Your name is allegedly Aaron Brenneman

But I think that's silly! Er, Amen.

Aaron Brenneman, he looks like an orange!

And it's not just that, he happens to be very borange!
Dmcdevit·t 09:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Poor Aaron wants desparately to rhyme,
'caus his name is not a dozen a dime.
But all attempts to construct
end up totally fucked
As the poet just runs out of time.

Do you want to keep limericks too? lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 07:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cull I School merges, 20 Cent, tantrum
Cull II Snide, 666666, Bucko
Please leave new messages at the bottom. The right to ruthlessly refactor is preserved.

Your last comment and signature on The Magic Dudes VfD made me laugh really, really hard. Thanks. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

It seems you went and placed a block
Two dozen seconds by the clock
I've never been blocked as being a vandal
And sometime wondered how I would handle
The pain and shame and humiliation
But, now, alas, the situation
Bears the most frustrating fruit:
Now I've been blocked, but never knew it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comments get fatter, not thinner,

For they remind us all of Snowspinner.

He, upon a time, offered the moteity

Of a thing called "semi-policy"

And argued, both loud and long,

That an insult would sound a gong

And straight 'way summon the guards

To remove it hence, and leave in shards

The discussion once found there.

Many complained and thicken'd the air

With laments, ruth, and some things worse,

For the matter made some of them curse!

Their words disappear'd from view, }

Which made them their oaths renew, }

And all was yellow and blackest bile too. }

And some who questioned then and some who now }

Might be supposed to have a Holy Cow }

Upon the field still grazing to lough }

When she the prod on her soft flanks has stuck

And to be missed most sorely when struck.

Geogre 14:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Aaron Brenneman, scared of ninjas,
Voted delete, which I found outringeous."

--Ashenai (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your edit at [1], I point out that the freedom of anonymous users to edit Wikipedia is a foundation issue, and that the mere fact of their anonymity is not sufficient grounds to revert - especially in the case of something that has been in a page for 18 months. Snowspinner 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. <fx: does waggy finger thing at Aaron while shaking head sorrowfully> --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at this, and see what you think? Thanks! Trollderella 19:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC) [[2]][reply]

-- just because :-) --HappyCamper 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you be able to say anything about User:IgnoreAllRules? Thanks! - David Gerard 10:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know that your supreme power is unchecked my any sense of responsibilty. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be fair to say that you are aware of the identity of the IgnoreAllRules vandal? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, so do you know who it is or not? What "responsibility" would you be speaking of? Please answer the first question first - David Gerard 23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why Mr. Gerard <bats eyelashes> is that an IP sniffer in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
  brenneman^(t)(c) 00:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading the above might think you knew the identity of a vandal but were disingenuously concealing it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only people lacking in frankness here are you and David. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you can show everybody just how frank you are and tell us all what you know about the vandal. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are pretty obvious. The whole thing seriously misstates both deletion policy and undeletion policy. To claim that it's been arrived at by consensus is to state a very palpable untruth. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, do please stop being unreasonable. You've twice falsely claimed that I should use the talk page or block you for 3RR. Since you've come nowhere near to breaking the 3RR, and I have no intention of doing so, and I have used the talk page whereas you have simply taunted me in edit summaries, it's becoming utterly surreal. I'll have another go at reformulating a policy-compatible version of the wording here. Do please try to discuss instead of edit warring/ --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please address my points, Aaron. Putting a redirect over my requests will not make them go away. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, stop playing silly buggers. I'm trying to reconcile the nonsense on the page header with Wikipedia policy. I have been posing many alternative suggestions to try to work out what it is that you object to in my formulation of Wikipedia policy, but until you stop blindly reverting we won't be able to get anything done. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's soooo easy to hide something when every edit is... hey, look over there! A link to all my contributions! Drat, my nefarious plan to keep my antics secret is foiled by those meddling kids! - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I was beginning to think that all of Wikipedia had lost their wits and civilised discourse was a thing of the past.

Pete, not Poet

I am just curious if you are using a sockpuppet account? You don't have to answer of course and if I am causing you any distress by asking, or if you feel that I am in some sort of violation due to the bluntness of my question I apologize.--MONGO 03:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your socks. Uhh, I mean "talk" - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with the reasons under which the IP trace for evidence of sockpuppetry would only occur in dire circumstances. I was just curious about IgnoreAllRules as it seems he was targeting User:Tony Sidaway and I saw that you had reverted him several times. I noticed that IgnoreAllRules was vandalizing articles that Tony had edited.--MONGO 04:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most who know my editing know I tend to not be circumlocutory so would you say that User:IgnoreAllRules is your sockpuppet account? --MONGO 04:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to further badger, but I was noticing that you didn't make any edits from this account from 02:15, October 18, 2005 to 02:46, October 18, 2005. User:IgnoreAllRules made 11 edits in 3 minutes between 02:41, October 18, 2005 to 02:44, October 18, 2005. All eleven edits had as edit summary; "I'm Tony! I know best!!". In light of recent issues between you and Tony and other rather strange coincidences that can be elaborated further if need be, well, I really like people that are straight forward and honest. For the record, I log in from two locations, both in Nebraska (armpit of middle Earth). --MONGO 04:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaron, I don't fault the use of sock accounts, and respect that since you use your real name, one may come in handier for you than it would for me, not that you do use one. A brief spree of obvious vandalism, I could forgive that...no big deal...I know you and Tony are at odds and if indeed you performed these vandalisms, well, they weren't that bad overall, and at least you and others quickly reverted them. Now in regards to someone tracking your IP...I don't have that capability but noticed the vandalism while on RC Patrol..the username IgnoreAllRules (redlined) struck me as a potential vandal, but I was overedited by another with a faster trigger doing the revert. I often rely on Occam's Razor due to nature of my real life job...the easiest explanation is usually the right one. Now as far as a breach of admin ethics regarding an unauthorized IP query...I am not familiar with that set of rules but not sure they matter as proof any more than my little time flow above described...I mean, even if the IP was the same, you could always say that your little brother was messing around while you were away for a few minutes. I know you have morte integrity than to want to hide, so, as you've requested, I'll butt out. Respectfully, I do not want to hound anyone.--MONGO 05:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - Tony's bugging the heck out of me too. I might be on wikibreak for a while but let me know if he gets up to his antics again and I'll help you out. Don't let him get to you either - he's just doing his usual. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note I'd take a break too if I were you just to relax a bit and let some steam out. Come at it with a fresh mind, perhaps :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked both you and Tony for three hours for revert warring on this page. I realize this is mostly a matter of principle since both of you can unblock yourself, but I would ask both of you to please consider that revert warring is harmful no matter where or by whom. Please discuss on the talk page and seek consensus on the content of the VFU header. Yours, Radiant_>|< 11:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. Please see WP:ANI. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron. I saw your note earlier in the day and am responding properly now. From what happened, and from what I see on Splash's page, I think you're currently under what has been called "wikistress". Wikipedia can be very callous, unfriendly, unfair, and sharp. The main reason it is so is because it is populated by humans. :)

It doesn't have to be though—or if it is, it doesn't have to affect you much. Don't let it. Realize this for what it is: an impressively imperfect project aimed at creating an impossible thing. It is, or can be seen as, noble, and I believe some day many years from now its descendent will be. We are the ephemeral, transitory, invisible, anonymous workers helping it toward that goal. When it is achieved we'll be long gone. It is altruism that keeps us here, now, while it is massively, almost unimaginably, imperfect. A little more imperfection, a few more silly edits, a bit of reverting here and warring there, someone being impossible—don't let it trouble you. If someone insists on a view that you believe is incorrect, by all means engage him and tell him why you think it should be done another way. Don't forget the other part of the bargain: listen to what he says. Try for a solution. If it is impossible, try to do the right thing (this can be hard). But whatever you do, if you find it includes feeling that it might be a good idea to vandalize a couple of pages, even if temporarily, even for a short while, it's likely best to take a break.

