User talk:Friday/archive2

This page was getting a bit long and has been archived. See here for the old stuff.

Your silly reverts

You know you're dealing with a new army of adults who know better when kids like you dare call them "kids", right? I'm 40 years of age, thank you very much.

Harry Potter speculation

Harry potter speculation is littered throughout the 100's of Potter pages. I thought it would make sense to collect them all under one page. Interesting about the original research magnet, but most of these ideas are not original. The Dumbledore is not dead theory is the only one I care about. Any first time reader of book six may wonder about this idea even long after book seven is written. I wanted to capture this wide spread speculation which may disappear ...or be proven once book seven is out. I think it is important for the same reason a plot summary should be listed. --Gearspring 04:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Gavin

I'm going to you for advice on this, because I think I've blown my working relationship with Gavin. He really needs to request an advocate. Can you help him with AMA? Hipocrite 21:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah and hip blew her 'working relationship' with me too. In record time no less. Hmmm...there seems to be a pattern developing here...Big Daddy 04:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

speedy template

FYI {{nn-bio}} alias {{db-bio}} cites the exact language of WP:CSD A7, the non-notable real person criterion. You may find it helpful in cases like Rob Vincent. Thanks for tagging that article. DES ^(talk) 16:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks for the tip. Friday (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for supporting my adminship request. You must be careful with that cowbell tag- I've determined that "cowbell" must mean different things to different people. Anyhow, since I'm stopping by to thank you anyway, I thought I'd give you this. Sometimes, the fever needs medication. . . --Scimitar ^parley 15:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Your lack of civility

Note: This discussion is in response to a note I left on a talk page, which was deleted.

Hi Friday. You should read and follow the Wikipedia:Civility policy. That includes not restoring personal attacks[1] on my talk page that I removed as inappropriate (both per the policies that users can remove personal attacks at will and also because I can use my talk page as I see fit) and not making claims that removing discussion from a talk page is considered uncivil when it's more accurate to say that constantly putting comments on a talk page that you know are inappropriate and unwelcome is uncivil. Your claims to want to give advice would appear a lot more genuine if you were more -- gosh what's the word? -- civil about them. DreamGuy 22:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Removing other people's comments isn't really uncivil, it's just generally considered poor form. Anyway, I'm sorry you saw that comment as a personal attack. I'll refrain from putting things on your talk page since you obviously don't like getting feedback from other editors. Friday (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I like getting feedback, but it's nice if the feedback was intended to have a real purpose. Showing up to restore personal attacks against me that I had earlier removed and then suddenly telling me I should read the civility policy when you have already previously given me that link and by all appearances have not read it yourself both are quite without a legitimate purpose. Please do not try to misconstrue my preference for only having ongoing and genuine concerns on my talk page with being uncivil. DreamGuy 22:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my memory isn't that good. I didn't see the link to WP:CIVIL anywhere on your talk page, so I pointed you there. Editors may well be more aware of what's happened previously if it's still there to read. Friday (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, see, and there you are being uncivil again by pretending to be ignorant to try to justify your uncivil behavior. Whether you remember you put the link there previously or not, you also knew that some people were making complaints elsewhere about my supposed uncivility with prominent linkss there and that I had responded. You were fully aware that I know about the policy, and yet you purposefullystopped by to give a "friendly" tip. Apparently you seem to think that uncivil behavior is perfectly fine if you use polite words while taking actions obviously intended to annoy and harass. That's not really a position that can be defended. I only hope that you rethink your behavior here. DreamGuy 03:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I do not agree that cautioning other editors about policies (or even suggesting that they have violated a particular policy) is automatically uncivil. There are nice ways and not nice ways to do it. Friday (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was automatically uncivil. Please make a stronger effort to find the nice ways of doing it, because the examples I gave above are clear examples of the not nice ways. DreamGuy 22:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid we may simply have to agree to disagree on that last point. But, I will take the spirit of your advice to heart and seek nicer ways of interacting with other editors, even if I'm criticising an edit. I can see that the edit I made a couple weeks ago wasn't appreciated. I've already said I'm sorry, but I'll say it again and try to be very nice about it: I'm sorry for making an edit to your user talk page that you didn't like. Can we let bygones be bygones? I'll certainly agree to not restore deleted content on your talk page anymore. I still don't think you should remove comments by other editors, but I'll happily consider that your business rather than mine. I haven't been here all that long and I won't pretend I don't make mistakes. Looking to the future rather than dwelling on the past, I'll welcome any further comments you (or any other editor) have on my editing behavior. Friday (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

