User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/03

To all and sundry:
As IgnoreAllRules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I recently commited vandalism in the form of bad-faith reversions of edits by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs). It was petty and childish of me. Whatever frustration I felt, whatever personal justification I applied, whatever small sense of satisfaction resulted, there is no excuse for such behavior. It only served to increase tensions and divert energy from our common goal. I apologise to all involved.

Insults in rhyming couplet will be kept and treasured forever.

---

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)

---

Cull I
Please leave new messages at the bottom. The right to ruthlessly refactor is preserved.

The Magic Dudes

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)

My RFA

Some comments on your reasonning:

• His arbitrary removal of a "spurious" nomination to VfD - perhaps I misspoke in my edit comment. The vfd notice was simple vandalism by an anon. Check the history [1] - the vfd notice had been removed twice over, by others.
• His alteration of another editor's VfD vote... again, I think you're being unfair (and your wording implies that I changed the vote). I didn't change his vote, merely removed wikipediafascism - VFD isn't a soapbox for people ranting and insults; it's there for voting.

As to the other two... well, I still think they were right, but I won't try to discuss them. William M. Connolley 09:21:09, 2005-07-14 (UTC).

Snide - adjective derogatory in an insinuating manner.

(Copied from Tony's talk page.)
Tony -
Ok, I'm just going to be straight, rather than careful and precise.
There are two possibilities here: either you're a nice guy or you're not. Being a nice guy in no way precludes you from disagreeing with me, or even agreeing with me while thinking I'm a jerk. Since I'll never actually know, I have to use faith and treat you like a misguided nice guy.
Your often responsed to critisicm with "I'm sorry, you're upset and I have no idea why."

• "utter incomprehension"
• "you're upset, I'm baffled"
• "I'm mystified, you're upset"
• "[You're] distress[ed], I can't understand"

Intentionally or not, this is condescending. Both upset and distress mean "mentally perturbed". But not using the word anger or an analog, you deny even the possibility that the other person has a reason to be angry. Being "dumbfounded" at their "distress" compounds this further.

I'd like you to go back to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The 20 Cent Quest and try and look at your comments with a fresh set of eyes. Whatever your intentions, you don't sound like a nice guy here. You sound like seomone who made a claim, didn't like it being challenged, and made subtle and artful attacks rather than backing up your claims. And it made me angry, no question.

It would be dishonest of me to say that this exchange had nothing to do with the RfC. I believe I would have done the same thing had it not occured, but I don't know. There are a lot of strong feelings being expressed, and I'm listening to what people have to say. Your comments to date do not give the appearance that you're doing the same. I would only ask that you try and learn something from all of this, just as I will.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

(moved from above to preserve continuity.)
Aaron, let me just say that your comments frequently cause me utter and complete bafflement. Interacting with you on the movie VfD was almost painful because however politely I tried to make my statements you reacted as if to some slight. My "comment" is met with an "irritated comment", which comprises all kinds of quite bizarre accusations and bear an edit summary "Reply to Straw man.". I politely rebut the accusations, inasmuch as I can understand them, apologising for upsetting you, and you launch into a tirade accusing me of using loaded language, describing my actions as "pernicious". Aaron, please think it possible that if I say I find your statements baffling, eyebrow-raising, and inappropriate, it may be because you seem to be disposed to take expressions of disagreement as personal slights. The least I can do in the circumstances is to endeavor to avoid upsetting you further by having any more to do with you.--Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony - did you even read anything I wrote? You're reply is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate to you. Please, please, try and see someone else's point without being "baffled". If you are actually incapable of doing so, have someone else look over that exchange. Pick someone with whom you disagree but respect, and ask them if it's really so incredible that I would feel that you were not being straightforward. There is no question I can sometimes be a pig: curt, sharp, and prone to excitability. The only question is will you take any responsibility, or simply contine to be baffled.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, please try to understand that I long ago lost patience with your antics. I don't know whether this is an irritable, passive-aggressive persona that you consciously adopt or whether it's the real you. Enough, I'm done, I've given up trying to cope with your tantrums and accusations. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's clear now that the problem isn't me. How could I have been nicer above? How is that a "tantrum"? Do you not notice that you've totally ignored everything I've said? I suspect that we'll have to work together here for a long time, and that we'll be treading a lot of the same ground. You really do have a choice, to continue as is, or try to make things better. Do you like making people mad? Wouldn't you rather have spent this time writing articles? Come on man, it doesn't have to be like this.
brenneman^(t)(c) 07:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: 666666