With the current disagreement, I believe most editors who have an interest in deletion policy on WP will agree with the version you're trying to keep on WP:DRV. That can be seen very simply—that version is theirs. Tony feels that it is invalid, for two reasons. The first is he believes "if in doubt don't delete" is a kind of "chief precept" of deletion policy that should be prominently placed in DR. The second is he believes DR should not be restricted to questions of what has come to be termed "process". This second issue is actually more complicated than it appears. I think we're all actually closer to agreement than most think we are, but it will need to be discussed with some care in the coming weeks/months.

The first issue is less complicated. One thing I'd like to say in Tony's defense is that he keeps being told that his addition of IIDDD to the template is inadvisable, but I don't recall anyone actually explaining (or attempting to explain) why (I may be wrong though. Has anyone?). It is true that the current version has wide acceptance among the editors who're actually involved with the running and working of DR. However, if someone says that something's not right with it because it conflicts with policy, that needs to be examined, whether or not most of us agree on the current version. I can post my view on this, later. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but perhaps with a discussion on the actual merits of IIDDD, we might find ourselves—all of us, Tony, Kappa, Splash, Rossami, an everyone else—coming to an agreeable solution.

You are an excellent editor, Aaron. Too valuable to loose. Please be happy and well. I'm going to be away for a while myself, so I will not be able to contribute to any ensuing discussion, but I'm sure everyone concerned will be able to decide something satisfactory. Regards encephalon 20:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) NB. By the way, your note on my page suggests you might believe me to be a sysop. I'm not, Aaron. I've turned down 5 or 6 nom offers now, I think. I might go up for it in a couple of months, but I'm afraid I can't do any blocks for you at the moment. :)[reply]

(Was just about to go to bed, forgive any thinkos and/or rambling) I don't know when I first encountered Tony, but it was months ago, and I think even before you did, just in the normal course of editing, and his talk page has been on my watchlist since. I've always respected his judgment, dedication, and helpfulness. Even after he restored one of my first, zealous, speedies. (As an aside, I don't know how it is possible for anyone to get on Radiant's bad side or vice versa, but it happened. Haven't talked much recently, but Radiant and I used to see each other a lot, indeed he nominated me for my adminship. He is one of the most open and reasonable people I know on WP.) I'm pretty sure I remember way back in the primordial depths of time when this thing between you and Tony started. It was about some VFD debate, likely a school, right? Then you encountered each other on VFD again and again, it spread to talk pages, and spread more. I'm not even sure when we met, Aaron, (though I just realized that silly note at the top of this page is from July), but I've had enough rational discussions with you, and seen you around as well, that I long ago came to the conclusion that I could trust and respect your judgment, dedication, and helpfulness. I think you (plural) are level-headed and reasonable, and I would point a needy editor to either of you. You (plural) can also be abrasive, stubborn, and, yes, coy. That happens, somehow, mostly only when you encounter each other, or the issues that spark this. My point is: why?

I must admit (don't know if I should be guilty about it, but I'm guilty about not knowing :) that your admission hasn't really changed my opinion of you (good judgment, dedicated, stubborn, etc.) in that I still have cmplete confidence that I would trust a decision by you, and that you still have that inborn WP hatred of all vandals. Not to compare them, but neither of Tony's RFC have changed my confidence in him either. I think, independent of each other and the general tussle, you are best. What have you gained from it, besides much undue stress and insanity? I'm sure it's been suggested before, but now would be the time to just drop it. It isn't anything that I think mediation, or another RFC, or even (Jimbo forbid) and RFAr could help. This doesn't mean you give in, or thatI think you two can become best wikifriends overnight. But how about if you refused to engage each other? Period (well, it was a question mark). I'm convinced that by now your banter does nothing but inflame each other. Watching this slowly spiral away has been painful for many I'm sure. I've seen both of you lose control in different ways and to different degrees. But if we all are to accept your apology as sincere (I certainly do) the least you could do is start over and give it a shot. Disputes between good-faith, trustworthy editors are worse that trolls and vandals: they divide the community, and create factions where none need to be. Don't ever forget how much good you can still do for this wonderful encyclopedia, but also try to think up how much more you could have done in that time you wasted thinking about Tony. Again, my point is: why? Not just why have this dispute, but why are we all here (including Tony)? Let that guide you.

(Oh yeah, and if you really want to make me happy, fix this :) Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, they just convinced me that the article merits inclusion. However, that said, I'd really like for some broader discussion about what is an acceptable source for comics. WP:COMIC is quite inadequate right now. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the transwiki process has become this kind of endless cycle that never gets completed. I wrote the instructions there, and hope they make some sense. An article is transwikied because, presumably, it doesn't belong here. The TL, as a record of transwikied articles, is a list of articles that need cleanup in some way. Just take any article and deal with it appropriately (merge, send to AFD) and strike it out when you are done (or upon resolution of AFD) or if it is encyclopedic enough now (some are old enough to have changed substantially). Any stricken entry can be archived whenever. If we take corn soup, I'd say find somewhere to redirect it or just take it to AFD as it was transwikied to Wikibooks Cookbook wikibooks:Cookbook:Corn_soup 2 months ago with out any changes since, and WP:NOT a how-to (recipe). Finally any resolved Wiktionary entries should have {{transwikied to Wiktionary}} replaced with {{Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished}}. (Very few of the archived ones do, but going back and fixing that is probably lower priority atm.) That's it in a nutshell, did it make sense? Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 05:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why I should be ashamed of stating that Tony might benefit from opening himself up to some real community input? Clearly there is precedent.
brenneman^(t)(c) 02:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal involved a breach of Wikipedia policy (admins are not permitted to stand for confirmation except in the rare case of being ordered to by the ArbCom, something which has only happened twice), and furthermore (if followed) would have extended conflict rather than reduced it. Wikipedia is not a dueling ground, and we do not need people exacerbating disputes through grandstanding. Fortunately, Scimitar and Tony, both being adults, were able to resolve their dispute and reach a position that was mutually acceptable to the both of them without having to go at it with swords and sticks in the middle of the public square -- something which you clearly would have desired. Your bloodthirstiness for Tony's sysop flag has been noted, and is that that of which you should be ashamed. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly happened by the page. I don't wish to condone everything said against Mr. Sidaway, but I see nothing wrong per se with a request that Mr. Sidaway stand for reconfirmation. Only the Arbcom could compel him to do so, of course, but asking him (in light of the recent controversy), seems perfectly reasonable to me. Of course, such request should be made politely. If there is a policy prohibiting voluntary reconfirmations, I'd like to know where it is, and I'd like to object to it. Anyone should be free to voluntarily re-stand. Xoloz 18:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Us delitonist vandals need to stick together. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say. Lots of accounts, but I wonder how many people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think your argument is basically correct, and dispassionate. (I'm not sure if Mr. Sidaway's view is always binary -- he sees grey sometimes, but once he's certain, his grey becomes the perfect, only acceptable grey -- but the briefer way you've explained it is better for persuasion.) That said, I think it is highly likely that his response will be defensive, and it is also highly likely he will dismiss your view with a mention of the recent past events. Still, this is a good thing to have in the record. I'm also secretly hopeful that, whatever his defensive public face, he might privately take these criticisms to heart and work to improve.