The "does not assert importance" criterion is for people, not books. CanadianCaesar 03:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD template

hi. i'm curious how replacing the VfD template with boilerplate text (e.g., Ignite (U.S. band)) is "fixing" the VfD tag. mind filling me in? i can't see any difference in the result, except for adding more characters, and some remarks that shouldn't be necessary for anybody who reads the page. what's the payoff, and how was what i did broken (the implication of "fixing")? thanks. SaltyPig 08:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Short articles

Hi there. I created the articles as stubs in hope that they will be expanded by other users. They are well-known brands within the UK, and I feel they could have worthy articles in time. --Daniel Lawrence 20:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Censorship

at User_talk:Bad_girl_1701 you've stated that "removing articles from Wikipedia has nothing to do with censorship." we've been so trained to recoil from "censorship" that the word is apparently losing its meaning. the problem at hand is not censorship, but rather the mistaken belief that censorship isn't supposed to occur at wikipedia (and that it's inherently evil).

the WP:NOT article is essentially censorship policy. that is good, because wikipedia couldn't function without censorship. deleting articles at wikipedia has everything to do with censorship. intelligent, proper censorship should be lauded, not denied. censorship, like discrimination (another necessary action practiced here intentionally), is usually not a bad thing, but we're programmed to recoil from even considering the possibility that we engage in either of those often worthy practices. wikipedia is private property, and speech restrictions are an essential right of property owners. User:Bad_girl_1701's attempt to invoke "constitutional" blah blah should fail immediately. it's irrelevant here, and is simply a fallacious attempt to put readers on the defensive. looks like it worked. SaltyPig 21:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Wiki is "private property" is exactly why I don't consider this remotely censorship. We're making no attempt to establish standards for other people's websites, we only worry about encyclopedic standards for this one. Perhaps this is purely semantics, but I still don't consider it at all censorship. Friday (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind. It is censorship, but it's the good kind. Being a libertarian type, I often jump to conclusions when I hear words like that. I usually assume censorship to mean one entity censoring another, which I usually don't like. But when an organization censors itself, that's ok. So actually, I agree with you, altho I have to admit, I think you perhaps bit the newbie a bit more than needed. On the other hand, the subsequent vandalism coming from there doesn't make me very sympathetic. Friday (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

i thought i was pretty nice to her. i welcomed her, and tried to get her situated despite her bad behavior. maybe if you can tell me what parts you think were too biting, i'll gradually become a nicer person. SaltyPig 04:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say I'm an authority on being nice or anything, I've probably bitten unneccessarily a few times myself. I just thought perhaps the new editor took offense to your calling the article "terrible". Altho, you were pretty right about that and I suppose that's not much of a bite, perhaps a light nip if anything. You user page rant, while understandable, is a bit biting in tone although I suppose that's a bit different as it's not aimed at a particular, named person. Anyway, thanks for your reasonable response! Friday (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Veda

Thanks for the $.02.  :) The original content was "Veda is a band from Kansas City, Missouri," which I axed under A1. Glad it's back as a real article, though. - Lucky 6.9 17:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Does this mean we're up to an even $.10? - Lucky 6.9 20:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Point made

-You wrote: Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Specifically, this is in response to this edit. Friday (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

-Thanks anyways, I am somewhat flattered that you recognized it's a point made. We should talk some time and exchange our views regarding the series. I'm sure you are quite educated in this area. I welcome any other suggestions you will make. :) Soilguy6 05:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow

Friday, I V. Molotov - formerly known as "Dbraceyrules", hereby give you this Barnstar of Diligence for efforts on Wikipedia.

Take care, V. Molotov 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing, I was just trying to politeV. Molotov 21:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that! Thanks again. Friday (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

your vote on metroblogging

I was wondering if you would consider changing your vote on metroblogging. I see that you voted the way you did because policy deemed that a rank higher than 10k wasn't enough. Thats a silly policy with millions of pages on the net, the top 10% or better must be worthwhile. I have revised the policy page. Thanks! 12.111.139.2 01:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)--

• And I've "revised" it back. The 10k number has resulted from discussion of that policy, and no, it's not silly. Wikipedia is not a web directory. (Sorry for intruding on your talk page, Friday.) android79 01:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and no problem, android79. Also, for 12.111.139.2, WP:WEB isn't even a policy per se, it's a proposed guideline. I chose to use that guideline in considering this article. Another one to consider is WP:NOT. There are plenty of websites who've got articles in Wikipedia. However, there are millions that don't, and it's up to the articles to show why a particular website is more influential or important than millions of other sites. I've got a website, two bands, and a car, but you'll find none of them written about on Wikipedia. The deletion vote is not an attempt to judge the value of the website. It's an attempt to control what topics are covered in the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The Salty Kids