oh comon, it should have been done =) its befitting that the first 666,666 article was 666666 =) lol. Betcha you had a good laugh! Sasquatch↔讲↔看

rofl! well, better luck next time! I uploaded some screen shots of this historic day onto my user page. =) Sasquatch↔讲↔看 07:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Please don't edit the response section of my RfC again. If you had only checked , you would have seen that I had moved the comment to the talk page and replied. Instead of which you made yet another false, baseless and personal allegation. This isn't the way to make friends and influence people. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

How can I possibly look like I'm hiding anything? Firstly, I'm an administrator in good standing at Wikipedia. Secondly all editors assume good faith. Thirdly the comment was blatantly silly. Fourthly I responded to the poxy thing on the talk page. You really do seem to be going out of your way to be nasty about this whole silly affair. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony, oh captain of good faith, you've just accused me of making "yet another false, baseless and personal allegation" for saying "Answering it is better than deleting it, then it doen't look like you're trying to hide anything". And, if you'll check the timing:

• 13:39, 7 August 2005 I replace RF's comment
• 13:40, 7 August 2005 You make a note on the talk page.

How about this: get someone else to tell me I've been nasty. Not that I've been wrong, because that's something else entirely. Find someone other than yourself who will look over my contributions and find personal attacks or somesuch. And get them to tell me so nicely, with specifics. If I am as you characterize me, that shouldn't be hard.
brenneman^(t)(c) 14:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That you have made a false, baseless and personal allegation is a fact. Stop doing that, it isn't allowed on Wikipedia. And no, I won't get my Mom to tell you to stop being so beastly. *I* am telling you to stop. Just check the facts before you make false allegations. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop, or I'll say "Stop" again!

Tony,
Until you get appointed god-king, issuing commands like that is pointless. Take it up the food chain if you want, but you and your orders can... uhhh, what was it you said again about riding a hat?
brenneman^(t)(c) 12:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
(That sound you hear is me laughing.)

Aaron, you do not get to decide what is appropriate behavior on this wiki. I'm going to adopt a strictly observational stance with you from now on; you're obviously not amenable to reason so I'll simply watch what you get up to and record it. I hope the fact that I'm observing you and will miss nothing may persuade you to modify your attitude, if nothing else will. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

(Copied here from other talk page.)
Tony,
Do I appear, up to this point, to have been modified by your input? I am unmoved by your empty threats. Here, do you need a link? Just in case you don't understand, let me be explicit: I am not afraid of public discourse. I am not afraid of your "observation". Use the link, make your case, let's see what happens.
Otherwise, you'll just keep making me laugh. Because that's what I'm doing right now, Tony, I'm laughing my ass off. I actually laughed out loud when I saw your last message. I spat tea on my cat.
brenneman^(t)(c) 13:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You write: "Do I appear, up to this point, to have been modified by your input?".

Um yes, since you ask. You've become increasingly abusive. The kind of thing you have been doing is against Wikipedia policy, you know. I'm just watching to see how far you will take it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony
I have been uncivil in my last two messages. I will acknowledge that. Do you wonder at all why I might be becoming increasingly hostile in my dealings with you? I'm an adult, I can admit when I've shot my mouth off. Can you admit that you had some part in this? Tony, you called me a liar when I posted some diffs. Is this civil?
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You've got a problem with time sequence here. My calling you a liar after you repeatedly made false and damaging accusations cannot possibly have provoked lies which you made before the accusation. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sidaway,
The link provided shows where I have added a list of diffs with no commentary. Your edit summary is, "Again, Aaron lies". Your edit begins with "Again you lie.". Tony, I urge you again to examine the civility guidelines.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Bucko

(Copied from Dave's talk page.)
Dave,

• Please understand that I am trying to be as straight-forward as possible here. Comments such as "I won't request that your profile be deleted for violating official policy," tend to demonstrate that you don't understand policy. More to the point, as I've mentioned before, you appear to not understand some of the basics of Wikipedia.
  