In any case, if IAR isn't used sparingly, I expect tensions to accelerate, so I have hope that the problem will remain under control. Xoloz 06:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I'm sorry. I've been rather virulent in that DRV debate, haven't I? I just don't see a whisker of reason to restore the first article, and the second is only teenage spewage (imio). And Chalst has twice recently tried to tell when/where I should or shouldn't edit, and anyone who tries to so lecture me is likely to be reminded of the first two syllables of the website's name.

Anyway, yes, everything's ok (though RL is trying at present), and thanks for asking. I'll cool myself down. I just noticed the talk page for DRV. It fell off my watchlist in the move, and there's been loads going on. Annoying, but the outcome seems to be little change. I am concerned about the standing inconsistency between DRV and undel policy, though. The proposal changes the policy, after all, despite the protestations that such is somehow impossible. Perhaps today's frame-of-mind isn't the one with which I should make such a change, though. -Splash^talk 04:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I learnt a new word. I didn't know one could recidivise(?). Anyway, no I won't, but then I won't give experienced editors who exhibit such sorry misunderstandings an easy ride, either. The trouble with your RfA is that I don't think a single incident need be taken as evidence of calamitous judgement from a familiar editor. But then, it was quite a serious infraction. But then, you certainly wouldn't do that again. But then others did point out some other lapses. But then they (the opposers) have so many sour grapes they could make wine, and I didn't want to join them. And I don't feel neutral about your RfA. So I'm left being unable to vote at all. Which is complicated. I'll stab you in the back some other time, if you like. -Splash^talk 01:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

^^ That is a very good characterization of how I felt, too. Didn't know what to do, but I didn't want to say nothing at all. Dmcdevit·t 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad to see you're back to your usual levelheaded self. As you probably noticed, you recently had me thinking that you already were an admin (and IIRC, David thought the same). I realize this may turn out controversial because of the recent events, but I believe that whenever I think someone is an admin and it turns out he isn't, he deserves to be nominated. So, would you accept it? Or would you prefer to wait awhile? Radiant_>|< 10:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. See User:Aaron Brenneman/RFA. Please fill in the questions at your leisure, modify the closing time accordingly, and move it to a RFA subpage. Radiant_>|<

Aaron, I think you would be a good admin, but the timing of this RfA is awful. At any time, this would have brought out the worst type of partisan warfare in some. But two weeks after that incident, many of us who would otherwise have supported you will be unable to do so. I just opposed User:purplefeltangel for vandalism three months ago, it would be hipocrisy to support this now. This will fail, and some of your more partisan critics will enjoy it. Can I suggest that either now, or immediately the trend becomes obvious, you in good spirit withdraw this - humbly aknowledging that the community's trust has been damaged by the sockpuppetry. If you do, you will score some credibility points with others, and I for one will be happy to support you in a month or so. Then I suspect it may (and will deserve to) succeed.Doc (?) 14:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take the martyrdom too far. A graceful exit will clean your slate. Prolong too long and it will look like another example of you disrupting the system to make a point. I'm tempted to support your nom right now but then I'd be accused of making a point too LOL. Keep on asking the tough questions. Good job David D. (Talk) 17:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there are some things that do need airing, so perhaps twenty-four hours? I do want to hear what people have to say. It's a shame that I appear to be so one-dimensionally defined, and a bit of a suprise. I expected a lot more of "oppose" good with policy and gentle with newbies, but recent rash actions were, well, rash." and a lot less of "oppose" no idea about civility." There really is only one person I can't seem to get along with... - brenneman^(t)(c) 17:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that the neutrals and even many opposes are 'later' votes. But really, don't push it. A graceful retreat, and another shot in 6-8 weeks. Meantime stay well away from Tony - neither of you ends up looking good.--Doc (?) 17:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hug

Hi, No hard feelings, friend. You've shown grace under pressure here, and I know you'll be given the due recognition once things settle down. We all know you could do better than the worst admins we have now, even if 99% of your brain were tied behind your back! ;) Best, Xoloz 03:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA, of course

You already have at least four sections about your RFA, so here's another one!

You have no idea how many other, less respected, names went through my head when I saw a section heading calling me a "Cheeky Monkey." I actually thought "Ugh. Who's going to be bitching at me now about a 3RR block?" (check out [3], [4]). This admin thing is actually sparing you a lot of trouble. :-) Really, community respect/trust is much more important than a few extra buttons. I would part with them easily if I didn't think I was doing the community some good by pressing them once in a while. Just keep cool. Really.In fact, I'd like to nominate you when the time's right.

About the TL, the truth is, I have no idea. The purpose of it right now is as a list of articles that need cleanup/deletion, as the fact that they were transwikied means they were improper. I think the word transwiki tends to scare people away for some reason, though. Basically, very few people have ever touched that page (and if the software upgrade hadn't broken my bot, it would be five times as big, at least). Take a look at the archives and you'll see some old resolved entries, almost entirely done by just me, by hand. If you take a bit out of that page, I might give you something special! (meaning a picture of something special, oooh...)

My talk page is always there for you, if you ever want an opinion on something, (or want to know what I think before saying something stupid :) I have to admit, sometimes you just make me laugh, and maybe that's why I like you. Remember that edit summary discussion on Splash's talk page...? [5] :-) Take care. Dmcdevit·t 03:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA withdrawal

I don't see any point in keeping the RFA, and I would prefer you withdraw it and start afresh after sometime. Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 05:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Why should you do that? Is Nichalp worried that you might actually win? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hee. What would it take? Jimbo weighing in? He does owe me that favour after the Argentenian twins fiasco, but I was really saving that for something special... - brenneman^(t)(c)

Hi! I've removed your nomination. The problem is the pileon votes which will increase. RFA is the forum to ascertain the suitability of a candidate for adminship. For feedback, an RFC on yourself would be better. Having your nomination go on would be pointless IMHO, and unnecessarily increase the server load. Regards, PS I think the latter pronounciation would be fine. Nichalp is a combination of a few letters of my name, and surname. Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 06:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh. All right then. I must be honest and say that seems, well, overly officious. I'm aware that an RfC would be the place had I been seeking feedback, but here I was trying to elicit more of what had been forthcoming. As to the "pile on" I'm not sure how that's a problem, as if they had brought points that I could improve that hadn't been touched yet, that would be the point. Finally, server load... that leaves me gobsmacked. You've got a templated sig. I'm not fussed by the removal per se but, well, yeah. Gobsmacked. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the general consensus is that if an RFA receives oppose votes exceed the support votes by 10, then the RFA should be removed. (Its in the WP:RFA talk page archives, about a month back). Do you still find it officious? I know I'm guilty of templated signatures, but its a few bytes only as opposed to an rfa bid which is in tens of kbs. I was actually referring to the fact that the page was ~400kb. May I have the liberty of giving you a few tips for a sucessful nomination? User:Nichalp/sg 06:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure. User:Nichalp/sg 06:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is the policy that authorizes this action on an RFA that was not set to close until November 9? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem *blush* I did in fact mean RFA, not RFC ;-) This RFA was IMO put forward with possibly the worst imaginable timing. But that you answered objections in good grace does put you in good stead for next time, which will undoubtedly happen in whatever number of months - David Gerard 10:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, this got removed before I could vote yes. Is there no justice? · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee, why would somebody think that? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested to the recent comments by Hypocrite at Afd for Grove School

I would be happy to help. I assume the intention is to take a bunch of stubs from a geographic district, create an article "High Schools in x,x,x" and then replace the individual school articles with redirects - for example, where I live now: "High Schools in Brooklyn, New York, USA?" Can I suggest that notable schools with longer articles be shortened and included in stub-format in the list, with a link from their name to their main article? Suggest a starting location! Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My first experience with the school debate was with the Afd for Benjamin Cory Elementary School. You may remember that this discussion actually extended into the talk page. At about that time I started to experiment with essentially the redirect approach, as Hypocrite describes above. The first page I tried was based on a, then, recent Vfd for Charlotte HS. You can see my effort at Charlotte Public Schools. I was trying to create a template approach that could be used to see the hierarchy of the schools as well as make it relatively easy for people transfer the information to a new and better article if someone saw fit to expand one of the schools.