Thanks for moving that for me! Glad to know you enjoyed the comedy :)

Yes

I'm watching it with a sinking heart. Were the page not protected, I suspect we'd be giddy from the reverting. But it's not quite at a blockable level yet, IMO. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. And, yeah, I'm not saying he violated 3RR, or the case for a block would be obvious. I'm just disappointed that he continues to edit by brute force, in the very same content dispute that just got him blocked. Friday (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

theres no brute force, otherwiset here would be no discusssion.~!Gavin the Chosen

huh?

Look what is the meaning of all these letters and akrynms? Why cant you peak to all ths on my frequesst for reqiest for comment page maybe that might help you.Wiki brah 19:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am about to step out for a bit of a air now please do not post anything on my page ever agan thank you.Wiki brah 19:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If you mean your talk page, OK, I guess. If you mean another page, you may be out of luck. Friday (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Dear Friday, thanks for your vote of confidance at my RfA. I'll try hard to make the soggy mop proud! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wildcat cartridge

No problem on destubbing that--I've shot a number of wildcats and near-wildcats in my time; the .30 Herrett in particular is a fun one, and I've formed .221 Fireball brass from .223 cases (back when .221 Fireball brass was out of production). I've also greatly expanded the handloading page, if you want to have a look and check my admittedly flaky spelling... scot 19:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

ulayiti's RfA

Hi Friday, and thanks for your support of my RfA. I'm an administrator now, and I hope that I'll live up to the community's expectations as one. Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. - ulayiti (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia email

hello. did you send this to me via email? Man, if you want to edit wikipedia you're going to have to play nice with other editors. There are ways of resolving disputes without the animosity. If you keep it up, you could find yourself blocked from editing. Just trying to help. I know you can do useful things here, but not if you get yourself blocked. if so, why? based on what? for what purpose? if not, please ignore/delete. thanks. SaltyPig 00:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It was about this, actually, I just didn't want to be piling on. The purpose was already explained, but I'll try to explain it again. You're doing useful things, so I wouldn't like to see you get blocked or chased off the project. However, if you don't manage to play nicer with others, you're going to get static from people and possibly get blocked sometimes. Friday (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"manage to play nicer with others"? do you hear yourself say these things? somebody told you that's an effective way to communicate with adults? do whatever you want. if i can't reply with humor and disdain to somebody threatening me and then threatening to kick my ass, you can have this place. you might want to consider sometime, however, that intelligent adults respond better to short hand jabs (e.g., "bro, you're pushing it. lay off the guy a little. you know we can't go talking to newbies like that. c'mon."), not smarmy kindergarten talk. you're just making things worse. and i'm sure this comment here will be blamed on me having an attitude problem, not you being a condescending groper. yeah, thanks for your "advice". glad after my good record at wikipedia that it gets me "the speech for the snot-nosed". wannabe cops will kill this place if anything can. exactly how did you end up reading my talk page anyway? that's perhaps the key here. i didn't report the guy. interesting. SaltyPig 01:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I tried the subtle adult-style talk. You responded like you didn't know what I was talking about. I wasn't trying to be patronizing. Sorry I rubbed you the wrong way tho. I'll leave to you yourself and not give you "advice" anymore. Friday (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi there, Friday. Thanks for the support on my RfA; I was surprised at how widely supported it was. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I learn my way around the new buttons. Thanks again. -Splash 16:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oral Sex

Friday, I think there might be a small concensus. Please read the following prior posts from the oral sex discussion page Reynoldsrapture 19:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC) :

i realize there is a place for images here, and i personally do not support censoring such things - however, let me lay something out for you. i teach history at a public high school in the United States. i use wikipedia in my lessons. i have students use wikipedia for their research. the district has a very strict policy about image content, especially because we have elementary schools using the same network. the images on this article are putting at risk student access to wikipedia.

sure, sure, you'll say - well, fight the district. it isn't that easy. the district has elementary schools, middle schools and high schools, all under one umbrella. we all use the same network. in other words, currently, the elementary schools in my district also have access to wikipedia. in the case of children, it is not for you to decide whether they should see these images or not - it is up to the parents of each child.

the point of all this is: whatever websites are blocked for the elementary school are also blocked for the high school - because we only use one network.