• That's not an insult, and I'm sorry because I know that it sounds like one. It takes a long time to understand the interactions, unwritten rules, complex mix of rules, guidlines, precendents, and dictatorship that make Wikipedia work. And once you think that you understand everything, some one points out WP:IAR and does what they want anyway! Two thirds of the time I have no idea what is going on.
  
• By looking at your edit history, I cannot help but notice that you've confined yourself to contributing to a narrow set of topics. Perhaps if you tried editing some other articles, get involved in some collaboration, a bit of back-and-forth over POV, and produce a shiny finished product, you'll get a better feel for things.
  
• Because I can't imagine you're having any fun right now. I imagine instead that you're angry and frustrated and this is a bad thing.
  
• But if you continue like this things aren't going to get any better for you. Really. I'm going to keep trying to produce a great online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I'm going to continue to make crazy edits, I'm going to keep working for balance. I'm going to keep being patient, I'm going to continue to avoid insults. I am going to keep believing.
• If you think I'm out of line, maybe I am. I'd be mad to deny even the possibilty that I'm doing the wrong thing. I've included some links, the next step would probably be Request for comment (RfC), as we don't seem to be able to communicate. I was recently chewed up and spat out in an RfC I raised, but it is the next step if you feel I'm "after" you. I'd imagine OrbitOne would provide the second signature for you.
• Oh, it appears I was mistaken about the VfD. The consensus appears to be a merge into Infantilism. Which means I'll probably end up heavily involved in the content of that article, too!
  

Cheers,
brenneman^(t)(c) 13:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Almost forgot, I believe you've misunderstood the relationship between GNU Free Documentation License and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Please see User talk:OrbitOne#Recent changes, but I always do love to be proven wrong. Which is lucky, because it happens all the time.
  

brenneman^(t)(c)

Well, you're right, I am new, and I don't fully understand all the vagaries of Wikipedia. But I have seen the rules for deletion, and understand them. I understand that you're violating them. I have seen requests for User Profiles to be deleted. I ahve seen references to User profiles that have been deleted. I have seen the reasons why. I have seen the majority of them have been deleted for vandalism. I understand that quite well. I also understand what vandalism is. And, I understand that it is what you are doing. Do you understand what you are doing? And do you understand what the consequences are? When the time comes, there won't be any more opportunities for you to reverse course. Before you bite off more than you can chew, make sure you think about what you are doing. Because as verbose as you may be, the moderator who deletes your profile will not be giving you a long speech about it when it happens. Dave 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

American?

Dave,
I think that you may have been confused as to whom the author of the comment you were responding to actually was. While this is understandable, and in fact the reason I'm always clucking on about signatures, your response was not appropiate. I've placed some comments beneath yours, and I really suggest that you ask some one else for their advice. Find an advocate and drop a note on the page, please. Because "Why don't we just delete you" is a threat, and I will not tolerate another.
brenneman^(t)(c) 02:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No? Well, I won't tolerate your harrassment or your vandalism. Keep it up and you'll earn yourself one deleted profile. Dave 03:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You are bound by the same rules as everyone else, bucko. Don't push your luck. You don't intimidate me, and I'll be the first to request you get the boot from this page. I don't think there'll be a shortage of supporters either, judging from the way you flame people.Dave 03:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

brenneman is an asshole

Brenneman ought to be deleted...and he has no authority on discussions regarding deletion of JTV. I know about JTV and it is a valuable resource.