After the Afd for Bartlett High School I again tried this approach at the Elgin Area School District U46.

After the Afd for Chester_County_High_School I created the following Chester County School District article to allow the school article to have some real context.

And finally I experimented with a very long list of schools in hampshire after the Afd Court Moor School although I did not really complete the school district list to my satisfaction in that case.

Early on I was labeled as a deletionist by Silensor and Nicodemus75 but I do not count myself as one. I have always tried to be a constructive voice in this debate. I know these pages are not perfect but i saw them as an experimental compromise. The most important thing for these school articles is that they are not hanging in cyber space with no context. I think this was summed up well by yourself at the recent Afd for Grove School:

"That's my point, Kappa. Why spend so much time and energy defending these little bits of low-utility information instead of gathering them together into some coherent form?"

I'd be interested to hear comments. David D. (Talk) 07:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I speedy deleted it under WP:IAR on the basis that the result was absurd (patently non-NPOV project kept because no one knew the vote was on). With this in mind, I've put it up for an actually fair vote. Ambi 10:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I use "a different construction" is because I'm only... ah, "half-black", whatever the hell that means. Going back three generations I am African-Anglo-Scots/Irish-Cherokee-Polish (ethnic Jew). If you saw me, you'd know I wasn't Caucasian, but you'd probably be undecided about the rest. When I typical Southerner see me, then I am black. :) This gives me a nuanced view of "race" (which I attest doesn't exist biologically, but certainly does sociologically.) Best, Xoloz 17:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was quite an explaination! I listened to your advice and have updated my preferences. Thanks! Will keep my end of the bargain too. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to comment on your future RFA chances? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that sincerely. Some of your advice I will probably heed, however when it comes to Nicodemous, the only way he'll get any kind of olive branch from me is if he stops this hardline BS. I'm willing to compromise on the school issue, however I've not seen any indication he is at this time. And if an RFC is started against me it's started against me. From what I've seen of that process it's about as useful as the AFD School debates have been, (ie:nothing happens at all except more bickering with no ultimate conclusion one way or the other), so no worries on me keeping clear as I have no interest in that kind of garbage even if I am the topic.Gateman1997 18:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[6]

</me is laughing> Did it work? - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it's still on WP:GD. SO, OK, my bad, I'll change that. Thanks for pointing it out. (For some reason I thought it wasn't possible - perhaps I was thinking about something like 'merge and delete' not being allowed under GFDL, or maybe I'm just too tired...) :) - ulayiti (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that makes you look like a completely unsalvageable wikiholic, don't you? :p - ulayiti (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for my comments on your RfA, you must know that the timing was awful; I couldn't in good conscience support so soon after, and your interactions with Tony are not the high point of your Wikipedia career. I've looked in on the WP:WEB discussion and the ones you pointed out on your RfA. Could be better, but not too bad; I don't expect every prospective admin to be Mother Teresa, and you do have a talent for finding a contentious mess and jumping into it. I won't hold ancient history against you after some more time has passed if you continue to act reasonably in the future. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know about it's popularity or whatever, I have plenty of sources!

Mugglecast is a very popular podcast from Mugglenet.com,[7] which does have it's own Wiki page. Mugglenet gets millions of users a month, from hundreds of countries. It's been on Yahoo a few times, here are the links. [8][9] Also, it's been mentioned repeatedly by the CEO of iTunes, for example, it's in their newsletter this week. [10]

70,000 people are subscribed to Mugglecast on iTunes, and it has always been at LEAST in the top 60 podcasts, usually much higher though. The first month it was on iTunes, it was #1. On it's Frappr, which is a Google map where you can post shout outs and such, Mugglecast has almost 3000 different people: [11]

Also, on the official fanlisting, that just came out 2 days ago, there are already about 100 people and 525 different posts. Mugglecast is also hosting a big Barnes and Nobles Live Podcast in NYC, where it is estimated 700 fans alone will be there.

If you want more proof, I can find it, but I assure you, Mugglecast is VERY VERY popular. :) Please allow the entry. :/ ~Mamatha

• Replied on your talk page. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geek porn - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what that section means on your user page? Redwolf24 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, alright then ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a rather shocking, yet interesting, explanation. Feel free to add me, it'd be good to have a guardian angel. I just found it strange to have 6 users on someone's user page with slashes inbetween them, and the link was to their contribs rather than their user page. And I knew you aren't friends with specifically at least one of them, so I knew it wasn't some wikifriends thing; yet all the users are recognizable admins, so I was really just curious. Cheers, Redwolf24 (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So there' is where you hide the black book... interesting. I would have thought you had it here. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, one thing you haven't explained. Why do you have slashes between users? I can understand one pair, but not the other two. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disregarded all votes from anonymous users. After that action, the result of the debate was eight for deletion and two for inclusion. However, majority votes are not binding, according to What Wikipedia is not, and the deletion policy clearly states "when in doubt, don't delete", and I am in doubt about this article.

If you wish, you may ask another administrator what (s)he thinks about this article, and (s)he can act accordingly.

 Denelson83  07:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Fisker, the original nominator changed his/her mind about deleting the article, and for Naming Substituted Benzene Isomers, a redirect seemed more appropriate to me.  Denelson83  07:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let them know.  Denelson83  07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, my original sense of doubt about deleting this article came from the sheer length of the debate. I'm not usually one to read through a long debate, because such a thing bores me quite a bit. I will stick to short deletion debates from here on out.  Denelson83  07:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, thanks for following up on this. I went offline after I posted, and when I returned you had reached a satisfactory conclusion with Denelson. Very kind of you. Regards encephalon 00:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron. Don't take it too personally when somebody calls you a "jerk". It says a lot more about the name-caller than the name-callee. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're begging for it. As per [12], you're right - I DO think you are a "deletionist vandal" among other things. My earlier attempt to reconcile with you after your disgusting and inherently racist use of the term "nigger" in the context of saying "even they [them niggers] call each other that" was patently ignored [13] with no response on your page or on mine. My apologies on that occasion were not replied to, and my declaration that my use of the term "deletionist" is in no way intended as personal insult or attack went unanswered, and in fact you have since insisted on several occasions that my use of the term is a personal attack, including your removal of my comments including the term "deletionist" and even the phrase "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete" (which is just a statement of identification of behavior of certain editors and I am baffled at how that could be construed as a personal attack). Your ignoring of my attempt to mend the fence I see as typical of your behavior in general, which had included a block request against me for calling you a "deletionist". I see a continuation of this sort of nonsense in many of your actions including the most recent and shameful incident of your vandalism, motivated by your clear hatred for Tony and his positions.