yes, i agree, there should not be censorship. however, i really want you all to think of the complicated situation here. potentially, i could lose access to wikipedia from my high school - and that would be a tragedy. Kingturtle 07:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If students see swear words on Wikipedia used in legitimate sense (e.g. ass, shit, etc), would that count as risk for students in the elementary school using Wikipedia? --SuperDude 15:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC) I doubt it. The concern would be seeing explicit photos and drawings of sexual acts. I am fully opposed to censorship - but this situation calls for some serious thought. Kingturtle 16:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC) I must say that I am rather happy to see the question arising in a sensible and non-partisan tone. It is a legitimate question to consider, and I think that it would be very positive if it could at last be discussed calmly and with genuine intents to come to a reeasonable conclusion. Rama 16:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt here but, why would you be teaching oral sex in a history class?--Orgullomoore 21:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral comment: I think his point is that site-wide bans because of pages like oral sex will lead to pages a history teacher will have a legitimate interest in using, like Roman republic, being blocked by overzealous administrators. It's no secret that the commercial webblocking programs have employed heavy-handed techniques in the past. Wikipedia is no good if people can't get to us, but it's also no good if it becomes a censored community. That's why it's so vital to find a compromise. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) The images shouldn't be here. It's illegal to show sexually explicit images to children, without consent of parents, without making any attempt to prevent it. Like copyright law, it's irrelevant if you disagree with the law. It's irrelevant if the law is inneffective. Also, yes, people do read about topics they do not wish to "partake" in. There are also a number of other acts, that nobody wishes to see pictures of. I can think of countless articles (not this one) that describe an act (sexual and non-sexual), which most people would wish to read about, but would not engage in. At a minimum, wikipedia should "tag" this and other pages, so that "filter" software can exclude it. I don't beleive that is done. So, the pictures should go. --rob 07:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with the above statements, the photos really do have to go. There's no excuse for having what could be deemed hardcore pornographic content on an encyclopedia. Also, we seem to only be looking at it from our westernised point of view. In many theocratic countries pornography will get you flogged and worse in others. I'd rather ditch the eye candy than think some poor sap in Indonesia just got beaten within an inch of his life because he was trying to learn and clicked through to somewhere he shouldn't have. As there has been no complaints or "Keep the porn." attitudes demonstrated, not even by a vocal minority, I will be so bold as to make a move and remove the images in question. Jachin 09:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC) This image has been removed numerous times and has always been restored. Please do not remove information unless you have something better to replace it with. Rama 09:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC) I'm failing to see the advantage to an inline vs. linked image. No content is being removed, but Wikipedia is in real danger of violating obscenity law by providing no warning/disclaimer/age protection. Linking the image should satisfy this concern (yes, I've read the above arguments from April). Nae'blis 22:03:47, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. android79 15:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Bmicomp's RfA

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy

You wrote: "Thanks for your response via email, but I'm afraid it just shows that you're not understanding the problem here"

Well, thank YOU for your response, but I assure you, I understand the REAL problem here much more than you think... Big Daddy 04:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. A bully, or better, a wannabe bully just up and DELETED my comments on the Karl Rove talk page. You can't do that can you? I returned the favor and then they whined that I was 4RR. It was an OBVIOUS set up....Sheesh, some people will do WHATEVER to try and silence the opinions of those they disagree with, huh? Big Daddy 05:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule, editors should not delete other editors' comments. Also as a general rule, editors should not break the one revert rule. I'm not picking sides here, just making general statements. Friday (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sean Federline

Hi Friday. Just wanted to let you know that you should not redirect (or blank, or delete) an article whilst it is being discussed at Articles for deletion. Rather, indicate in its discussion page that you wish it to come to that end. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

To be frank, I am really not willing to engage in an extended discussion on deletion policy. I tend to stay away from Afd altogether because of the friction it causes and its often confrontational manner. Further, I am on Wikibreak. However, I'll attempt to briefly respond to your points.

Firstly, I think you're not completely understanding the Afd process or the concept of a consensus generally. Articles are submitted to Afd in an attempt to seek consensus on what to do with them - whether it be delete or keep, or even merge, redirect or transwiki. Once articles have entered the Afd process, they must be allowed to run their course - which, as stated on Afd, is usually 5 days. (The exception being if articles submitted should have been listed as candidate's for speedy deletion; this is done to avoid un-necessary backlog). And it is precisely because of this the {{afd}} notice states "You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Please take note of this in future.

If over the course of its listing - again, usually five days, but can also be either longer or shorter depending on whether consensus is overwhelming or lacking - a consensus is formed to redirect, then the closing admin may take that action. But only after, not during.