Thanks! ^_^ brenneman^(t)(c) 05:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a good sign! Whatever you're doing keep it up, it's working! Dmcdevit·t 05:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Essential tremor

I just noticed two edits of yours, reverts on this article:

1. 01:49, 9 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Essential tremor (Removed material added re-added (twice now) without use of talk page. Please use talk page before re-adding this material. Also please use preview.)
2. 01:32, 9 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Essential tremor (Please note that reverts without an edit summary or use of a talk page are fair game for removal. If there is a reason this section should go in, please use talk page.)

This seems a little OTT to me. Couldn't you just have edited the section to remove the superfluous external links? Insisting that the fellow go to a talk page about adding a section on support groups for a neurological condition to an article about that condition that already contains links to those same groups' websites seems, well, somewhat unnecessary. If they're worth linking to they're worth writing about. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I did edit the section to remove the extra links. Then there was nothing left, so I removed the section. When an editor repeatedly adds material back without edit summary than another use is removing, asking for use of the talk page is reasonable.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 03:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you were very reasonable there. It is simply false to say that there was no informational content other than superfluous links. Since you did revert twice, I'd have prefered to see you actually use the talk page yourself to explain why you kept doing it. I still don't really know why you did it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony,
Thank you for your suprising interest in this issue. You'll note that the section was:

The Tremor Action Network is widely regarded as being the most supportive group for those with essential tremor. Also known as TAN, the Tremor Action Network is based in the USA, and has messageboards open to all for sympathtic and informed support.

The National Tremor Foundation is a friendly and supportive organisation based in Essex, UK.

I've bolded the section that was neither repeated nor NPOV. If you believe that this information warrented inclusion in the article in a little subsection all it's own, you are of course welcome to argue that. As to the rest, my edit summaries were quite clear, as seen above. I would do exactly the same with any persistant adding of external links without edit summary or use of talk page.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much the fact that the information you repeatedly removed warranted inclusion where it was NPOV (it obviously did, and you were obviously easily able to identify it) it was your bullying approach and your utterly false claim that someone must use a talk page prior to adding information to an article. That kind of behavior isn't only contrary to policy, it can be extremely damaging in an environment where we must do everything we can to cultivate, not alienate, new editors. If you do it again I'll come back and remind you of this. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Feel free to do so. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You made me laugh

Ok, I admit it, I did laugh heartily when I saw your comment. →Raul654 07:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Share

• SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH USER ZOE ON User:LevKamensky TALK PAGE. Shillori 12:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thank, I always appreciate a chance to say something nice about someone I like.
brenneman^(t)(c) 12:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This user is demented

This user is obviously strange. For some reason he has chosen to take a personal vandetta on the articles I have created or editted, by tagging almost every erticle for deletion.

He obviously likes the conflict it causes (as can be seen by the dispute box on his user page). Can someone please ban this user indefinately before he causes more conflict. Treelovinhippie

It's more of an impersonal vendetta, actually. brenneman^(t)(c) 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Darn, I blinked and missed it

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)

What happened there? An explanation:

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)

Thank you :)

Thanks for the acknowledgement! I've (hopefully) addressed your concerns on the AfD page. Collating the list did take a while, but it was what I felt like doing at the time, so there was no particular virtue in doing it, nor do I have an unhealthy attachment to it. If you're convinced it's actually harmful, please feel free to delete it! Personally, I certainly don't think it should be read instead of the discussion above it, but I feel that in the proper context, it's a useful bit of info. Cheers, and thanks again! :) --Ashenai (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also:

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

Contructive criticism

Your a complete gay wad.

Thanks for noticing. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Illuminated manuscript

Hi! I just wanted to tell you that I've restored the Illuminated manuscript pic (because I took it) but put it in a gallery. Two good things follow; the pic can still be seen and other people can add pics to the gallery without the rather short article getting overloaded, I hope that's OK with you. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 10:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewording?

I was wondering if you had a fix for my wording on Deletion Review? We can do it here, if you like or there, I don't particularly mind. As it stands, I don't think it will cause confusion, particularly with the help of Septentrionalis's addition to the 1st line.