Now the current debate where you pontificate from on high as some well-read and researched editor on the history of consensus on school articles, from a clearly partisan pro-deletion perspective. I respect the fact that you may have a different philosophical position than I do on schools. What I do not respect are many of your comments and tactics. I am frankly sick and tired of you constantly insisting that you aren't a partisan, that you don't favour the deletion of school stubs and "non-notable" school articles defacto, when you clearly are every bit as much a partisan as I am. The constant self-righteous, holier-than-thou approach to school debating is offensive in the extreme, particularly when it is peppered with false statements to buttress your position. If I went around, claiming there clear, majority consensus keep on ALL elementary schools, you (and others) would rightly call me on it and be outraged that I was fraudulently trying to convince people of falsehoods. If I came back and claimed, "Oh that's how it was months ago" you would in all likelihood be rightly suspicious of my claims considering my history of participation in the debate or at least suggest that I get my shit in order when making claims and make sure they are backed up by the evidence - using a couple of selective AfD results on the fly, obviously wouldn't cut it.

Based on the history of interaction, I am not sure how we can reconcile at this stage, because you don't respect anything I say, and I essentially consider you to be a bad faith contributor to many discussions on WP, admittedly backed by offense taken at your latently racist remark. (Just to be totally clear, it is not the word "NIGGER" that I am so offended by, it is the phrase "even they call each other that" stating by implication that "they" are the "niggers" in question). If you want to debate and even bandwagon for school deletion - fine. But I do not think false claims and the whole self-righteous act when it comes to AfD that "you are all partisans and I am not" is a bunch of condescending, insulting tripe that is intended to pander to certain elements of the WP community so your next go at adminship actually has something better than a snowball's chance in hell. To top it off, you make even more galling statements that "[Nicodemus] has done worse" than calling people jerks. When it is you who have insulted me (and others) with your disgusting use of a racial epithet while insisting "oh, but it was sarcasm" and "Oh I am not a racist". I'm sure you'll tell me next how you "even have some black friends" or some other nonsense.

As far as I'm concerned, the ball is in your court to do something more substantive than just offer a string of glib apologies everytime you do something offensive.--Nicodemus75 09:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you on your user page, Aaron, for creating WP:PAIN. Thank you for doing this! There's a horrible personal-attack culture around here (from some users) with admins often unwilling to do anything about it, perhaps in case they become the focus of the attacks too, so I'm hopeful your idea will make things easier for those on the receiving end. Feel free to move the barnstar anywhere you fancy. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's in storage right now while I find someplace nice to put it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Once we've licked that, we begin to work on civility. Ok, we may have to start with me, but I can live with that." LOL!! You always make me laugh, Aaron. I could block you briefly pour encourager les autres, but I don't think I can give the same person a barnstar then block him within ten minutes. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This site requires consonant vigilance by Men of Letters. (Appy polly loggies to Norm Crosby). Wahkeenah 14:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of apologies

You could append the following to your apology at top of page, paraphrasing an old joke: "And if I continue to feel guilty, I will repair the other sites I have vandalised." >:) Wahkeenah 14:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton,
Don't suppose I could get you to tone that down a little, could I? - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tone down what, Arthur? --Calton | Talk 01:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hee. I really just meant to "special olympics" bit. Kurt's statements usually require no editorialising, they stand on their own. Hee, Arthur.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm assuming you mean "uncle arthur"... Wrong. Try again. Clue: what's my name?

2) I really just meant to "special olympics" bit And what was wrong with that? --Calton | Talk 01:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's too bad. If you'd have been calling me "Uncle Arthur" it would have been funnier. I don't want to sound like I've got my knickers in a twist over it, and while I understand what you're saying about Kurt, use of Special Olympics as a derogatory term is outside the pale. Perhaps I'm being over sensitive, but it just seemed a bit callous.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...use of Special Olympics as a derogatory term is outside the pale. Perhaps I'm being over sensitive... Yes, you are. If you don't understand a sentence, don't criticize it. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That reply was uncalled for. If I've misinterpreted that remark, than others might do the same. The phrase "Special Olympics of Data where every factoid is on equal footing with every other factoid, where my fountain pen is on par with, say, New York City" implies pretty strongly that the Special Olympics are in some way deficient. If I don't understand a remark, and try to engage you in some dialog about it, snapping that I "shouldn't criticize" means that the error could only be mine. I won't comment on this any further that to say that openness to input is generally considered a positive trait. Feel free to tell me how you feel on my talk page, but I'm moving on. I really didn't mean to offend you.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 01:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  ...openness to input is generally considered a positive trait Buckie, you didn't provide "input", you scolded me -- without explanation -- for using a phrase in a way that you misread, simply telling me "don't do that": getting anything resembling an actual explanation out of you was like pulling teeth with scissors, and that's not input as I would describe it. If you want to provide actual input, be my guest, but if you're unwilling or unable to do so, don't bother.
  Ordinarily, I'm unsympathetic to writers who complain that they've been misunderstood, even myself, but in this case it's clear that you read the words "Special Olympics" and you ceased to see its context, metaphorical meaning, or anything else surrounding it. Your response was so knee-jerk you couldn't even get my name right, despite it being in my sig and in big letters at the top of my Talk Page.
  If you don't want to offend, back up, at least minimally, what you're talking about; understand what you're talking about; and don't force people to play Twenty Questions in order to figure out what you're trying to say.
  If there's any way phrasing is ambiguous I'll change it, but I stand by my usage of the term.
  Calton | Talk 02:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know I said I was moving on, but that last reply was just hilarious. I didn't get your name wrong despite it being in giant flashing letters at the top of your user page. I simply mashed an extra key when I typed it. And your complaint that I was obtuse I find tempered by the fact that rather than simply saying "and there is no R in my name" you choose to make an oblique comment that it took another 75 words for me to understand.
    I have in fact gone and read and re-read your comment several times since we started this strange little dance. I still think that it was poorly worded. I'm not sure how you would have liked me to phrase that, however I did not intend to "scold" you. If you could tell me what I should have said, that would be great.
    I do seem to have gotten you on the wrong side of the bed, and I hope that no lasting damage has been done. You have been pretty abrupt with me, though, and I'd hope that even if you disagree with everything else I've been saying you'll consider that.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 04:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I simply mashed an extra key when I typed it. That's quite a strange keyboard you have. Is it French? Their keyboards are a little different from standard English keyboards, where the "a" and "l" keys are apart from the "r".

And your complaint that I was obtuse I find tempered by the fact that rather than simply saying "and there is no R in my name" you choose to make an oblique comment that it took another 75 words for me to understand. Oh good, you're halfway there. Did you consider why I took that approach? There's probably a fancy Latin term for that rhetorical technique, but I could say that the "medium was the message" or "lesson by example" and leave it at that.

...that last reply was just hilarious. What's equally hilarious is your assertion that the single sentence you provided, Don't suppose I could get you to tone that down a little, could I? is a) not content-free; and b) not patronizing.

Let's try a thought experiment: what would happen if you went to an article -- say George W. Bush, Israel, or Teletubbies -- slapped on an {{NPOV}} tag, then ran away without explanation. How far would that get you?

If you could tell me what I should have said, that would be great. Well, if you don't want to offend, back up, at least minimally, what you're talking about; understand what you're talking about; and don't force people to play Twenty Questions in order to figure out what you're trying to say. [See first point in current posting, above] If there's any way the phrasing is ambiguous I'll change it if you tell me how it's ambiguous, but I stand by my usage.

Wait, why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, I already wrote (almost all) that. So, which part did you miss, or which part was unclear? Did the bolding help clarify things? --Calton | Talk 05:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oookay... I'll be moving on to less cranky pastures now, thanks. brenneman^(t)(c) 05:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Aaron, poor Aaron.

If all you have to get you through the night is reading my deletion logs, I feel very sorry for you.

Take up a hobby.

How about Wikipedia?