I placed the article on Afd because I sought consensus for deletion. However, if the consensus is against the proposed deletion, then I am equally happy because it will have been what the community decided. If you think an article proposed for deletion would be better replaced by a redirect, than indicate that in the discussion. Please do not unilaterally take it upon yourself to achieve that end. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermicula, perhaps no-one has objected because they are not as vigilant as I? I recommend you restore the article and wait for the discussion to finish.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Friday (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply to your message to me: First, the warning is clear. Obviously if "merge and re-direct" is not allowed "re-direct" alone isn't allowed either. But, I will make a suggestion that get spelled out clearer. The speedy delete is a special circumstance, when no *claim* of notability exists. The unilateral re-direct is allowed *before* the AFD is begun. In this case I think AFD was used because initially the baby's name wasn't verified. Sometimes an AFD can be withdrawn by the *nominator* if they think they made a mistake. You see, AFD's are for disputes. Sometimes speedy actions happen when there isn't a dispute, but just a misunderstanding. For instance, sometimes somebody creates a redundant article about a person, and the nominator didn't notice that. Generally, speedy actions are allowed, where there's no potential for contesting a decision. With articles about major celebs, there's always that potential. I felt, especially early on, there was potential for the decision to be contested, which is why the AFD must procede. There absolutely no harm whatsoever in waiting five days. However, great harm is caused if people start interfering with AFD process. Also, please note, I've also reverted attempts by article supporters, who try and remove the notice of the AFD. I try to be consistent on this, since I just don't beeleive decisions should be based on who the fast editor/re-director/reverter is. Also, I do appreciate the fact you didn't re-re-direct it. --rob 23:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your responses. If anyone's willing to entertain further discussion, I'm curious whether you think it's never appropriate to redirect an article on Afd, or whether it was just inappropriate in this case. My personal belief right now is that if a speedy or redirect can come along and solve the issue easily, there's no need to wait. In this case, the redirect was controversial and it was reverted. Is that a big deal? IMO, Afd is a clumsy and unwikilike process that is best used only when neccessary. I don't see the harm in trying to resolve issues by common sense and consensus, whether strictly by the letter of the rules or not. Friday (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

One thing to add: There is a very specific case, which I won't name (to avoid getting personal with somebody else), in which somebody re-directed a highly contested AFD process. I would have voted keep, and the person who did the re-direct knew that, and knew a re-direct would hide it from people who wanted to do a keep (since then I've learned to check history for AFDs). A "consensus" for re-direct then occured, which I discovered, to late. Frankly, I have no respect for that "consensus". So, I'm vary wary of letting a potential "precident" stand. The problem is that what is "obviously" non-notable to one person, is "obviously" famous to another. It's a mistake to make rules based on exceptions. AFD is actually a very "wiki-like" process, in that it builds concensus. Re-directs have no need to be "speedied" like certain speedy deletes. Speedy deletes, even contested ones, exist in part, to prevent massive vanity and link spam clogging up wikipedia, which isn't the case here. They're an unfortunate necessity. Speedy re-directs in an AFD are never necessary. I still don't understand what the problem with a five day wait is. --rob 02:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If a consensus has not yet been formed, it is not appropriate to redirect an article on Afd. However, if an overwhelming consensus to redirect is formed in under five days, then the discussion may be closed and the article redirected. In this case, you acted unilaterally - in good faith, I think - and redirected the article before a discussion, let alone consensus, had formed. You need to allow the Afd process to run its course (whatever length that may be), even if you disagree with it. And it seems most Wikipedians do have some quibble with it. But, at the moment, it's all we got. There is currently a major discussion on deletion policy/procedure taking place on WikiEN-1 (the mailing list) and elsewhere on Wikipedia that you may be interested joining. (I'm not, but am closely monitoring it). And to clarify, I reverted your redirect because it was unilateral and against procedure, not because it was in itself controversial. Happy editing, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for the response. I've thought about this more, and I can see why it's sometimes controversial. However, redirects are just as easy to undo as they are to do. But, in the interest of harmonious editing, I'll try to do it only in what I consider obvious cases. FWIW, I see some Afds being closed as a "speedy redirect", so it looks like (at least some) admins believe this is sometimes proper too. I think anything to help reduce the load on Afd is a good thing. I'll mark them as speedy redirects from now on and continue to encourage anyone who disagrees to revert the redirect and continue with Afd. Personally, I place greater value on making good content decisions than I do on following established procedure. That said, of course established policies and guidelines are very useful in most cases; that's how they got to be policies and guidelines. Friday (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Friday, you need to have some kind of a majority if you perform the redirect. Further, if you do perform the redirect, the Afd must be closed. Otherwise, an Afd is left active without the corresponding article - that isn't helping anyone. It defeats the purpose of an Afd. Please don't continue in this.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Closing would make it harder for anyone who disagreed to respond, would it not? I'm not sure I understand your objection. Friday (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