I think we're almost there in terms of making the move, although the speedies question is a bit of a millstone. I think the immediate remedy to that is to accept the status quo and continue the debate through the move. After all, the main reason for the change is to being kept debates into scope rather than to stir up the speedy process. I'm going to put a to-do list on the talk page in a little while, but I'm happy to fiddle with the words. I don't think we should worry about them overly having said that, since they will probably need amending once first used anyway. -Splash^talk 00:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll give it a final nudge later today. As for the rant, well, I quite agree. If people checked their egos and politics at the door, we'd all get on famously. It is a fact that this place operates without consequences for most, and the ArbCom are about to amply demonstrate their lack of spine by referring Steve to RfA. When they do so, I'll register my opposition and write a stinging inditement of the Committee to go with it. The reason we don't have revolutions (often) in real-life is that the government knows it'll get a kick in the teeth if they screw up. If admins here screw up, they just find a friend to cheer for them and it's all ok. Even when they do their research so carefully and act with so much thought as to summarily undelete copyright infringing text. Bah. -Splash^talk 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A note

In regards to your edit at [2], 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)

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

Hi there!

Could you take a look at this, and see what you think? Thanks! Trollderella 19:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC) [[3]]

A thanks

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

IgnoreAllRules

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

Serious problems

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Skyring

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

Are you using a sockpuppet account?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

What the...

Aaron, you just deleted all but one of the links to the sari article -- including several that were referenced IN the article, several that consisted only of instructions on HOW to wrap a sari, and several that went to commercial sites, yes, but to the "all about saris" sections of commercial sites.

I've been busting linkspammers for a year and a half, and I don't think I've let any "buy my saris" links past me. I'm restoring the links. I beg you, PLEASE, if you're going to delete links, check first to see if there's anyone actively maintaining the article. Zora 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora,
Sorry to give you a heart attack. Obviously I used my judgment, and I did click through each of the links. Put back anything you think I've been over-zealous on. See, the system works, co-operation, etc! ^_^
brenneman^(t)(c) 07:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: SPAM: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters

Sorry I didn't get your message in time to say anything before the new nomination was speedily kept. Ho hum! --redstucco 08:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony

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)

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)

VFU header block

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)

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

Hey

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. :)

Hey back

(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)

Re:Signature

Haha. You're right. I guess I wouldn't blame someone if they changed my name to 'fresh eats figs'. I just started using a template because I thought the code was unnecessarily long and it clogged up the AfD listings every time I put a vote. Didn't really think of the concequences on the server. I just saw User:Purplefeltangel doing the same thing and thought it was a good idea. I'll work on simplifying the code as much as I can and revert it back.

By the way, it's not meant to be unreadable, as User:NatusRoma pointed out. I'm not sure what it looks like to you but it's just supposed to be white text on a blue background. If you're seeing it incorrectly too then maybe I should just give up : (.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  23:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. It's not a template anymore. The problem for Firefox is probably the style=background tag but I simplified it as much as I can so maybe it will work for you (guys) now.  freshgavin TALK   07:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Losing my adminship

Yeah, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm not terribly worried about losing my adminship, because I stand firmly behind almost all of my actions, and despite Tony's doubts, I don't doubt my motivations. Anyway, even if I did lose my admin priveleges, I could still edit, and I could get out of all the messy politics associated with the position. Besides, if I didn't get re-adminned, then I probably wasn't doing a terribly good job in the first place, and I could probably learn a lot from the experience. Thanks for your note!--Scimitar ^parley 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination)

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)

Transwiki log

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)

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd^(?!?) 17:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry!

I moved Pin. and FooT at VfU about a minute before you, hence the bizarrity you experienced. Ooops. :) Xoloz 06:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Your proposal to Tony Sidaway

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)

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)

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)

Hi Aaron

Hi Aaron. I would be delighted if you would vote here at my rfa. It's pretty controversial at the moment, but you and I always got along just fine ;). Thank you. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)