Oh, wait, Wikipedia isn't a hobby, it's an obsession.  :)

User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip on linking Alexa and Google news hits. Makes my VfD nominations more effective. Too bad there's no criteria as of yet on what makes a blog notable, though. Skrewler 05:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism states:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia (such as swearing, deleting letters to make inappropriate words, etc.)

That establishes three criteria that must be met for an act to be considered vandalism:

1. The act must be performed intentionally
2. The act must cause harm to the encyclopedia proper (as opposed to the community SURROUNDING the encyclopedia)
3. The act must be performed with malicious intent

Now, that deletion meets criterion no. 1 is indisputable, unless you want to argue that all listings on AfD are done with a gun to the head.

To see how deletion meets no. 2, one must realize that an encyclopedia, properly understood, is a repository of ALL human knowledge. WP:NOT may say otherwise, but WP:NOT is wrong and thus can be ignored. Thus, removal of knowledge from the encyclopedia directly causes harm to the encyclopedia by working against its proper aim of containing all human knowledge.

For criterion no. 3, one must look at Ayn Rand's proof of how all bad acts (and I showed, above, how deletion of an article on any bona fide subject in an encyclopedia is a bad act) are necessarily done with malicious intent. Unfortunately, her explicit proof is not available on the Internet and her non-fiction writings are not widely available in publicly-accessible libraries (and I don't expect you to buy a book from a bookstore just to see one argument) but the entire theme of her novel Atlas Shrugged centers around that precise fact.

Thus, as I have just shown, deletion is vandalism and may be properly called such. Kurt Weber 14:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well Aaron, now you know. Who can argue with that, or with Ayn Rant? --Doc ^ask? 16:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I keep telling my wife that our house, properly understood, is a repository of ALL the stuff I've ever bought. She doesn't agree. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at this? I think you have far more experience in these things than I do. This AfD discussion was going along fine with 4 rational, civil votes until the comic's author and User:Eric Burns put up blog posts about how "Wikipedia just put Checkerboard Nightmare up to votes for deletion ... who the fuck cares what wikipedia thinks?" Predictably, the AfD is now a mess of anonymous, unsigned, and vandalized votes as well as incivility and personal attacks. Someoen changed my nomination to "keep this beloved webcomic," there's posts in there about how I'm "blatantly lying" and "Clearly, whoever put this up for deletion doesn't understand even the most cursory elements of the artistic field he's trying to 'edit,'" somebody created Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Megatokyo to try to make a point, etc. I'm sure this isn't the first time bloggers have tried to disrupt Wikipedia by spamming AfD, so there has to be some policy or precedent for how to clean up this mess, isn't there? Dragonfiend 02:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You both really, really need to do better at assuming good faith, rather than (a) assuming bad faith (b) actively promoting assumption of bad faith - David Gerard 11:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm a bit curious why you seem to be so, well, forceful about the Checkerboard Nightmare deletion topic. I mean, sending messages to friends to join to reinforce your side, making little side comments in the number of posts additions, and putting a big orange notice box at the top. Heck, I was unsure you weren't an admin until I checked the admin listings page. Bobulus 07:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, thanks for the info. I've not deleted too much up to now; when I have they were usually speedys which were not in the "Articles for deletion" list. I've started doing more patrolling; I'll do better next time. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh - I was actively editing in, like, ten tabs when my computer conked out (it's a piece of shit that randomly shuts off on its own), and I couldn't quite remember all the stuff I was working on. Thanks for the fix. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A spot on your user page, I'm honored to be on your all-star team. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-( I feel left out. Or is it a good thing I'm not there? Dmcdevit·t 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now I find out I am on your hit list... wow. o.O Titoxd^(?!?) 06:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<innocent look> [14] </innocent look>

Thanks for your, erm, ... "kind" offer, but ... (need an excuse quick) ... I've left the gas on. (call that an excuse!?) Chris talk back 05:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I love the template, btw - good work! Trollderella 01:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. The clean-up was certainly needed! But do you reckon a slight expansion to the "movie theater" dab would be worthwhile, such as adding "...with multiple screens" or something? Just in case anyone isn't familiar with the term - it'd give 'em an idea of what makes it different to a regular cinema. CLW 11:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're refactoring the discussion on the talk page to correctly tally up the votes. I wonder, are you doing it to bring it to DRV? Titoxd^(?!?) 17:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. And I generally approve of snark. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration has been requested in a matter involving you. Phil Sandifer 16:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Regarding_webcomics_deletion and your talk page.
brenneman^(t)(c) 22:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that after looking at that RFAr, I think it looks very weak. I think that that AFD nominations should have gotten to the point of being viscious disruptive before it is worthy of being ArbCom food (this one for example). If the ArbCom votes to accept this, I will be following the case closely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the AfD for the above, you wrote:

 Two bob each way, one of whom is the article's creator.

This is very minor, but what exactly did you mean by that? I'm not sure if "bob" is a verb here... Turnstep 18:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, colloquialism. "Two bob" means both two shillings and is Cockney for shit, and "each way" is a reference to gambling, for example placing a bet on two horses if you're not willing to commit. Thus "Two bob each way" means "not enough on either side to make a difference"! (This turned to "no consensus" in the end, but I'm happy with a no consensus that has more than two bob each way.)
brenneman^(t)(c) 22:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, betting "each way" is taking on both a win and a place (top 2/3, sometimes 4 in large fields). If the horse comes in first, both "ways" pay out. Chris talk back 00:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just know that there is no better way to suck up to me than a pedantic correction!
brenneman^(t)(c) 00:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right, Mr. "Have my babies". :-) Chris talk back 00:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you chime in over at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? I still don't get what's supposedly wrong with the CSD, but I think you can provide some insight, as you did yesterday. Thanks!--Sean|Black 22:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Aaron. It looks like Radiant! has done something to please the people who think that they're was a problem (not that I can understand what the problem was in the first place, but this seems like a good compromise).--Sean|Black 23:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yes. Like I said, I still don't get what the problem is (Something about people not following the rules, but there are too many rules? Whatever.), but I hope this makes them happy. I'll let you know if there's more complaints.--Sean|Black 00:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are there two many rules, or are they applied badly? How about changing that? Why not add your statement to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements? —preceding unsigned comment by Simon Chartres (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the chuckle. I didn't know what to think about that header!  :)

As for new pages patrol, I am staying well away. People are putting more effort into complaining about deleted single sentences than they are in making real articles, or so it seems. We persist. Anyway, thanks again. - Lucky 6.9 19:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation/rant. If people patrolling Afd for one sentence delete spent that same time writing new artciles.....imagine the concept. Rather than saving junk they could add what they believe is most important. We all know they think everything is important but they must acknowledge that some holes are bigger than others.

The same goes for Rfc, and POV pushing. Both are an almost complete waste of time, yet many many users seem to spend their whole time pursuing these futile tasks. Why would one do this? David D. (Talk) 19:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my last rant was not aimed at anyone imparticular. i just needed to get it off my chest. David D. (Talk) 19:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the flowers and kittens for When I Am King. It also made me laugh that you 1) gave me flowers and kittens before 2) you got grossed out that I was a girl! Thanks for injecting some humor into an otherwise mostly unpleasant situation. -- Dragonfiend 20:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my response on the Talk page?

I think you are seriously over-appling policy in this case. There is a proposal to change 'External links' to 'Further reading', see here. Perhaps that would make it clearer that links like Stealth magazine are appropriate in examples like these.

cheers, pfctdayelise 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't know why that kind of thing belongs on the talk page, but that's what you did.)