That's why you first need to achieve a majority. New voters cannot judge the article on its merits if it does not exist, ie, if it is a redirect. They shouldn't need to go digging through its history just to ascertain its worth.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to do anything against consensus. Which edit(s) did you object to? Friday (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there was any malintent on your part either. My point is that, in this case (Federline), you redirected the article before a consensus had yet even formed. You need to wait for a consensus to form, whether it be for delete, keep, merge, redirect or transwiki, before you can perform the supported action.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to close the Afd, I was trying to avoid the Afd. I see other unrelated things in Afd that get redirected or speedily deleted before consensus forms, so I don't see that this is automatically a Bad Thing. However since the Federline article, I'm attempting to do speedy redirects only in obvious cases, such as when an article on the same subject already exists, apparently unknown to the author of the second article. Do you think this is OK? Friday (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

PS. Here's an example of what I mean: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cestoidea. I made this a speedy redirect, even tho I don't believe I had "consensus". In this case I feel it was obviously the right thing to do. The Afd is left open so that if anyone disagrees with this, they have a place to easily say so. I make redirects in places where I think they're appropriate, without waiting for consensus. In cases where I'm not sure, I generally ask on the talk page what people would think about a redirect. Friday (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some things that get sent to Afd shouldn't be. Some should have been CSD'd, others have no valid reason for deletion. And I understand your logic of leaving an Afd open so the redirect can be objected to. However, I can't understand that you don't see as a problem the leaving open of an Afd where there isn't a corresponding article (because it has been redirected, merged or blanked) for voters to judge. And I'm curious if you really think unilateralism is appropriate - even if your opinion is the best, as in the above example, will it always be? Also, do you recognise that the backlog isn't being help by this action? That is to say, the Afd remains in the log even when it has been effectively resolved - an admin still has to close it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Anything that helps move Afds along is helpful. By "backlog" I don't just mean things waiting to be officially closed; some articles have been listed more than once due to inadequate participation. FWIW, I'm closing them sometimes, when I can, so if you're concerned with that aspect of the backlog, I'm helping out there as well. I do it only in noncontroversial cases that don't require a delete.

As for the speedy redirects, anyone who comes across the Afd can read it and see what's happening. You're right tho, a disadvantage is that if they want to see the previous content, they'll have to look in history. However, I've tried to make the reasoning clear in the Afd page so that anyone can tell why the redirect was done. I'll certainly admit that the redirect was a mistake on the Federline baby- even though that's how it ended up. The fact that someone reverted it shows that there wasn't entirely agreement with it. The redirect was undone as easily as it was done, without any fuss, so I don't see that any harm was done. However, I believe the speedy redirects I've done since then have been less controversial. I haven't noticed a single one being reverted, and no one has (to my knowledge) gotten confused by it.

We may have differing thoughts on "unilateralism". ANY edit made without explicit prior consensus could be considered unilateral, I suppose. Clearly, editors do not always "ask permission" before making an edit. Usually, this is OK. Sometimes, people disagree. I value your input, but I don't see any reason to refrain from speedy redirects when I thnk they're appropriate. It effectively "solves" the Afd (but anyone is still free to read it and disagree), which lets people concentrate on the Afds that still need attention. Friday (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Glavin

I have no problem with a redirect, but is it ok to do that while the afd is in progress? Joyous (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan's 5RR

Thank you for promptly acknowledging my complaint on the 3RR page. I would welcome a discussion of these five examples with you or whatever admin is responsible for assessing my complaint.

I have carefully reviewed the 3RR rule, and each instance. I believe my complaint is warranted. Kind regards, paul klenk 04:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no admin, I was just hoping to help. I was hoping to see things resolved peaceably with no need for a block. Looks like the article was protected instead. And the issue appears to have been discussed, probably to much greater lengths than were needed. Everyone can try to help prevent such edit wars by following the one revert rule and encouraging others to do the same. Friday (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

St. Kevin's Reality TV and St. Kevin's

This dormitory and the videos made by it have relation to a valid Wikipedia article about Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia. This is an accredited college that has pumped out a great number of learned graduates. St. Kevin's is one of the dormitories of the college, and the videos were shown to the entire school. Your "custodial nature" needs to just lay off of this particular dormitory's entry. Other entries are planned in the future to give more information to the public about the student life at Christendom College. Far from being personal aggrandizement, these articles are valuable to potential students in their choice of whether to attend Christendom. 68.91.150.5 05:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC) J. Smith

Thanks

My mistake about Pekin duck - I was checking Recent Changes for vandalism and noticed this edit, I took the new link and was here. I honestly thought it was a hoax against Peking duck, I should have checked. Thanks for closing, Alf ^melmac 00:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all, glad I could help. I've only closed a couple Afds but it sure seemed like that one was clear case. Mistakes are going to happen; as long as we can easily fix them in a civilized way, they're not much of a problem. Thanks for your contributions. Friday (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote.

