss that tiny little "you're editing a protected page" notice. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, second, and LAST warning. You will watch your comments in your edit summaries (whoop-de-fucking-doo is pretty much a violation of Civility and NPA), or you will be blocked. Wikipedia required you to work civily with others, even ones you don't like. SirFozzie (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how that qualifies in any way as a personal attack. -R. fiend (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R. fiend. I hope you don't mind but I refactored your latest comments at the talk page and removed those which were unlikely to help attain a resolution. As I've said a couple of times now, because there has been a lot of conflict there, we all have to be especially careful not to annoy each other there. I applaud the spirit of compromise I see developing there, however. --John (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd rather you didn't delete my comments, but perhaps the use of the word "mindless" was a bit much (though, honestly, he's used that term for so many things it's become almost a cry of "I know you are but what am I"). The main point is that he has not made a convincing case for original research in what is basically a completely neutral sentence. -R. fiend (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you make another uncivil remark about me, in either the edit summary or the talk pages, I will post a warning on your talk page. While I may lack the admin tools to stop you abusing editors, I have Wiki Policies that will. You may ignore your fellow admins, I will not allow this type of behaviour to continue. --Domer48 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Why not just put this troll on probation? Aatomic1 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, is that supposed to mean something? I don't follow whatsoever. -R. fiend (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Alison#Troubles ArbCom I was placed on probation by an involved administrator in repect of the troubles Arbcom for a lor less than Domer -then again he has got Admin mates Aatomic1 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles Aatomic1 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think I should lobby to have Domer put on probation? Well, there's a reason why I've never started a RfC or any such thing, and that us that it's too much work. I can't be bothered to jump through all the hoops without a very compelling reason. I confine myself to editing and trying to work out article improvements on talk pages (with some deletion thrown in, but with the extra steps that have been added to AFD noms I usually just do speedies and prods). Looking at that clusterfuck of an RfA I'm glad not to be involved in any such endeavor (although it is a relief to see that my opinions of Vintagekits I've developed from my limited interaction with him are shared by many others; and I suppose you can judge one from the company they keep). -R. fiend (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you, as an uninvolved admin are required to lobby anyone - the Arbcom allows any uninvolved admin to take action. I do think you should review the reasons why I was placed on probation. In my opinion I am perfectly entitled to remove myself from probation but I would like that opinion to be properly scrutinised. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) you are not entitled to remove yourself from probation (as it is an ArbCom enforced remedy), and B) as an active, involved participant in the edit war, Aatomic, R fiend is NOT allowed to place Domer on any of the remedies involved in that. I am now bringing it up on ANI, before this can get all the usual suspects involved and get into the "same old war, the same old way". SirFozzie (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. The exact section is here SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acceptable for an admin to use language like you have, nor should you ever use the toolbox to gain an advantage in a dispute with another editor. (Evidence is at the ANI report here) Do I perceive the situation correctly or is the evidence somehow misleading? - Jehochman ^Talk 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit the protected page again while discussion is under way. See Wikipedia:Protection policy if you are in any doubt about this. --John (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R fiend, it seems to me it would defuse the situation (which has become rather tense, due in part to your intervention) if you could undo this edit you made. There seems to be a consensus that you should not have made it. I have never undone another admin's action and do not intend to start now, but it would really show good faith if you could do as I ask. Please see if you can help me here. Thanks. --John (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. --John (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message: "Hey, Scolaire, I guess you're still on break, but we could use a few sensible minds at the Easter Rising talk page again, if you have the stomach for it. -R. fiend 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

I'm replying on your talk page because of the time lag - you may not be still watching me. Thank you for calling me a "sensible mind", but I'm afraid when I come accross behaviour like that I just lose it! Even reading over what's been posted since my departure makes my blood boil! I referred to that behaviour as bullying, and I stand by that; good sense will never prevail against bullying. The only way out that I can see is to start an RfC, or whatever the appropriate equivalent is, and try to establish that endlessly repeating "OR", "sources" etc. instead of constructive discussion is inappropriate behaviour amounting to incivility. If such a process was started I would gladly contribute, with diffs (and not just Easter Rising). Scolaire (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend, it seems to me that you are edit warring at Easter Rising. I see that you haven't violated the the three revert rule, but you are repeatedly reverting contributions by other editors over a period of time. If I'm misunderstanding this, feel free to correct me, but otherwise you need to stop. Remember that users can be blocked for edit warring even if they don't technically violate 3RR. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI#Admin using his admin privilages to edit a protected article whilst involved in edit dispute. regarding your recent edits to Easter Rising. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm less than inclined to care about such inanity. -R. fiend (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AN/I thread is continuing, and the consensus appears to be that you have misused your status as an administrator in this instance (and perhaps another noted by Alison). You may wish to participate if only to provide your point of view - otherwise it is possible that the issue could proceed to an RfC. ^Avruchtalk 03:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R. fiend. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/R. fiendTemplate:Highrfc-loop]], where you may want to participate.

-- Alison ^❤ 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the consensus of the RfC is to open a ArbCom case considering your conduct above, I have requested the Arbitration Committee review the issues. The diff of my request is here. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I borrowed your essay for this RFC: Talk:List of Cuban Americans#Opinion by Uninvolved. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, glad you appreciated it. I wrote that ages ago; nice it's getting some use. -R. fiend (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]