Anyway, a couple of the votes were miscategorized, so I put them in the proper groups. Me, personally, I think we should leave the whole discussion page blank. BrandonYusufToropov 15:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the content on the talk page should replace the main vote page. It is more organized. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. As long as we don't delete any discussion. I see what you're doing now, Aaron. Just didn't get it at first. Ignore me. :) BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! No, we can't change the main page, everything there should be left alone... that way if I go nuts and start putting things in wrong, it's easy to compare. The main AfD page is sancrosect. - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just to be clear - never do this WHILE discussion is ongoing. It makes people think less about what they are going to say and more about which box they are going to fall into. This shouldn't be a vote, and anything that makes it more like one is a bad thing. - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and agreed, but note discussion is still going on and people are still (as in within the last five or ten minutes) casting votes. BrandonYusufToropov 15:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had thought that I would take advantage of a time-zone difference, but oh well... - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Aaron, you could put the message "More organized voting on talk page" on the main page. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, BIG mistake on my part. The discussion's natural life span had not yet ended. I've removed the whole thing. - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Honest mistake. Also: Please note that, at the beginning of this discussion, I really did not realize your work was related to closing the discussion.

Hey -- why should the wrapup be easy, when everything else about this thing has felt like having one leg bolted to a third rail. The whole ^&*()-*$# fiasco is beginning to feel like WP's little Apollo 13 to me. BrandonYusufToropov 15:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But you can probably do it after the voting has ended and before the votes are counted. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeisunfair,
I'd suggest that your comments to me at WP:DRV were patronising at best. Despite my personal disregard for blogs in general, an examination of the argument shows that the "keep" side made no case: No links demonstrating mentions in media, no statements in parliment about Bloggin Toires, etc etc. Had they done so, I'd happily have seen this article kept. These aren't meant to be me-too pile-ons, they are meant to be debates. That I have a different view than you is no reason to malign my character.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd suggest that your comments to me at WP:DRV were patronising at best."

The advice in question was written without condescension. (I even included the word "respectfully," purely as a means of conveying the fact that no disrespect was intended.) I'm sorry that you viewed it as some sort of insult.

"Despite my personal disregard for blogs in general, an examination of the argument shows that the "keep" side made no case: No links demonstrating mentions in media, no statements in parliment about Bloggin Toires, etc etc. Had they done so, I'd happily have seen this article kept. These aren't meant to be me-too pile-ons, they are meant to be debates."

Suffice it to say, I disagree with your assessment, as do most of the WP:DRV voters (including "delete" voters from the AfD debate). I'm not suggesting that you change your mind, but merely that you accept the outcome and move on (instead of harping on how wrong all of us are).

I cited an example of a recent situation in which I found myself in a similar position. I still disagree with the TfD consensus, but I realize that my opinion is in the vast minority (and therefore must be overridden). Yes, this is frustrating, but such is life.

"That I have a different view than you is no reason to malign my character."

Ditto. —Lifeisunfair 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Bah. I still feel that your comments came across as condescending, and that the "respectfully" was about as useful as "Don't be mad when I say this", but I am totally undone by the artful way thay you nested the bullet points with colour. Bah. I'll go do something useful now. - brenneman^(t)(c)
• Oh! Almost forgot - I'll take "Ditto" to mean that you feel like I've insulted you back, so I'm sorry. Not my intent. Handshakes all around, etc. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good thing and doesn't look like a good thing to redirect the talk page of a wikiproject started by someone you're in an Arbitration conflict with to the talk page of an unconnected wikiproject. Please don't do this - David Gerard 00:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does it look worse for him to delete the page rather than simply undoing to re-direct? - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT - David Gerard 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think he's actually disrupting wikipedia just to prove a point.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant you. Don't be disruptive for the sake of it - David Gerard 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why it is better to have all the discussion about all websites at WP:WEB. On the other hand, blogs are a subset of websites that probably warrant some attention of their own. They could be handled at Talk:WEB (sic) adequately, but there's already a whole load of concurrency there as it is. So maybe somewhere of its own, with a prominent link from both the project page of WP:WEB and its talk page (Snowspinner already put one on talk, I think) is enough? If that causes the discussion on blogs to go nowhere, it can be brought back to WP:WEB. I see what you mean about Balkanization, though. I don't think there was any need to for Snowspinner or Gerard to delete the redirected page, though, a redirect is easily reverted. -Splash^talk 01:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you cared.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does, indeed, rock the party. BTW, maybe you should start Stalker fetish? · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect you did to AICW has completely vandalised the page and I do not think you understand anything about the subject matter. You have redirected AICW to Metal Storm for no apparent reason, further AICW is not the property of Metal Storm but DSTO. Can you please explain what you are doing here? --Never29 08:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Never,
As this relates to an article, I've responded at Talk:Advanced Individual Combat Weapon.
brenneman^(t)(c) 12:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I remembered that someone had made that joke, but I had made a mental note to myself that the first time I found something that it would fit, I would actually create a subpage in my user space to link to that. Unfortunately, it came before I had the time to actually write User:Titoxd/Texture's Shoe Theorem... Titoxd^(?!?) 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just getting the note from you was nice in itself, so thank you. ;-) If you have any extra energy, you could look in on Talk:Animal rights. FuelWagon has been at it again, so the page is protected, but some other editors have weighed in now, so a proper discussion is taking place. Basically, the issue is whether the intro is POV, and if so, how it can be improved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you like. I've just archived a bunch, but if you can be bothered to summarize what's left, that would be helpful, though perhaps leave the most recent comments from the RfC? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A voice that cries and wings that fiercely beat,
Another summer night you'll someday fly,
A dwindling world below your weary feet,
You cannot hope to know until you try,

Bright feathers grow, your fledgling wings spread fast,
You soar above red sand and blue-white ice,
Bright feathers grow, your fledgling wings spread fast,
You soar above red sand and blue-white ice,

Rise from your bed, worn body, and frayed skin,
Steel nights of silent pain; bronze days of rage,
Now leave behind a life that's closing in,
Fly far from death in evil wars they wage,

Fly free of summer's burn and winter's bite,
Someday In a blue heaven you'll alight.

• Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the poll's been up about an hour... Also, I'm not the only one. The community rejected this already, it isn't as if I am opposing something that has support outside of the usual suspects who, I am sure, would love everyone who opposes them to go an do something else while they write in all the things the community didn't want back into policy. Trollderella 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning behind this was that Trollderella was the one who was reported on AN/3RR so Trollderella was the one I looked at in terms of diffs and contribs. I was planning on warning however due to Trollderella's responses to being warned on his talk page I decidede a block was appropriate to enforce A) a cooling off period and B) to stop the edit warring on a policy page (edit warring on policy pages is a fairly serious issue as far as I'm concerned due to the fact that these pages are cited and used all over the project. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent any confusion I also posted a clarification on User talk:Trollderella Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I have presented some evidence in your defence. I think that your taggings of votes at this AFD debate were entirely within good editorial conduct of AFD, and not something which you should be reprimanded for. I have also suggested that the ArbCom consider the policy on meatpuppets relevant to this case. Personally, I think the ArbCom should have rejected this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. I would have provided the same diffs, you just saved me a heap of time. - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rl

Why you meanie! You bit a greenie.
Worse than that, you're big and fat!
he was right, you were quite wrong
Were you there, smoking a bong?

Why you slime! You did say insults must rhyme!

Okay, done with the insults already.  :-P I couldn't resist the opportunity :-)

What I'm actually quite curious about is why did you post your particular opinion on that requests for adminship, way back when? And are you still of the same opinion?