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to expectations. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

AfD's and the Detroit Grand Pubahs

hi thanks for the nice note on my talk page. I have a quick question, i have added some additional info onto the 'main' AfD page relating to Detroit Grand Pubahs, the page i'm referring to is the page you see in isolation if you follow the AfD link from the DGP article page but i have just found that you can see all of the AfD organised by date on a long page covering everything that has been nominated on that day; my question is why on this page can i not see the additional info i have posted up about the band which i think will be important for others to see when considering whether or not to delete it. Sorry if this seems like a dumb question but i just can't figure it out. Thanks again --MJW 01:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand... I think

No offence taken. Even though I've been reading Wikipedia articles for a while, this is my first attempt on the contribution side of the process. I appreciate any advice I can get. The palantir 18:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Weird!

I wondered why a comment I made on RfA got lost. Thanks for pointing out the misspelling, although I'll be go to heck if I knew how it happened.  :) I think I've fixed it. - Lucky 6.9 23:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Jesus TM

Hi Friday. Thanks for your comments and advice. I can't say that I'm too eager (or qualified) to make a wikipedia entry for Jesus TM, and go through my own deletion discussion. But I appreciate your civility, and I look forward to becoming more immersed in the Wikipedian world. Muract 00:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks anyway

Although you voted oppose on my RfA, I wanted to thank you for participating anyway. Molotov (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks...

...for your quick attention to the adolescent vandalism of my user page by McKillick. -- BDAbramson ^talk 18:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If the sock fits...?

Thanks for reverting my user page. If I'm a sockpuppet of Willy, I haven't felt his... um, never mind, this isn't going anywhere good. Have a cold one on me, for the reversion and the messages that made me chuckle. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mmmmm, beer. Thanks. Friday (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Peters' Drive-in

Hi, thanks for your message on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peters' Drive-in. Even though I still feel the same way, I'm not gonna mount a hopeless campaign. I still think an article on the Drive-in should exist, but the content there does't explain itself properly. Some time in the distant future, somebody needs to write a a well researched article . Most of the information won't be on web sites free on-line (like a lot of history), but could be referenced properly. If that's done, it would have a shot at an AFD. But, for this time, I'm following the rule, that one should rarely spend more time defending an article than was spent creating it. I actually respect/understand the reason for the deletes, since nobody has spent the time needed developing the article (including me), which could explain the signficance properly. --rob 02:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for a link

I'm trying to analyze User:BigDaddy777's behavior in context, based on the RfC. This is very hard, because the RfC quotes him out of context; I can't fairly analyze a quote that way. Working through the threads to do post mortems is extremely time consuming.

Would you please send me one or two links to a discussion of some length, representing BDs worst behavior? It should include more than just one or two isolated remarks.

Please leave it at my talk page under User talk:Paul Klenk#BG777 Worst-Of Threads, trying not duplicate a thread submitted someone else. I will continue to sort through the RfC, but one or two links would be a great help. Thanks.

paul klenk ^talk 07:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on Richard Rose

Notied your comments re deletion of the entry on Richard Rose. You mentioned the words spirituality and skeptism in your profile, which also caught my attention. Richard Rose dedicated his life to examining various "spiritual" cults and movements, and his first book contained many guidelines on how to evaluate them (money aspect, dogmatism, emotional appeals, etc). He wrote critically about trends in psychology, psychiatry, academia, and the legal system when such critism was not popular, and his insights then have proven largely correct over time. I notice you have a conscientious attitude to keeping WP content at high standards. I'm a newbie here and don't exactly know the protocol, so I don't want to annoy you, but I'm responding to your link that says "leave me a message". Feel free to delete this page if you wish. If your mind is not fully set on deletion, I could tell you some more about the notability of the man and his place in spiritual research, which might affect your vote. You can reach me at sharnish@att.net Thanks for reading this. Steve Harnish, Miami, FL.