Kim Bruning 06:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm suprised indeed by the content of your couplet, I'd thought that those aspects of my personality were well hidden!
• I wasn't impressed with the apparent coyness of the responses. True, 100% indicates everyone agrees and anything less is simply "rough", but I'm not going to place my bet blindly. If RI had (for example) said "here's a linked decision, and here's what I would have decided" then I would have had something to go on.
• I generally vote "oppose" in any instance where I'm unsure. I recently did otherwise, and found upon closer conversation that the person was clearly not ready to be an administrator. Seeing as how it's effectivly impossible to dead-min someone, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.
• However, I'm way more worried about attacks upon people based upon their votes, especially when those attacks are, in effect, telling them to either "shut up or go away entirely."

brenneman^(t)(c) 04:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aaron, thanks for your input on Mindspillage's talk page(I think you and her are probably tied now among the arbitrators i've respected the most among this nonsense), and I was wondering if I could get your opinion in regards to his comment here. I assume by this point, nobody really listens to him at WP:AN or any other associated board anymore, so I was wondering if it's even worth adding to his rfar by now consdering the over hundred and fifty or so pieces of evidence against him in regards to such behavior. karmafist 08:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, i'll try to add an insulting rhyme for your collection later. I have to check in on Ward Churchill. The arbcom seems to have far too many slaps on the wrist. karmafist 08:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the others could have said what you just said on my talk page when this all began. They did to some extent recently, but your insight there was fantastic. Please accept my pet bear in gratitude, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to keep the peace around here. karmafist 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't think of an insulting poem, but I was wondering if you could help me with expanding the injunction, xxxxxxxxxxxx [15] [16]. He's already restricted from editing in the rest of my user space, but apparently that's not enough. karmafist 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: I did, indeed, forget to close the speedy. - DavidWBrooks 14:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You also don't get to simply decide it's time to cruft up the deletion policy and weaken a section that you have already tried to delete with a misleading edit summary once before ([17]). Phil Sandifer 02:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responed on user's talk page. I really do have do develop some system for managing these split discussions.
brenneman^(t)(c) 02:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seriously suggesting that, after a paragraph has sat in place for over a year and a half, it is appropriate to remove it on the grounds that it was added by an anonymous contributor, especially since the right of anonymous contributors to edit is a foundation issue, are you? Phil Sandifer 02:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that? Must have quit taking my meds, I don't remember saying that. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then one wonders what the point of that edit summary was - why point out its anonymous addition, which seems beside the point? Phil Sandifer 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting the cart before the horse. This is either a failure to understand the logical implications of what you're saying, or a bad-faith attempt to throw some mud and hope it will stick. I'll presume it's the former. The fact that was added by an anonymous user is not "beside the point", but it does not then follow that I support the whole-sale blanking of anything ever put in my any anonymous user anywhere. It is relevent when we're discussing an egregiously mis-used pithy phrase that distorts the entire intent of deletion policy. This user's other contributions weren't edifying, they couldn't be queried as to exactly what they intended, etc. There was nothing "misleading" about my edit summary, another phrase of yours that a less charitable person could interpret as mud-slinging. I'll again presume that you were simply confused.
brenneman^(t)(c) 02:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you weighed the fact of its anonymous contribution over the fact that the phrase sat without objection for a year and a half? Phil Sandifer 02:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you even looked at the talk page, other than to place comments on it? There is extensive discussion there regarding my opposition to IIDDD's inclusion. At some stage I begin to hope that you're misunderstanding me on purpose, because the alternative is simply so depressing. Then again, you seem to be able to type english-like words, and claim to have PhD, so perhaps your myopia is limited to things that relate to me. It appears that any attempts to actually comunicate with you are pointless. If you wonder why I think that, please review your talk page where I have on several occasions tried to enter into some meaningful talk with you, to no avail. If you'd like to continue to crow about the fact that I pointed out that it was contributed one occasion by an anonymous user, please do so. I'll interject your contributions to my talk page with limericks, which will be more amusing and probably just as effective. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why you did this? My opinion is that archiving to subpages duplicates data, and disk space is cheap but not free, but I'm always happy to hear other opinions. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons: actual archives are easier to link to; unlike links to history, they get indexed by Google, making it easier to find vaguely-remembered discussions; and looking at real pages taxes the server a lot less than looking at an old version, especially if there are many intervening revisions. —Cryptic (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment: "Use the talk page" doesn't mean "leave a notice that you've blindly reverted to your version" seems unnecessarily harsh to me. Surely my detailed explanation of my reasoning does not count as leaving a notice that I've blindly reverted to my version. Indeed as I explained, Cryptic has evidently missed the point. Speedy deletion is always something that we should be prepared to reverse; it's always subject to challenge, and a good faith claim of authorship should be enough to justify undeletion in this case. We shouldn't engage in pointless alienation of new editors when we have a perfectly good mechanism for dealing with suspected copyright infringements.

In the circumstances, it would be difficult to characterize my edit as a "blind revert." Indeed you may have noticed that, unlike Cryptic, I did use the talk page to explain my edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing your concerns to my talk page, Tony. I may have been harsh, I can admit that. It's just that we've played this game out so many times before, I sometimes tend to skip to the end.

Here's the sequence of events, with a little bit of commentary. I've put them top-to-bottom, I can't keep the "normal" way straight in my head. Sorry.

1. 07:39, 4 December 2005 Tony Sidaway # (→Articles - If the deleting admnistrator is subsequently notified of an error, the article should of course be immediately undeleted.)

   This was a perfectly good edit. I happen to think that it's wrong-headed, but last I checked that wasn't the standard, more the pity. Nothing on talk page, but so what, you try it on and see what happens.

2. 09:26, 4 December 2005 Cryptic (Rv. Absolutely not. We don't undelete copyvio pages because someone makes an unsubstantiated claim of permission.)

   Ok, Cryptic hates it. He does a full revert without then using the talk page. Bad Cryptic, bad!

3. 23:00, 4 December 2005 Tony Sidaway (If there is a claim of permission, then there is a dispute, which should be resolved. If in doubt, don't delete.)

   Here's the problem: You just roll him right back. Full revert, wham bam thank you mam. That's a revert war, Tony, no matter how you look at it. No amount of "But he was wrong" can change that. At this point you had an obligation to let the wrong version stand and go to the talk page.

4. (TALK) 23:09, 4 December 2005 Tony Sidaway (→Copyright)

   You do use the talk page, something Cryptic did not do. But you'd already rolled back his changes.

5. 23:11, 4 December 2005 Aaron Brenneman (if there is a dispute, don't just blindly revert - uset the talk page. No biscuit!)

   Well, no biscuit for me, either. I also should have let the wrong version stand and, uset [sic] the talk page.

6. (TALK) 23:13, 4 December 2005 Aaron Brenneman (→Copyright - I've put cryptic's version back until there is further discussion.)

   I do uset the talk page, something Cryptic did not do. But I'd already rolled back his changes.

This is a lot like the VFU header scuffle, and somewhat like the Deletion policy dust up. You insist on your version being on the main page while discussion goes on, I insist on editing it. You think I'm trying to be sneaky, I think you're just being stubborn.

I'm vaguely aware of the existance of "voting pairs", where junior senators agree to cancel each other's votes out in return for alcohol and hookers or somesuch. Surely we can work something similar out? I edit something in a way that appears designed to inflame your unnatural lust for inclusion, you pop up and yell "PAX" and I have to leave the main page alone for twelve hours or something. I'm happy to hear any suggestion short of "Please discontinue your involvement outside of the article namespace" because, really, it's no fun for me.
brenneman^(t)(c) 12:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course I could yell "PAX", too. - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]