<< Your best bet to keep the article is to work on improving it. It needs to be more encyclopedic in its tone, for one thing...>>

Hi Friday, thanks for your comments. As a newbie I'm not sure abvout the process. I saw a remark that said the page shouldn't be changed while discussion is underway. Do you recommend that the changes be made immediately? (I'm not the author, but I know how to reach him/them). Sharnish 16:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Comments on Davien Crow

I have posted this, I hope that some of you will consider looking for my information and reconsider your vote for now. A lot of people are simply responding to the rudeness of user:sin-thetik and some things I said are being misconstrude as threats. I am simply upset because of all the time it took to write these 3 articles, knowing they fit the guidelines, only to have somone delete them with the proof and verifiable facts right in front of them .. just their un-willingness to read them. Please think it over, I appreciate your time. I'm just a fan girl trying to be the first to get an article up about them since I have been running a fan site about them for almost 2 years now.

• Look the point summarized is I am willing to work with you guys on why these were deleted but until now noone has given us any feedback and has even lied about stuff trying to get it deleted. All 3 of them meet the sufficient amount of requirements for WP:MUSIC, the guidelines in WP:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, Wikipedia:Importance, Wikipedia:Notability (the fact that suicide girls, gidget gein, and marilyn manson are involved and can be verified in those links should proove that) , Wikipedia:Fame_and_importance mainly the part stating "There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)" If you can't tell the community of Myspace.com and Livejournal.com alone are enough to meet this criterea you are blind. If you do google searches, go to forums and search their names, or visit internet archives you can find un-disputable information on the band from reputable sources, first hand accounts that are years older than these discussions, and intangible archives kept by internet archives. IF you want more detail read my above rant, your right I do sound mad about this, because I can't see how you can say they do not meet criterea or that this is a vanity page. Please accept my apologies for anything you have taken to be rude and please re-consider changing your vote. What Harm could it do ? BTW I am not trying to bully anyone, I can show you the location of the people threatening to come here and vandalize the hell out of Wikipedia. But I do not want that to be part of your decision at all. PLEASE THINK IT OVER G4DGET 04:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

I have been contributing minor things to wiki for a while now, but only recently made an account. I will probably not be as dedicated as you certainly seem to be, but I will try to make my contributions good ones. kifftopher 05:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

LaLa

Friday, I have just blocked LaLa for 48 hours for violation of WP:NPA for incivility on his talk page, but I was not sure if your comments on his page was related to the same incident , or something else I am unaware of. Please let me know what your beef was with him, and if you have any further trouble with this user or his sockpuppets. Regards, Fawcett5 11:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Kmweber

Responded to your comments on my talk page. Thanks! Kurt Weber 21:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

And again. Kurt Weber 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet again. Kurt Weber 18:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Very nice/Crow

thanks. care to list me here? Nateji77 17:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

probably a litte more time to read through the docs. thanks. Nateji77 12:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

it's on my todo list. i hadnt been too worried about it, since the only time i edit my own talkpage is when i remove the clutter, so anyone can look in the page history at the edit just before one of mine to see whats missing. i didnt realize until a few days it was frowned upon. Nateji77 00:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your user page needs less Image:Cowbell2.gif

You have the image Image:Cowbell2.gif on your user page; this image is copyrighted and used in the Will Ferrell article under Wikipedia:Fair use. The use on your user page of that image is unlikely to be covered by use however, and as such is probably a Copyright violation. Could you remove the image from your user page? Thanks. --fvw* 23:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Perhaps a quick visit to cowbell.com's preview page would help cheer you up? :-) FreplySpang (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well it did me a world of good anyway, thanks. --fvw* 21:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

MMm, that's good cowbell. Thanks :) Friday (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

AfD

Sorry Friday - by the time I got your message I'd already reverted the merge and put the article up for deletion. I figured that at least this would ensure there was wider input into the process. I guess I was a bit put out by the rather blunt (inflammatory?) reason given for the merge and wanted more input. Is putting it up for deletion likely to cause problems? Regards, CLW 21:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll sleep on it and see how I feel. I probably would have just dropped the whole thing in the first place had the comment left in the edit history been more constructive, but hey I guess it's the human element which makes the way Wikipedia works so special... CLW 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

Since you endorsed the original RfC [2], I thought you might be interested to know that since the dispute resolution process has stalled due to BigDaddy's refusal to respond to this RfC, some are now questioning whether an RfAr should be filed.[3] Your comments on this new issue would be appreciated. 69.121.133.154 05:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Zizban resolution

Thanks for sorting that out - he didn't seem to be listening to other peoples suggestions. --Kiand 19:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)